Mandatory HPV Vaccine? AKA "Cancer Vaccine"

[FoolKiller]

I just grabbed a story about it. It isn't just Texas looking at this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250019,00.html
Info about the vaccine


I am against mandating a vaccine for a disease that is most commonly sexually transmitted and doesn't guarantee fatality.

To clarify: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is what can lead to cervical cancer, it doesn't gurantee it, nor is it responsible for all cases. It is an STD, so kids cannot pass it back and forth just by attending school. Now according to Wiki cervical cancer kills almost 4,000 people a year.

Now, my issue is we are forcing pre-teen girls (11-12) to take this vaccine like it is for polio, which was understandably mandated. The issue is that cervical cancer can kill nearly 4,000 women a year, but at the same time the common flu can kill as many as 36,000 Americans a year and it is a disease that you can catch by sitting next to someone in a classroom.

So, why are we jumping all over this vaccine? I believe there are two reasons:
1) Someone said we are saving little girl's lives.
2) There is a large amount of funding for this lobbying effort.....from the pharmaceutical company making the vaccine (Merck).

But wait, FK, aren't you all gungho on Capitalism and free markets, etc? Yes, but this is not free market capitalism. This is forced market (made up term) because you are forcing people to pay a company for a product. This is made even worse because it is such a new product that many insurance companies don't cover the vaccine, yet. According to this the vaccine is $120 per injection, and is a three injection process. So a total of $360 that we are going to force people to pay Merck, possibly against their will.

Now, I hear people arguing for this because it makes sure that everyone, no matter how rural, get this vaccine. That is a faulty argument as that law could be passed the same way telecommunications laws if the same nature were passed. Those did not require everyone to get and pay for a telephone, but that they had the option available.

Then another argument has been to allow an opt out policy. First of all, that is only for certain religious or philisophical reasons, not because it is too expensive or you are unsure because it is new. Second, if you really do allow anyone to opt out then what is the point to begin with? You are just wasting money with this legislation.

I am not against this vaccine as many opponents have been made out to sound. If I had a daughter would I have her take the vaccine? Yes. Would I force someone who doesn't want their daughter to take it? No.

Creating this law may save lives, but you could save more lives by forcing peopel to eat heart healthy diets or making tobacco and alcohol illegal.

I believe this is a major money ploy and nothing more. Too bad it will also cost some free will.

 

[Danoff]

Well said FK. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Well said FK. 👍

Well, I had a rant and I think one person I know in person (oddly enough a liberal - with occasional moderate tendancies) actually agrees with me on this. He's also my drinking buddy, so maybe alcohol does have some positive long-term effects on the brain. <fingers crossed>

I can't stand the, "Yeah, but it saves lives" line, which is all anyone can give me. It's like they all think I am some heartless a-hole who wants to ban the vaccine and let 4,000 American women a year die.

Then last night my father-in-law says, "You know, if this was for prostate cancer everyone would be behind this." I just grunted to keep the peace before dinner started. I still don't know what he was getting at.

 

[Danoff]

I can't stand the, "Yeah, but it saves lives" line, which is all anyone can give me. It's like they all think I am some heartless a-hole who wants to ban the vaccine and let 4,000 American women a year die.

Tell them... "better die on your feet than live on your knees". The "yea but it saves lives" argument is used to erode all kinds of freedoms, and it's often a trade that people shouldn't be willing to make. Lives are not the most precious thing in existence.

Then last night my father-in-law says, "You know, if this was for prostate cancer everyone would be behind this." I just grunted to keep the peace before dinner started. I still don't know what he was getting at.

That's especially funny because prostate cancer isn't contageous... which is a huge part of the argument for making vaccinations mandatory. Though I still haven't figured out how cervical cancer gets passed from one woman to another. I guess it has no effect on men, they're just carriers or something?

 

[FoolKiller]

That's especially funny because prostate cancer isn't contageous... which is a huge part of the argument for making vaccinations mandatory. Though I still haven't figured out how cervical cancer gets passed from one woman to another. I guess it has no effect on men, they're just carriers or something?

HPV can also cause genital warts. From all I have read and seen it has no popssibly fatal results in men.

 

[Famine]

There has never been a proven link between ANY virus and ANY cancer.

Though EBV and HPV are commonly associated with many cases of certain cancers (lymphoma and cervical cancer respectively), no causal link has been established.

 

[Swift]

I have to go with FK on this one.

It's just another racket designed buy some politicians to get money to THEIR special interests groups to do two things. Back them come election time and/or give them a job after politics is done.

Besides, these diseases are like HIV/AIDS. If you don't have sex and you don't shoot up you have nearly a zero percent chance of getting it. So it can be easily controlled through behavior, not through more government regulation.

 

[Danoff]

There has never been a proven link between ANY virus and ANY cancer.

Though EBV and HPV are commonly associated with many cases of certain cancers (lymphoma and cervical cancer respectively), no causal link has been established.

I'm pretty sure they're running commercials over here stating that cervical cancer is caused by a virus. I need to watch for one of those and see if it's just really carefully worded to imply that, or if it's actually claiming that.

I'm not surprised that they're jumping on this stuff too early.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm pretty sure they're running commercials over here stating that cervical cancer is caused by a virus. I need to watch for one of those and see if it's just really carefully worded to imply that, or if it's actually claiming that.

I'm not surprised that they're jumping on this stuff too early.

Yeah, I've seen teh ads and they seemed blatant, but I kind of didn't pay much attention. Although, I will bet money it isn't some PSA but a well-designed advertisement by Merck to "inform" us of the truth about cervical cancer.

 

[Sureboss]

Would people who are fully health insured have to pay? Or wouldn't it be covered?

 

[FoolKiller]

Would people who are fully health insured have to pay? Or wouldn't it be covered?

Depends on the policy. Many insurance plans don't cover or offer much coverage for new, expensive drugs that have no long-term testing.

For instance my insurance policy uses a tiered system and even if it does cover the vaccine (I haven't checked) it would fall under tier one, which means I would have to pay most or all of the cost myself. Tier One drugs are new and/or non-generic drugs.

According to CNN last night, a competitor is expected to release their own version next year and prices should then come down.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Then another argument has been to allow an opt out policy. First of all, that is only for certain religious or philisophical reasons, not because it is too expensive or you are unsure because it is new. Second, if you really do allow anyone to opt out then what is the point to begin with? You are just wasting money with this legislation.

Actually, there is an opt-out policy in Texas. Just sign a form, and they will not force you to do it.

 

[Kylehnat]

Actually, there is an opt-out policy in Texas. Just sign a form, and they will not force you to do it.

Then what's the point of making it mandatory? It's like when you automatically get signed up for any kind of monthly AutoPay (which I have very much soured on in the last month): you have to go out of your way to ultimately do nothing. Basically, it's "we're going to take $350 from you, and prick you with needles, unless you tell us not to". It's a hassle, and a wasteful bureaucratic move on the government's part. As for the pharmaceutical companies, it's greed and fearmongering. You can bet that Merck will spend ungodly amounts of money trying to get this legislation passed. For them, forcing people to pay upwards of $150/shot (for a vaccine that cost them $1 to make) is like sex with 10 supermodels at once.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Don't ask me, ask Gov. Perry

The logic may be to simply get everyone who is not specifically against it to take it.

 

[Omnis]

I'm going to buy FK's argument on this one as well.



I'm also going buy stock in Merck. You guys wouldn't believe the amount of girls I've overheard talking about, "They have a cure for cervical cancer now. It's calling something like HVP or something."

 

[Gabkicks]

Dr. Drew said that most women have HPV... i think the numbers were something like 80% of women have or will have hpv by the time they are 35... it may not be the cancer causing strain... but just incase he reccomends getting vaccinated. i havent really done any research myself... just repeating what i heard.

 

[Sureboss]

So how much what be the typical type of health cover in the US?

 

[FoolKiller]

Don't ask me, ask Gov. Perry

The logic may be to simply get everyone who is not specifically against it to take it.

This isn't directed at you, but since I don't have Gov. Perry's phone number I'll just throw it out here.

Why aren't we also giving this to men since they can carry it as well, and they are the ones that give it to most women?

I'm also going buy stock in Merck. You guys wouldn't believe the amount of girls I've overheard talking about, "They have a cure for cervical cancer now. It's calling something like HVP or something."

That sounds about right. That is why the term "Cervical Cancer Vaccine" gets tossed around so much, because it creates misinformation that gets the point across and doesn't do any long-term harm.



And Famine was asking about the commercials.


Direct Gardasil ad. They use the word "may" a lot, which makes me even more nervous that these laws are getting passed.


And then I saw an ad last night from the James Graham Brown Cancer Center, a research hospital that claimed they were the ones to develop the vaccine. They also said it was the world's only 100% effective cancer vaccine. That sounds like quite a stretch to me. Is any vaccine 100% effective? So, do a search on their Web site to get information on their research and where this is coming from. You will probably understand it better than I would.

So how much what be the typical type of health cover in the US?

Are you asking how much it costs or how much it covers? Either way it varies from person to person and plan to plan.

 

[Famine]

And Famine was asking about the commercials.

Direct Gardasil ad. They use the word "may" a lot, which makes me even more nervous that these laws are getting passed.

Exactly what I thought. Good marketing with no lies. It MAY protect against three viruses which MAY cause 70% of cervical cancers.

 

[FoolKiller]

Exactly what I thought. Good marketing with no lies. It MAY protect against three viruses which MAY cause 70% of cervical cancers.

And of course everyone just goes, "CANCER! I don't want cancer. I need to get that."


Typically I get angry with insurance companies when they screw around with what preventative measures they will cover, mainly because I think they would save money in the long run if they covered it, but I agree on this one that there are too many mays in this, especially if everyone will have to get it. That is a lot of money. Give it a few years for competing vaccines to come out and the prices to drop and then cover it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Looks like Merck has ended their lobbying campaign.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/4569765.html

"Our goal is about cervical cancer prevention, and we want to reach as many females as possible with Gardasil," Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's medical director for vaccines, told The Associated Press.

"We're concerned that our role in supporting school requirements is a distraction from that goal, and as such have suspended our lobbying efforts," Haupt said, adding the company will continue providing information about the vaccine if requested by government officials.

Apparently he forgot the part about having their goal achieved and they can't do much more at this point after their partnering lobby group, Women in Government, got their members (female politicians) to draft what is basically the same bill for every state. Merck got the ball rolling and now they can back off. As it becomes more common knowledge that they were involved it hurts their purpose, so backing away is the smart thing to do.

I'm watching this vote in my state very carefully and the outcome will determine how I vote in the upcoming elections.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm surprised why they didn't officially back down sooner. It was the most obvious conflict of interest ever. Lobbyists are usually conspicuous, but that was just pathetically transparent on Merck's part. Unfortunately, people are still stupid enough to think that everything about this legislation is on the level.

 

[SS69]

So it looks like Merck & Co., Inc will be the next good stock to invest in.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm surprised why they didn't officially back down sooner. It was the most obvious conflict of interest ever. Lobbyists are usually conspicuous, but that was just pathetically transparent on Merck's part. Unfortunately, people are still stupid enough to think that everything about this legislation is on the level.

Well, to give the average person some credit, Merck did siphon their money through Women in Government to hide their involvement. Until the AP did a big story on Merck's involvement last month you actually had to be interested enough to research the issue, as I did, to know they were involved. For the most part the story was playted out as concerned politicians trying to save the lives of teenage girls (even though they will be much older before they woudl die from cervical cancer) versus the religious extremists that think this would cause girls to become sluts. Nevermind the fact that on Lou Dobbs they had a representative from one of the family groups accused of saying this who showed research saying that the majority of kids don't know what their vaccines are even for and saying they never took this stance. Of course the host (filling in for Lou) kept pushing the issue and ignoring the group's parental rights points.

I honestly can't find anyone outside of crazy Jerry Falwell type groups that are using the promiscuity argument. Any reasonable groups I have seen/heard have always brought up the points of parental rights.

Of course, the conflict of interest issues of a group comprised of female politicians openly accepting money from a company to push their legislation brings up lots of questions. I wonder how many of these women ran on a ticket accusing their opponent of being typical politicians with special interest money coming in. It also explains why the bills seem so similar from state to state. Merck probably wrote it and emailed out copies.

So it looks like Merck & Co., Inc will be the next good stock to invest in.

If these laws pass, but with most of them appearing to add an opt-out clause (so what's the point?) it may not matter. If it weren't for the cost I would say yes even without the laws. I am curious if the laws actually say Gardasil and not just any HPV vaccine.

But competitors have their own versions in the pipeline for next year, so prices will most likely fall and then Merck won't have a corner on the market. The goal of trying to force these laws through was to prevent any cost-related delays by parents so that they could get a huge jump on the market. I honestly think this was an attempt to save their stock because they have lost a lot of high-profit patents on other drugs and haven't shown a lot in their pipeline that impressed investors of late. They are far from struggling and are probably a good long-term investment in general (as is most of the industry), but don't expect to make a quick buck on them.