What part of the news release was incorrect?

Can you say "agenda"?

PM_Mama00, I hope that your sister that works in the pharmacy is a cashier or general store manager or something and not a pharmacist or a pharm tech, because that would be scary that she's giving out misinformation like that.

Is this the comment you mean? It seems to suggest that sexual activity is taken for granted.

Yep. By the time they're having sex (and especially by the time they're admitting to having sex), it can be too late for the vaccine.

Chances are VERY good that your 9 year old would never even dream of going to you and saying that she's having sex. Like you said, teenagers are going to experiment. But why is getting a shot that only protects against a very specific and narrow set of strains of one disease going to encourage her to have sex? It's not like it's a magical anti-HIV shot or something (using HIV b/c its probably the most "scary" disease for a kid to think of getting from having sex). If she's educated and knows the facts before she has sex, she'll be prepared. But she doesn't necessarily need to know them at age nine. Treat it like any other vaccine.

Well, it's not too late, but that is the most effective. It protects against several strains of HPV. And I believe it's only good for like four years so you'll have to get them redone anyway.

She's a tech. She's not out freely giving this info. We asked her about it and she just told us. I guess she's heard about it from her doc and her co-workers. Maybe I got part of it wrong. This vaccine just came out to the public, right? I'm not sure I'd feel ok with giving my child this when it hasn't been out for that long.

Every part that isn't backed up by a reproducible, statistically significant scientific study published in a respectable journal. So, pretty much all of it.

It protects against 6 and 11, which cause genital warts, and 16 and 18, which are two of the most virulent cancer-causing strains.

As of now, they've confirmed the vaccine's effectiveness for up to four years. They don't know how long it lasts past four years, because the study was only four years long, so to cover their rear ends in case it doesn't last longer, they recommend boosters.

And hopefully four years from now they'll have ones that protect against even more strains- I believe they're working on that currently.

I think it's a really positive thing for women's health.

Co-sign! :)

Maybe I got it wrong, but I've been hearing "the Christian conservatives are all going to be against this because. . ."
and I haven't heard that kind of opposition. It seems to me that most parents will want to protect their daughters from cancer and aren't interested using fear to motivate their daughters to be chaste.

I understand that the vaccine has to be given before the onset of sexual activity to be effective, but I think the 9 year old end of the range just seems weirdly young to most of us.

Someone else earlier in the thread made the point that kids don't even usually know what they are being vaccinated against, so I suspect it would be pretty easy just to tell them it will keep them from getting a certain kind of cancer later without getting into HPV at that age at all.

Coincidence that tonight I was talking to a friend who has a close friend who is 23, and getting ready to undergo a hysterectomy because of cervical cancer. I can't even imagine...

Oh, absolutely! They definately have an agenda.. but doesn't Merck? The sale of the drug is expected to reach $1 billion dollars next year and could reach $3 billion per year. Merck has a lot riding on this vaccine. Don't forget, it's still smarting from all of the money it lost when Vioxx was pulled from the shelves.

The whole "seeding" of this vaccine was done brilliantly. When the company was close to FDA approval, it established a website "educating" the public of the connection between HPV and cancer. A consumer group has harshly criticized Merck for this, calling the website "deceptive" and "dishonest" and alleging that the site was only there to sell Gardasil.

The company then started bombarding the airwaves, magazines and newspapers with HPV "awareness." It then courted conservative political groups to try to ward off anticipated objections.

Merck has been doing some heavy duty lobbying among lawmakers as well, including courting the non-partisan group of female legislators, "Women in Government." For the past year, they've been bombarding the media with massive print and broadcast ads.

This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated to win over legislators and put lots of money in their pockets.

Aren't we jumping the gun on a mandate like this? Gardasil was only approved by the FDA in June of last year. Personally, I would like to take a "wait and see" attitude before rushing in and vaccinating the masses. We're only beginning to see the side effects of the vaccine, and the long term side effects are not known.. neither is how long the vaccine will act as a prophylactic aginst HPV.

Consider these facts:

-It will not fully protect everyone who receives the vaccine.

-There are more than 100 different types of HPV. Gardasil only protects against four types.

-Even if a woman is exposed to HPV, including one of the four types Gardasil protects against, there are no complications in the vast majority of women.

-It will not protect you from HPVs that you've already been exposed to.

-Women who have received the injections must still have yearly pap tests.

-Cervical cancer is already on the decline in the US. It's very treatable and there is usually a very good outcome when caught early (hence, PAP tests).

-Cervical cancer only accounts for less than 1 percent of all female cancers.

So... is it enough to run out and get your daughter vaccinated? Only you can decide. Oh wait.. you can't... if you live in Texas, the government has already decided for you.

Yeah, I don't like the government deciding it for you either.

And I agree that the efforts the Merck put into lobbying for making the vaccine mandatory are a little bit creepy and intrusive too.

(I've go no problem with them generally promoting the vaccine and the link between HPV and cancer, but I draw the line at their lobbying states to compel people to purchase and use their product.)

If it turns out that the vaccine will do what Merck hopes that it will, it's a move forward in women's health, and I hope that girls get vaccinated.