Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« I Love It When Republicans Tur... | Viaduct! Viaduct! Viaduct! »

Friday, February 2, 2007

HPV Vaccine Is Now Required in TX

posted by on February 2 at 17:05 PM

Gardasil is now required for schoolgirls in Texas. Watch the Texas papers this weekend for an uproar.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, a measure that would have required girls to be vaccinated is being shelved.

RSS icon Comments


Hey Erica, What's the deal? Do we have to be teenagers to get it or can us older ladies who don't have HPV (yet) have it too? By the way, I'm having a dinner party soon, you should come.

Posted by Morgan | February 2, 2007 5:24 PM

Annie... oops. Did you see Zoo yet? Superb.

Posted by Morgan | February 2, 2007 5:27 PM

You can get it easily if you're 26 or under. Any older than that, and you have to find a doctor who's willing to prescribe it "off-label"--and your insurance definitely won't cover it. The thing is, you don't know if you have HPV unless you've participated in a study. There are no tests for HPV that can be used in a clinical setting. Your Pap test will tell you if you have complications that can be traced to HPV, but not the virus itself. So for the most part, healthcare providers are assuming you have HPV already (90% of sexually active people get it sometime in their lives). And it hasn't been fully tested in populations over 26.

I have seen ZOO, and it is good.

Posted by annie | February 2, 2007 5:35 PM

Surprisingly, most of the uproar so far is about the price and insurance companies and the fact that the governor surprised liberals by proving he cares more about campaign contributions than the religious right. But I'm sure the far right will be on it first thing Monday morning.

Posted by texan | February 2, 2007 8:24 PM

what makes you think the texas papers will be in an "uproar"?

Posted by other texan | February 3, 2007 2:17 PM

There's nothing to the vaccination - 1.6 percent of all women who ever herpes (and that be most) will go on to have a cervical cancer of any significance - and only then if they don't get the little bump removed when it shows up a year or three earlier - this according to the stats from the vaccine promoters.

So it's hardly relevant, one to the other. To say "cause," as in, herpes "causes" cervical cancer... well, that's just marketing.

But they passed the bill, huh? You know why? It's b/c they're all worried about their daughters - and I mean, your typical, overworked, over-Wal-Marted American father and mother. They don't have any contact with their kids anymore.

There are no particular cultural values to adhere to, one way or the other.

They work all the time for the plasma tv and iGarbage, and whatever else. The kids are raised in school by pepsi-apple-mtv-corp.

So, when mom hears 'sex-cancer-herpes-daughter-VACCINATE!' - it strikes a chord in them, deep, deep down, and they freak out, and they get in line, cough up another 700 bucks, (cause they're charging about that much, you know).

So "protect my daughter from 'HPV'" has many layers. It means - Protect my daughter from:

Subtext 1 - Sex (subtext 2 - pregnancy (subtext 3 - filth, dirt, ruination (subtext 4 - SIN))))....

We'll always be a religious culture, deep deep down.

PS. have a look here:

Gardasil does not necessarily protect against one or more of the four viruses in people already infected before they get the vaccine, and can increase their risk for precursors to cervical cancer. Also, Gardasil does not protect against infection from the many other virus strains not included in the vaccine.

But the feminists will support it because it's marketed as anti-Catholic. And marketing's all it is. Maybe they'll market sterilization next?

Posted by Liam | February 3, 2007 4:31 PM

and can increase their risk for precursors to cervical cancer


Anybody else with reading and comprehension skills figure out what the above is saying?

What it's saying, in a nice, science-y, clinical way is...guess what? You might actually go on to develop cancer after being "vaccinated". So, we're forcing young girls to get vaccinated, because...why?

Well, I'm sure the secular feminists are happy about their "win" over the Christian right on this one.

Posted by BD | February 3, 2007 4:49 PM

ummm, earth to Liam...we're talking about HPV (Human papillomavirus), not back to your regularly scheduled intergalactic communications.

Posted by gnossos | February 3, 2007 4:52 PM

I'm just willing to bet that Liam meant to say HPV instead of herpes.

I think this is the best line in his post (correcting the herpes error):
To say "cause," as in, HPV "causes" cervical cancer... well, that's just marketing.

From "Online Health Topics" in regard to HPV and Gardasil...
The majority of sexually active individuals have been infected with HPV at some point in their lives, and most are not aware of the infection. In many cases, the immune system is able to clear the infection within 1-2 years.

"Cause" is a pretty strong word for something that most adults will actually clear from their system without incident.

Posted by BD | February 3, 2007 5:15 PM

The Facts About GARDASIL

1. GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2. HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3. Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4. Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5. Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6. Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.

7. Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8. GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

Posted by stickdog | February 4, 2007 3:56 AM

#10, concerning point #8:

Sorta a sidetrack, but the new single-shot Hep vaccine is close to $500, which is why I opted for the cheaper 5-shots-over-6-months-option.

Posted by Dougsf | February 4, 2007 5:54 PM

Well, a reasonable correction 'herpes' for 'hpv' - here's where the confusion lay:

"HPV is the abbreviation for a common virus, human papilloma virus, which is responsible for warts of various kinds, including genital, plantar and flat warts."

"Certain HPV types cause warts on the extremities, but many other HPV types cause warts on the genitalia. Hundreds of thousands of new cases of HPV occur in the United States each year."

I meant to align HPV, correctly, with the common wart, also the type that appears on the genitals, but not the bleeding, ulcerating sort.

My lingual mistake.

I think the rest of the points are in good standing. Percentage of population affected, non-causality, marketing, 'feminist' (ie - putatively anti-Catholic/Christian) marketing strategy, etc..


(Hmm, what's that thing on your lip?)

Posted by Liam | February 4, 2007 7:52 PM

PS - "stickdog" - Excellent, mon ami.

Do you have a blog or website?

Posted by Liam | February 4, 2007 7:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).