Chatter

By Jacob

February 27, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

I didn’t know Jesus was pro cancer.

By Nikki

February 27, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is that this vaccine has the potential to help girls avoid cancer. I don’t think anyone wants to have to say to their adult daughter later in life, “You might have avoided this terrible disease if I’d not thought that getting vaccinated for it would make you promiscuous.” I don’t remember being vaccinated. It was a non-event in my life. I don’t imagine that the doctor is going to vaccinate your child and then exhort her to go out and have sex with as many people as possible. People need to take responsibility for thier daughters’ health and for molding those same girls in their chosen values. This vaccine isn’t going to make anyone more or less likely to engage in sexual behavior, but it will reduce the chance that your daughters will develop cancer. I think that makes this a no-brainer.

By Angela

February 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

WTF?????????????? You gotta be kidding. Kids get to many vaccines as it is and it makes me wonder if those are causing so much illness in children. When it comes to sex - stay out of my business. No, I do not have kids but enought is enough. Children are not guina pigs for government usage!

By Steve

February 27, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

400,000 is the amount of people that die from smoking related illnesses each year in the US. An estimated 3,500 of women die of cervical cancer each year…why isn’t smoking outlawed?!? The government is highly overstepping its bounds and where does this end? Will you legislate my choice of toothepaste or clothing?!? This is insanse, especially since there is no promise that you will not get cervical cancer anyway. When are we going to wake up and tell the government they have no business telling parents how to raise their children. Rise up voters and awaken from your responsibility-free sleep!!!!

By KBowers

February 27, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

My daughter might need a bone marrow transplant oneday - you never know. Would the government please require all students to donate just incase? And while they are at it, they can require all students to take a daily multi vitamin, and wear a crash helmet. . Where does it end?

Just because the SCHOOL doesn’t do it doesn’t mean it won’t get done. The last thing schools need is one more element of beurocracy.

By Angela

February 27, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

NO! Why do we as Americans keep letting the government dictate to us? We are giving away our freedoms!

By JJMB

February 27, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

This is a slam dunk. No brainer. One shot to prevent a common cancer. Talk about a miracle.

By Stupid

February 27, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Let’s see…the senate committees will not legalize the sale of beer and wine in grocery/convenience stores on Sunday because the radical right wingists believe it’s a sin, but we can make it legal to force a young girl to have a vaccine that encoursges sex at a young age in order to prevent cancer from an STD? Makes sense to me.

By melissa

February 27, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

The problem is, it prevents ONE WAY of getting cervical cancer. I am uneasy about this vaccination and the chicken pox vaccination.

By KMAC

February 27, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

I have had the vaccine and I am 23 years old. I have HPV, and have had lots of pre-cancer on my cervix. There are over 100 strains of the virus, the vaccine only helps block the 4 main strains that are known to cause cervical cancer. I was not premiscuous, I had the same boyfriend all through high school, thought I was safe and he loved me. I know now he cheated lots of times. and the doctor said there is no way to tell when you got it. I was tested every year since i was 16 per my folks for STD’s and HPV finally showed up 2 years ago, when the pre cancer hit, no telling how long I have had it or if i just got it. I was so upset b/c i knew I had been safe, but as a teenager you think you know everything. I wish this had been avaliable when I was younger, the procedures I have been through are very painful and i may not be able to have children now. I think it is up to each parent but just remember how you were, your frineds were, and how other people in high school were, that could be your child one day.

By R.S. Bell

February 27, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

1) Cervical cancer in Illinois is responsible for only about 200 annual deaths. Nearly all cancers are preventable with a simple Pap test.

2) The HPV vaccine is a breakthrough technology and represents a unique type of vaccine for which there is little prior experience. The potential for benefit is not nearly as great as the potential for widespread harm if this vaccine is mandated for thousands of children. Therefore, caution and careful analysis of the scientific data is critical.

3) No long-term studies have been performed, therefore the effectiveness and safety is not fully known. Vaccination failures are already being reported.

4) Merck has funded most HPV vaccine clinical trials and the majority authorship of published papers suggests considerable potential for extensive reporting bias.

5) The HPV vaccine suffers a significant adverse reaction rate (90%) as reported in published trials and also in VAERS. Gardasil contains a large quantity of a neurotoxin, aluminum at doses that are known to cause neurological impairment in animals.

6) Targeting 11 year-old girls is unadvisable, since few studies have assessed children this young. Over one-third of all adverse Gardasil vaccine reactions recently reported to VAERS were in children 16 years old or younger.

7) Since influenza kills ten-times as many individuals as cervical cancer yet flu vaccination is not mandated, HPV mandates can’t be just about “saving more lives”.

8) Use of the HPV vaccine should not be mandated and should remain restricted for use in carefully controlled clinical trials.

By lisa sue

February 27, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

To K.Bowers…the odds are against your daughter needing a bone marrow transplant, but the CDC states that 80% of ALL women will contract HPV by the age of 50. Are you willing to take that chance with your daughters health? I’m willing to bet that if this were relevant to young boys, father’s would stand in line to protect them. For some reason, this country is unwilling to accept the fact that young people make bad decisions, have sex before marriage, all the things that parents tell them not to do… How many of you were sexually active at an early age. A lot! How many got pregnant before marriage. A lot. In the 20’s, 70% of all women in the US were pregnant at the time of their wedding. 70%! I don’t like the idea of the vaccinations being mandatory, but if that’s what it takes to save women’s lives…so be it!

By the lonely runner

February 27, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Absolutely not! I can appreciate the risk of cervical cancer associated with some forms of HPV, but the decision to have a girl get one more vaccine? Leave that to parents or caregivers. Keep in mind that the leading cause of death in americans remains heart disease. Obesity, and related diseases probably pose a greater threat to our young girls than HPV,relatively speaking. Maybe we should mandate exercise for all adolesent girls; it might just reduce their risk of obesity, diabetes, arthritis,heart disease and DEATH.

By varodan

February 27, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I am against all these new found vaccines not because of religious reasons, but because we don’t not know the long term effects such vaccines could have on your body. The effects could be worse than the disease itself. This is why my family does not take flu shots. The government has no business dictating to me what I should put into my daughter’s body. I will use my own judgement, thank you, and as for preventing the consequences of sexual promiscuity, I will take that responsibilty on as well - to teach my daughter the right way to conduct herself, by personal example and oversight.

By KMAC

February 27, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

To lisa sue….

I agree. Never thought it would happen to me, and i didn’t sleep around, but I trusted the boy i was with to do the same, my mistake. Now that I am married, it is hard for me and my husband that b/c of this disease I may have, and the procedures to remove it are so harsh, when you have to do it multiple times, we may not be able to have kids. That is hard to swallow. I really don’t think it should be given to such young girls but by high school age yes.

By jabster

February 27, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

It’s not a communicable disease like measles or polio. It’s not a public health issue. Keep your laws off my daughter’s body!!!

Yes, she will get the vaccine at the appropriate time. But not because “it’s the law”. “Saving lives” is NEVER an excuse for a law. Too many reasons why to go into here.

What is up with Balfour? This nut is the most illibertarian senator in the General Assembly! You can thank him for red-light cameras, too, BTW. Unfortunately, I live in N. Gwinnett so I can’t vote him out. I guess everybody is a government subject in Snellville.

Also BTW: This whole “religious” issue is just a straw-man to support the “pro” side, kind of like the “privacy” straw-man for red-light cameras. The real issues lie elsewhere.

By Tiger

February 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

If this disease was transmitted via a mosquito instead of sex, everyone, including the religious, anti-government fanatics, would be lined up to get their daughters innoculated.

Always better to be safe than sorry!!!! I have a good friend who is only 35 years old with a 3 year old son and she has been diagnosed with Stage IVB cervical cancer. Her chances of survival are not good. When cervical cancer somehow touches your life, you naysayers will change your mind. And, it’s a tragedy that it will take a personal experience with cervical cancer to get some people to see what a great thing this vaccine is.

By J White

February 27, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

I’M TIRED OF GOVERNMENT ENTERING MY LIFE !! I am well aware of this vaccine being available , but I am not sold on it yet. The decision to use it should be left up to my wife and I only after we can talk to our doctors and research it more. Don Balfour IS NOT A DOCTOR !! Let us make our own healthcare decisions .

By Akagi

February 27, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

This is not a role for the state to be involved in. The only vaccines that should be required are those that prevent highly communicable and immediate illnesses—e.g. measles, mumps, rubella, etc.

If the vaccine is safe and effective is it a good idea for girls to have the vaccine? Sure. It is also a good idea for them to avoid fast food and to exercise on a regular basis as well. Is the government going to mandate that as well? This is a decision best left to the parents or caregivers of the child, not to some minor tyrant from Snellville. I thought Republicans supported smaller and less intrusive government—I guess I was mistaken.

By Donnie Corbett

February 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

I disagree with this law, what next american people the government telling us how not to raise our kids. What about beer and wine, and all the other things that should ban I can go on and on.. Leave that decision up to the parents or caregivers wheather or not to take the vaccinations for their kids. What next from our so call government, to much control over the lifes of our kids.

By concerned mom

February 27, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

OBGYN Questions HPV Vaccine Gardasil Editorial Office Obstetrics and Gynecology The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 409 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024-2188

http://www.vaccineinfo.net

I am writing in response to the recent Committee Opinion 344 Published in the September issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I have several concerns regarding Gardasil.

First, the Gardasils product insert states their endpoint is the prevention of “High Grade Disease”, this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) which are “immediate and necessary precursors” for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.1 The MAXIMUM median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years.

However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years.2 Claiming this vaccine prevents cerv ical cancer, with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is inappropriate.

The vaccine only “protects” against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 15 “high risk” HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.

According to ACOG, The vast majority of women clear or suppress HPV to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.3 Seventy percent of women clear the virus spontaneously after 18 months and 90 % clear the virus after 2 years.4 Vaccinating children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy may only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to mor e severe disease, including the cervical cancer which the vaccine is supposedly preventing. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster.

The likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II with expectant management is 40%.5 This beats Gardasils reduction of CIN II-III of only 39% in the general population impact group which is where most people would currently fall.6 This includes all subjects who received at least one vaccination (regardless of baseline HPV status at Day 1.7 Since ACOG does not currently recommend serologic testing for HPV before vaccination this will be the endpoint from here out. In this case, “first do no harm rules.

The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered a t this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children? Vaccinating children for this or any other sexually transmitted infection is not without risk. There are over 30,000 immunization reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) annually 8, and it has been estimated that only 10% or less of vaccine reactions are reported.9 In light of these facts the integrity of the post marketing surveillance of vaccines is questionable. Currently no vaccine has ever been examined for possible carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects, and yet the pharmaceutical industry stands ready to add Gardasil to the list of vaccines mandated for school admission.

Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. Cervical cancer causes approximate ly one percent of all cancer deaths in America. The utility of this vaccine may be in third world countries in which regular screening is not available and cervical cancer is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The Committee Opinion states that there continues to be a significant population of women not receiving adequate screening. If you estimate the cost of the series at $360.00 (the most expensive vaccine on the market) administered to all adolescent girls and use that money to expand and enhance screening, I believe the results might be quite impressive. To invest that amount of healthcare dollars in an immunization with no long term efficacy or safety data is unwise.

I have personally witnessed the devastation caused by severe vaccine reaction, including patients, their children, nurses and my own family. To proceed with mass vaccination against this embellished “threat” is premature.

Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. Cc: NVIC, AAPS , PROVE

References 1. Prescribing information for GARDASIL. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc.; 2006. 2. Management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 66. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 645-64. 3. Ibid. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genital HPV Infection Facts Sheet. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm. Retrieved September 16, 2006. 5. Management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 66. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 645-64. 6. Prescribing information for GARDASIL. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc.; 2006. 7. Ibid. 8. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, phone representative, interview with the author, September 13, 2006. 9. Cave, S. What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Childrens Vaccinations. Warner Books, 2001. p.xviii.

By lynnister

February 27, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

I have a daughter in the sixth grade and I don’t appreciate the government telling me I have to vaccinate her against an STD. As a parent, I am smart enough to know when the time comes to give my daughter the vaccine. I’ve had cervical dysplagia myself and I’m a nurse so I know what a great breakthrough this vaccine is, but it’s not for the government to parent the children and mandate this vaccine. I’d rather it be around a few years so that we can determine any potential side effects. I don’t want my child to be the guinea pig.

By Casey

February 27, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

I don’t agree with giving 6th graders the HPV vaccine.This should be the chose of the parents.We let the goverment in to much of of lives and not God.

By R.S. Bell

February 27, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

The Gardasil product insert states that the goal of vaccination is to prevent the development of pathological changes in the cervix that are known precursors to invasive carcinoma; however, the length of time required to develop invasive cancer after identification of precursor lesions averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years and may require up to 40 years. Since published vaccine trials have only assessed outcomes in women for two years or less after vaccination, prevention of cervical cancer is a highly optimistic claim.

By Rickster

February 27, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

I can see it now: “No school admittance until you have your little girl vaccinated against HPV. Oh and by the way, the cost?, $150.00. No Peachcare anymore to help pay for it if your can’t afford it either!!!!” Still want to go to my public school?

Maybe our state legislature could be more productive in trying to figure out how to stop illegal immigrants kids from going to public schools for free and not being required to report them to I.N.S. under the current state laws. I guess that’s too much like right!

By R.S. Bell

February 27, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

After Vioxx and Thimerosol, why do you trust Merck?

There are several striking and disturbing parallels between Merck’s missteps with Vioxx research and the current research surrounding Gardasil. Vioxx was introduced by Merck in 1999 as a safe alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but was later withdrawn due to serious cardiovascular complications, including deaths of as many as 100,000 over five years. The details are summarized in a recent feature article in the British Medical Journal (January 20th, 2007):

-Merck had prior knowledge of potential cardiovascular reactions to Vioxx but intentionally designed subsequent studies to obscure such risks.

-Merck financed and produced nine studies touting Vioxx safety and effectiveness having establishing influence over data analysis, safety monitoring and reporting. Design flaws included small sample sizes, selection of low-risk patients, short follow-up and pooling of data.

-A major journal editor condemned published studies, claiming Merck had withheld critical data, obscuring serious complications. Companies hired by Merck had ghostwritten some publications.

-Merck faces nearly 30,000 legal claims due to serious and undisclosed drug complications.

Merck’s behaviors could be better classified as criminal than biased. Following a similar pattern to Merck’s Vioxx research, Gardasil researchers designed studies of women who were low-risk for HPV transmission and followed them for only two years or less. Despite reporting adverse events in 90% of vaccine recipients (approximately 40% were systemic reactions), minimized the significance by observing similar reaction rates in placebo groups that inappropriately had received high doses of aluminum rather than conventional saline.

Since when does a PLACEBO contain adjuvants found in the ACTIVE?!?

Fear and medical/scientific ignorance is leading many parents to sacrifice their daughter(s) at the altar of Merck and the FDA approval process.

What other industry gets monopoly protection AND liability elimination for their products? If you need all that just to be viable in the marketplace, perhaps you’re not as worthy as your lobbying and marketing efforts would have us to believe.

By ConcernedMother

February 27, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

I wish that the drug makers would state the fact that human pappilloma (sp?) virus (HPV) is an STD that can cause cancer on their commercials. They show young women dancing around, chatting with friends like this cancer is one of the types that just happens - like breast or ovarian cancer. You are at risk for HPV, then cervical cancer, if you have unprotected sex - cause and effect. Why do we think that a magic pill or injection or operation will protect our kids from the results of their choices? Every choice has a consequence.

I recall my 7th grade sex ed class very well (it was 13 years ago). I attended a Christian School here in Atlanta. They showed us the banana and condom, they discussed the consequences of contracting STDs, they discussed how to prevent pregnancy both using birth control and barriers. What I wanted to communicate is that we had a well-rounded education about all different types of sex and what was dangerous about each. It scared the mess out of me!! I vowed not to have sex until I was married and I kept that vow.

By Cammi

February 27, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

This is by far the craziest thing I have heard in a minute (well, besides Jesus and his family being found in a cave). This is not a communicable disease we are talking about. The government cannot force these extra vaccinations into our daughters. The next thing we’ll find out is a possible side affect is sterilization or something worse. If this law passes, I am sure more and more people with come up with the means to to send their daughters to private school or in the alternative home school!!!!!

By Vashti

February 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

What are the long term effects of this vaccine? Why would we trust the government to protect us?

By Angry Mom

February 27, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

I think from: “ConcernedMom” said it all and backed it up. But the bottom line is about Choice and giving up freedom. This quote says it all as well, “This is a decision best left to the parents or caregivers of the child, not to some minor tyrant from Snellville. I thought Republicans supported smaller and less intrusive government—I guess I was mistaken.” Since it’s in the best interest of the public health, why not pass a law requiring women to have their breasts removed so they won’t get breast cancer? (Idiot from Snellville, but everybody is somebody there remember..)

By Akagi

February 27, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

My daughter is a few years from the 6th grade, but if she were going to enter the 6th grade this year I’d claim the religious exemption.

I oppose the vaccine on religious grounds—that being I oppose petty little tyrants from cesspools like Gwinnett telling me how to best care for my child.

By David

February 27, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

HPV is probably the second most preventable disease known to man (HIV/AIDS ranks first). The HPV vaccine is the most expensive ever, costing an estimated $400 per shot. Of course, for those who can’t afford it, the state of Georgia government will pick up the tab. I find it interesting that our reps were able to uncover $4.5 million to cover the cost of the vaccine, yet Peachcare is going broke. How can we justify requiring children to receive an unncessary vaccine when we can’t afford to pay for even the most basic of health care.

By Akagi

February 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

One more thing. The sponsor of this great example of creeping tyranny graduated from Bob Jones University—also known as Crackpot U. And his job? An executive for the Waffle House—how nice.

Now I understand completely.

By Cammi

February 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

So whose pockets do you think are being greased by Merck? There is simply no other explanation this crock of a bill.

By Angry Mom Again...

February 27, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Makes you wonder if Mr. Snellville is getting a kick back, by passing a law that requires the insured and the state to pay for the most expensive vaccine out there. And of course, provided only by a specific drug company doesn’t it?

By Akagi

February 27, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Nikki:

You might also have to say to your daughter. I am sorry you had to go through all these awful side effects due to a vaccine whose long term effects were unknown because an accountant for Waffle House thought more about his payoffs from a giant corporation than the long term effects from an unknown vaccine.

I wonder how much Mr. Waffle has been given by Merck to push this?

By carolyn

February 27, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we say that sex is illegal without a certificate of vaccination notarized by the state health department. Why stop at sixth grade girls if everyone can carry this virus?

By Diane

February 27, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Sex should definitely be illegal without a state certificate of immunization. No guy on the state legislature can have sex until he gets this vaccine.

By Dave

February 27, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

As with a lot of these things, just follow the money trail. The only reason Georgia and all those other states are introducing these laws mandating these vaccinations is because Merck spent millions of dollars lobbying these lawmakers and making donations to these lawmakers to pass these laws. Once the public caught on to this, Merck just recently stopped all their lobbying efforts to get these bills passed.

By Selena

February 27, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

I think all parents have a God given duty to weigh the risks and benefits of a vaccine before they consent to having it injected in their child. The state can be corrupted by money and drug companies, but parents cannot. Parents are coerced by being told their children cannot attend school without some toxic dangerous vaccine. If there is no religious exemption to this bill, then the bill is unconstitutional and plain morally wrong.

By Lisa

February 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

OK, This is just wrong. Why should the government dictate when it is appropriate for her to be vaccinated for a STD or to prevent cervical cancer? I am very upset as I have a rising 6th grader and I am not ready to dicuss this with her yet and as her parent, I feel I know what is best for my child and when she is mature enough to discuss STD’s. This is outrageous and I will not allow my daughter to be vaccinated —- PERIOD!

This angers the bahgeeburz out of me!

By Judy

February 27, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

This does not need to be mandatory. Let the people who think this vaccine is so darned wonderful make the decision for their own children. Allow those who do not wish to subject their daughters to what is still by all definitions a drug that has not been tested over the long term, the right to decline.

This is BAD legislation.

By GEJ

February 27, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

This vaccine’s loaded with aluminum. More people will develop Alzheimer’s, autism, learning disorders, and a serious allergic reaction from this vaccine with aluminum than would develop cervical cancer without it. Aluminum attacks nerve cells that cause all sorts of neurodegenerative diseases. Plus, we can’t even pay for state healthcare costs anyway. Who really thinks we can pay for this? Merck?

By Dave

February 27, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

They should propose and opt-in instead of an opt-out. That way if you don’t want your child to be vaccinated, then you don’t have to do a thing. If you want your child vaccinated and can’t afford it or would rather have the state (taxpayers) pay for it, then you can opt-in to the program. I think it’s a stupid law and shouldn’t be passed, but if they were to do it, then that’s the way it should be done.

By BBT

February 27, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

You can’t even get a doctor these days without fully injecting your kid with the trendiest vaccines of the day. I just had a baby and opted out of the Hepatitis B shot on the first day of my kids’ life because hepatatis B is an STD - it’s transmitted like AIDS. My doctor said he wouldn’t see me or my child because I wasn’t fully vaccinating her. Amazing! Now every time I take my baby to the doctor, I have to drive way across town to see a special doctor who doesn’t mind if I don’t completely vaccinate my kid. Doctors are generally too stupid to know how the political system works and are brainwashed by drug companies. They can’t comprehend that vaccines have raised the rate of autism to 1 in 150 kids, and that autism rates go up with vaccination rates. Just because Merck develops a new drug doesn’t mean I’m rushing out to be part of their experiment.

By Akagi

February 27, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

If you want to contact the sponsor of this piece of pro-liberty legislation and give him your opinion on this topic, you can reach Senator Don Balflour at the contacts below:

Capitol Office:

453 State Captiol Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: (404) 656-0095 Fax: (404) 656-6581

Administrative Assistant: Beverly Crumbley

District Office:

2312 Waterscape Trail Snellville, GA 30078 Phone: (770) 729-5764 (O) (678) 344-8164 (H)

Email: don.balfour@senate.ga.gov

By concerned mom

February 27, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

I guess I should have mentioned I also have a child with Autism. They can’t have my typical 12yr old daughter too. There is a boatload of aluminum in this shot. If you don’t think that is bad then ask your self why it was taken out of cookware. My son was developing totally normal until one wellness visit they doubled up on shots. When I researched my son’s shots he had been given hundred’s of times over the EPAs safe limit of Mercury. We are now medically pulling the Mercury our with a doctor who chelates. I have sat through CDC ACIP meetings where our government pairs with vaccine producers, not to protect our kids, but insure THEIR profits. One look at opensecrets.org and you can see how rich politicians are thanks to Pharma. Time to stand up and say “not my kid”. Last time I checked the voter pulls the lever not the vaccine producer. This is all about insuring profit.

By Mom of Two

February 27, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

BBT - You need to be aware that sexual contact is not the only way to spread Hepatitis B. It’s sad to hear that you place such a low value on your child’s life and wellness that you won’t take the simple steps to prevent a difficult to treat, hard to manage, potentially life threatening illness.

There is also no proven correlation between vaccinations and autism. It’s just happenstance that autism is usually not properly diagnosed until a child reaches the same age that they are getting certain vaccines. The perceived increase in the numbers of children being diagnosed with autism can be directly related to children being properly diagnosed when in years past they were not.

Though I am very much against this new vaccine being required, there are other vaccines that are, in fact, life saving and should not be discounted as being pushed by “Doctors [who] are generally too stupid to know how the political system works and are brainwashed by drug companies.” If you’re so much smarter than the Doctors who have spent many years gaining the knowledge that they have, why aren’t you practicing medicine?

By waterworld

February 27, 2007 8:53 PM | Link to this

How much stock does Senator Balfour have in Merck? This product needs more time before wide spread vaccinations occur, unless your attempting to improve the portfolio. Will Peachcare cover it? Will the state pick up the tab for the uninsured?

By concerned mom

February 28, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

That’s right the CDC and IOM both said their is no connection in to vaccines and Autism. IN THEIR FLAWED STUDIES done by by paid Pharma consultants. I suggest Mom of Two go to the CDC website and read the 200 page minutes of the CDC Simpsonwood meeting then respond. Thimerosal is a known neurotoxin. Look it up. Even the CDC conceded to its effect at Simpsonwood then embargoed the meeting minutes from the public. You have been influenced by Pharma spin, if you had any idea what the ingredients in vaccines do to a child’s immune system you would be floored. I know because I have the tests to prove what happened to my kid. He is showing a high body burden of Mercury and low glutathione production signs that his genes that function for detox (MTHFR) could not clear the 200X over the EPA allowable amount of Mercury he was given before age 2. Hep B can easily be screened for in at risk populations. I encourage Mom of 2 to read the actual ingredients in vaccines, then weigh in as to whether they should be given the second day of life. You will be very shocked as to what is in there. Most ingredients are so toxic they have Material Safety Data sheets. BTW no vaccine can promise 100% immunity. Ask the people in the Iowa mumps outbreak last year that were vaccinated then got the mumps. If you are vaccinating 2 kids you better do your reading especially on the flu shot that still contains 25 mgs of Mercury. More than what is allowable in a landfill. Vaccines are big business. Vaccine producers line political pockets for bills just like this. What other industry is so lucky to have a mandated , govt funded product.

From the NVIC MERCK’S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS National Vaccine Information Center Criticizes FDA for Fast Tracking Licensure

Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to just say “no” on June 29 to recommending “universal use” of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. NVIC maintains that Merck’s clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.

“Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials,” said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. “Merck’s pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls.”

The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo.[1] A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum and, although aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials. Merck and the FDA did not disclose how much aluminum was in the placebo.[2]

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death [3] and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, [4 5] as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue. [6 7] Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site.[8] Pain and swelling at injection site occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia. [9 10] Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

“Merck and the FDA do not reveal in public documents exactly how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials, how many of them received hepatitis B vaccine and Gardasil simultaneously, and how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with Gardasil or the aluminum placebo. For example, if there were less than 1,000 little girls actually injected with three doses of Gardasil, it is important to know how many had serious adverse events and how long they were followed for chronic health problems, such as juvenile arthritis.”

According to the Merck product manufacturer insert, there was 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis, and 1 case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil recipients plus 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants primarily receiving an aluminum containing placebo. Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 Gardasil and placebo associated serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated.

“There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, and too little labeling information on contraindications for the CDC to recommend Gardasil for universal use, which is a signal for states to mandate it,” said Fisher. “Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults. With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group.”

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), founded in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children, has been a leading critic of one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies and the lack of basic science research into biological mechanisms and high risk factors for vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction. As a member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Barbara Loe Fisher urged trials include adequate safety data on pre-adolescent children and warned against fast tracking Gardasil at the November 28-29, 2001 VRBPAC meeting .[11]

Full 2001 FDA Transcript: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm#Vaccines & Related Biological

By Matthew

February 28, 2007 1:02 AM | Link to this

Jesus is not pro cancer, but neither is he pro tyrant or pro whoredom.

The government does not have jurisdiction to make medical decisions for a family’s children, and it certainly does not have the authority to encourage sexual perversion by taking the money of morally virtuous citizens to pay for the consequences of a sleazy life for its immoral ones.

Do a quick check of your history, and you will find that Jesus’ followers have a long history of resisting governments that try to set themselves up as the savior of their citizens’, usually successfully.

By Lynn

February 28, 2007 6:03 AM | Link to this

The government is over-reaching their authority with this one. If we keep giving up our rights to make personal decisions, soon we will have no rights left.

By Clay

February 28, 2007 6:42 AM | Link to this

I hope this passes. Anyone against the HPV shots is either someone without a daughter or a fool. A set of (3) shots to prevent cervical cancer is a no brainer!

By Laura

February 28, 2007 7:16 AM | Link to this

This is a public health issue. The government requires us to get numerous shots in order to attend school so this is nothing new. This shot is not giving a child permission to have sex. That notion is ridiculous. Also vaccines PREVENT illnesses, it does not cause them. Vaccines do not cause autism. In fact all the new research indicates that children who have autism are BORN with it. Also, we are seeing a new rise in whoopping cough among children because idiots like the one’s on this blog are refusing to vaccinate their kids. This crazy religion-fueled fear of science is one of the most backwards, riduculous things I have ever heard. The government has to require shots because morons like you wouldn’t have to sense to get them if they didn’t!

By Laura

February 28, 2007 7:23 AM | Link to this

If you don’t want to vaccinate your kids then keep them home out of schools and shopping malls and parks. Also, forgive all the typo’s in my last post- a bit early in the morning for ranting, but this got me going.

By Lynn

February 28, 2007 7:30 AM | Link to this

Do you think the government would mandate polio vaccines if it only prevented 2% of polio cases? No. This vaccine has benefited from clever marketing, but the data does not support its efficacy. Yes, 25% of women may have HPV of which there are hundreds of strains. This vaccine covers only four strains. Only two of those four strains cause cervical cancer. There are five types of HPV that cause cancer that are more prevalent than the two covered by the vaccine. Gardisil will not help with that. Their early data was skewed due to the groups on which they focused. Their broader data indicates only 2% of the population is infected by the HPV strains covered in the vaccine. There is no way this data is compelling enough to require government intervention to the point of mandating vaccines. You could never get away with forcing innoculation with a measles vaccine that only prevented 2% of cases. This whole debate is ridiculous. It should be decided by the parents and the pediatrician, not a legislator.

By Melissa

February 28, 2007 7:37 AM | Link to this

At $360 a pop, Merck will get even richer - this bill smells to high heaven of dirty lobbying and lots of pressure. It appeals to people’s emotions that they MUST SAVE OUR DAUGHTERS FROM A HORRIBLE FATE.

By GA Mom

February 28, 2007 7:42 AM | Link to this

I wonder if the vax were required of men, would there be the same requirement? Why not vax men from the disease, and keep them from spreading it to women?

By Ruby McDaniel

February 28, 2007 7:44 AM | Link to this

No, the vaccine should not be mandatory. Why is the legislature messing in family decisions? Is this a big push by the drug company? The vaccine is too new. What will be discovered 25 - 50 years from now about this vaccine? What about the other strains of HPV? There are just too many questions and not enough answers. My answer is no.

By Dekalb Educator

February 28, 2007 7:56 AM | Link to this

I am one that do not vaccinate. I do NOT want the government telling me…MANDATING ME to do something to my child. As someone has already stated, if we give them this RIGHT..what’s next?

So there you have it..I am a teacher who does NOT vaccinate her daughter. AND NO, you do NOT have to have vaccinations to attend school. I have a neice and nephew enrolled in school now without vaccinations. To date, my daughter has had 2 colds, no fevers, or any other sickness. She is only dealing with a heart murmur from birth.

By Dekalb Educator

February 28, 2007 7:58 AM | Link to this

Oh yeah…call me an IDIOT…FOOL…or whatever else. This idiot can think for herself and make her OWN informed decisions in regards to what is best for herself and her family at this present time.

By Dekalb Educator

February 28, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

Oh yeah..My brother and his wife suffered a loss back in 2000. Their twin sons went in for a routine checkup at 13 wks. They received the clean bill of health and received a round of vaccinations. Before the sun came up the next day, one twin was dead. Months later, the other suffered a neurological decline and was diagnosed with a form of autism.

The autopsy reported that the cause of death was a reaction to the vaccination. Now, the disclaimer says that it IS a side effect..but the chances of that happening is low..HOWEVER, to parents that loses a child..it is 100%!

By MOT

February 28, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

Why aren’t we all not just contacting Mr. Waffle of Snailville, (letting him have it) but also our own county reps?? We should not be taking this sitting down, we should be uniting our efforts and energies to fight this vulgar intrusion into our lives with legislation that under the guise of saving lives could possible jeopardize lives! And it being 11 year old girls????? How dare they!!! We keep giving them inches and they keep taking yards and miles.

Here is a site that you can look up your county/area reps and contact them. And if necessary why aren’t we coming together to take this to the courts? Our government is for the people BY the people!!! But only IF we act and get involved. This is a time to do so! This is wrong wrong wrong for so many reasons!

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/senate/senatelist.php

By Linda

February 28, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

Since HPV is a sexually transmitted virus, wouldn’t it make more sense to teach safe sex practices than to subject our children to further vaccinations that could cause complications? Sex safe practices would also prevent other types of sexually transmitted diseases; the vaccination will not.

By HL

February 28, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this

I think it’s ridiculous to say that a vaccine that prevents cancer will make people promiscuous. Did people not think of or have sex until now? People are going to be sexually active, period. Sticking your head in the sand will not produce virginal angels. If this was a shot that prevented breast cancer would you be more supportive? It makes no sense to act as though those who are sexually active “deserve what they get.” My sister got HPV from a boyfriend who didn’t know he carried it, and she didn’t have sex with him. But she deserves to be stuck with the risk of cancer for the rest of her life? I fully support any vaccine that will enhance the quality of life for my daughters.

By Ann

February 28, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

Hellooo, it’s a good thing! Ever hear of polio? Vaccines prevent illness. Why risk cancer needlessly?! My 3 girls were already signed up so I’m glad to see that the daughters of less enlightened parents will have to be protected too.

By Nikkolette

February 28, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

The government is not the most reliable source of information these days. I personally have a daughter (that in the year 2008 when this vaccine will be mandated to give) will be entering into the 6th grade. I do not approve of this vaccination. Not enough information is known or made apparent to the parents about it, to mandate it. I personally, do take my daughter’s health into great consideration, and what about the side affects of this vaccination. Rushing to jump on a “band wagon” cause a whole bunch of stuffy politicians say that it is ok……is just plain stupid. Everyone, from the pharmaceutical companies down to the parents need to slow down. And really measure out the side effects and advantages of this product before the bill is passed. And the last time I checked, a shot never save someone life, that was God job!

By ABS

February 28, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

I’m all for a vaccine that can prevent this virus….yes, that is a no-brainer, but I’m not for a mandatory requirement of it.

There have been a couple of previous posters who brought up good points…

A) whose going to pay for it? if there are those who can’t afford it and the state will pay for it…WTF? Why can’t they put that money back in Peach Care.

B) I suspect too like some of you have mentioned there is some political back rubbing in this. It just sounds too slick.

I have a 5th grade daughter and I plan to talk to my doctor about it. I trust my doctor, who has proven time and again that he puts my family’s health before big business and politics.

Like I said earlier, I think vaccines are a great thing, and if my doctor recommends it, then I’ll hold her hand while she gets the shot!

By Rhonda

February 28, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

I am not in favor of this vaccine. How many times have we vaccinated our children only to find out later that this or that vaccine may have long lasting side effects, i.e. autism, etc. It seems that this has come around awfully quick as well…remember all of the recent medications that have caused worry and concern. And for all the good that most medications do for us, most are poisons to our systems. Better parental involvement with advocation for safe sex and abstension is a better route to take.

By AM

February 28, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

The government has no business making girls be the guinea pigs for their drug buddies. Lets start with the Bush twins. There are way too many legal drugs on the market. It is disgusting. If your daughter has ANY ill side effects you should able to sue the goverment and their drug cronies big time.

By CDog

February 28, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

This is yet another example of Big Brother, nanny-state government trying micromanage every facet of its citizens’ lives. More than just religious groups should oppose this. Kids get way too many vaccines as it is. Pumping toxins into your child’s body is not a good thing. And FORCING people to do so at legislative gunpoint is pure tyranny. Good citizens, I call on you to oppose this legislation.

By Nikkolette

February 28, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

And all you parents that are rushing and signing up your daughters for this vaccination are you a 100% positive that this is not a MAN-MADE strain of virus……? Are you sure that the government is not using our daughters as their personal guinea pigs to see if they have found a cure for cancer? For all you parents that are so willing to trust the government, please note the AIDS was and is a man made virus!

By Sagegirl

February 28, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

This is such a no-brainer. If I had a young daughter, I wouldn’t have to think twice. The positives out weigh any negatives that have been brought up here. This virus can be deadly and parents should do all they can to prevent their daughters from getting it. It’s just a vaccine. I couldn’t imagine being a mother and finding out later that her daughter had developed cervical cancer, all because of the mother saying “no” to this. Why risk your child’s life?

By jabster

February 28, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

It is NOT a public health issue. I am 100% OK with mandatory vaxing of kids against communicable diseases spreadable by CASUAL contact, such as MMR, diptheria/whooping cough, polio, etc. This is an STD, not the flu. You could make a stronger argument for mandatory flu shots than for this.

No, this is NOT for religious reasons—a red herring IMNSHO. This is for not allowing a drug company to spread payola around to force people to use their products, and not allowing the government to force people to make health decisions that don’t directly affect others.

Now, I am sure someone could find a case of something else that the government forces people to do for their individual health. A pox on that, too.

By Amy

February 28, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

I just wanted to add one thing to those people who are making ignorant comments. HPV does not ALWAYS have to come from having sexual intercourse. I have HPV and have had it since I was 10. I got it from either bathing or using the toilet while living with my sister who had been raped at the age of 13and had apparently gotten HPV then. I noticed I was having pains when I was 11 (and I was not sexually active) and I ended up getting tested b/c my sisters doctor was suspicious that I may have what she had gotten. Tests came up positive and now I am 20 and have all ready had most of my cervix cut out due to cancer caused by HPV. I get a pap once every 3 months so I am not out in the clear yet. Though I love the idea of the vaccine b/c of my personal experience, I still would like people to have a choice. I feel that way about all vaccines though. One last thing- everyone should asked to be checked for this so at least you are aware. This is no longer considered an STD b/c it is so rampant and easily transmitted. It rarely has noticeable affects but can be deadly. My doctor said something like 40% of women have it. Just be aware.

By LiveFree

February 28, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

First of all this is a bill being passed by the so called moral police who no doubt is getting paid by the big pharma. companies. Why would you give a drug to a child who is not sexual active and this is not up to the government to decide what goes on with your child’s body. How about this law being unconstitutional. This is not a communist country. The problem with these politicians is that they are greedy and could careless of the effects of this drugs. Merck has done the case studies so to you clueless people have no idea of how bias that is. And as for those who say this will prevent cervical cancer you are really letting your ignorance prevail. There are many strains of the HPV so again which one does it prevent, not all. There are many other ways to die but hell are we enacting laws to prevent death. Lets get real people. Fear mongering at its best.

By Tom

February 28, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Please…require girls to take a vaccine that MIGHT protect them from something. Even if the drug companies GUARANTEED the vaccine would protect against cancer, last time I checked they are OMNIPOTENT or OMNISICIENT…

We have the unfortunate opportunity to live in a culture where we’re told that death should not happen to us; and there are people trying to make a bunch of bucks off of that lie.

I don’t want to die, don’t want my wife to die, don’t want my daughter to die…but we are all going to die of SOMETHING…if not ‘this’, then ‘that’.

The government must get out of the business of trying to ‘protect’ us from everything ‘bad’ that happens - cancer, sitting on airplanes too long, terrorist attacks, long lines at airport security checkpoints.

By concerned mom

February 28, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

Classic Pharma scaremongering unvaccinated kids spread disease. What a joke. They are healthier. I wonder if the poster understands that the polio emerging now is from the use of the dangerous and outdated oral vaccine. The last case in Minn. was an Amish child who got in a US hospital. Oh and BTW there is virtually NO AUTISM among the Amish who don’t vaccinate. To borrow a familar line-tell the government to keep their hands of my body.

By Sara

February 28, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

I wonder if people realize that the money backing this bill is comming from the company making the drug…its only been approved by the FDA for a short time. I have a very had time letting my daughter be the gunni pig for this drug.

By lin

February 28, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

this is way off base. something like this due in school no way this is over bounding parents rights. want leave parents responsibility to parents. what is this world coming to. it can be recommended to parents by their doctors. but still parents choice.

By Amy

February 28, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpvlearnfastfacts.cfm

Some facts.

By Anais

February 28, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Human Papillomavirus Virus (HPV) – A viral infection that affects the vagina, penis, male genitalia, female genitalia, female cervix. Depending on the type of HPV involved, symptoms can vary from cauliflower-like warty lesions, to ordinary warts, to being asymptomatic. Certain types of HPV can become cervical cancer. HPV can be spread without intercourse, through skin-to-skin contact only.

By Dave

February 28, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

“Women aged 20 to 24 had the highest overall HPV prevalence in the study, 44.8 percent.” There are plenty of other disease like aids that you can scare your kids with not to have sex. Why would somebody want their kids to have no protection. To me this is like keeping condoms a secret from your kids. I hope abstinence works for your kids when in most cases it didn’t work for you.

By CDog

February 28, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

There are a lot of things parents SHOULD do. But FORCING them to do things via legislative gunpoint is not the way a free soci