Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« RIP: Paul Raymond, Activist an... | Today the Stranger Suggests »

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Where It’s Not Mandatory, It’s Extremely Popular

posted by on May 12 at 10:47 AM

When I interviewed vaccine researcher Laura Koutsky for this article about the rollout of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, I was surprised that she didn’t advocate making the vaccine mandatory.

[Social conservatives aren’t necessarily] going to inoculate their own children. As Koutsky pointed out, “Parents who are confident that their children are not going to have sex until they’re married may opt out of it.” Such opt-out provisions exist in all 50 states. But Koutsky is a savvy pragmatist: “The bottom line is that it usually tends to be a very small minority of parents who make that decision.” That’s a small price to pay for making a revolutionary cancer vaccine available to the rest of us.

Trying to make the vaccine mandatory has created a backlash in Texas. But a laidback approach (voluntary vaccinations, free to girls aged 11-18) has paid off in New Hampshire, where, according to today’s New York Times, physicians can’t keep the vaccine on the shelves.

Washington is one of two states cited in the article with progams that mimic New Hampshire’s.

RSS icon Comments

1

That’s a small price to pay for making a revolutionary cancer vaccine available to the rest of us.

For those of you who can't spot the obvious marketing in this sentence...

"revolutionary cancer vaccine". Read it, believe it, then turn off your brain. Ahhh...feels so good to not think for yourself.

When I interviewed vaccine researcher Laura Koutsky for this article about the rollout of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, I was surprised that she didn’t advocate making the vaccine mandatory.

Trying to make the vaccine mandatory has created a backlash in Texas. But a laidback approach (voluntary vaccinations, free to girls aged 11-18) has paid off in New Hampshire, where, according to today’s New York Times, physicians can’t keep the vaccine on the shelves.

Is it "women's health" and altruism that motivates drug companies? Or is it profit? Hmm. Got to think about that one.


Posted by BD | May 12, 2007 11:25 AM
2

That's why I never got a polio or smallpox vaccine, to stick it to Big Pharma! You can't tell from outside, but laughter is really echoey in an iron lung.

Posted by MvB | May 12, 2007 11:30 AM
3

Nice propaganda piece, Annie.

Posted by BD | May 12, 2007 11:32 AM
4

I agree with BD - who needs medicine backed by science? I stick to leeches and witch doctors. They'll cure my cancer in no time!

Posted by tsm | May 12, 2007 12:11 PM
5

Who needs medicine when you have The Secret?

Posted by keshmeshi | May 12, 2007 2:00 PM
6

fuck the secret, I have a magical magnetic wristband! who the fuck needs doctors??

all the "christians" i know just use the magical healing power of a dead jewish guy from 2000 years ago, why not a magical bracelet?

Posted by war pigs | May 12, 2007 3:25 PM
7

All vaccines are racist. I call for a march and rally, as well as a day of solidarity, against anti-womyn, anti-gay, anti people-of-color vaccines.

Gather at the Federal Building Monday Morning and DEMAND a vaccine free society!!!!

Posted by Racist Watch | May 12, 2007 7:23 PM
8

What bothers me about the (Gardisil) vaccine is that the studies done by Merck to test for immune response and (one would assume) safety aren't available to be read by the public or subject to peer review. The little that I have been able to find about it was that the study cohort was only composed of 100 girls ages 10-15, a sample size too small (IMLTHO) and that there was no further assessment of the cohort after 14 days post-inoculation. Who knows the long-term effects of this vaccine?

After the Vioxx debacle I am deeply suspicious of Merck. After examining the low odds of even developing cervical cancer (and the even lower odds of dying from it) I have to ask myself what the odds are that Merck would put public health and safety needs over profit. My answer is: not high enough to risk my daughter's health right now.

Posted by amazonmidwife | May 13, 2007 1:48 PM
9

@8

amazonmidwife, your use of psuedo-scientific shibboleths like "peer review," "cohort," and "Gardisil" are a dead giveaway that you are nothing more than one of those Luddite religionists who must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by educated, informed rationalists such as those who posted comments 2 and 4 through 7 of this thread.

You need to be deprogrammed to give up your primitive "sample size" bugaboo and the rest of the hoary trappings of a meaningless imaginary belief system. You were taught these things by people who believe in concepts that worked well for the Hebrew tribes wandering in the desert 2500 years ago, but those ghosts from the demon-haunted world melt away when bathed in the warm and reassuring light of MODERN SCIENCE.

Get with it already.

Posted by elenchos | May 14, 2007 12:21 PM
10

Wow, elenchos. You sound angry. You must work for Merck, I think.


*see how ridiculous it sounds to write an assumptive personal attack against someone as a means of attempting to refute their argument?*


And your metaphor actually makes my point. Isn't it religionist to take Merck on...I don't know...faith ?, instead of asking them to prove that their product is effective and SAFE?

Posted by amazonmidwife | May 15, 2007 7:23 AM
11

Isn't it religionist to take Merck on...I don't know...faith ?, instead of asking them to prove that their product is effective and SAFE?

Well said.

Posted by BD | May 15, 2007 8:32 AM

Comments Closed

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