Re: A Necessary Vaccine [NYT Editorial]
From: fran wilson (530rose@msn.com)
Mon Feb 26 20:24:20 2007
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=63586&nfid=al+
This link is in regards to some unexpected side effects of Gardisil, and it just happens that the one person I am giving the series to experienced some numbness and tingling in her extremities after her first injection, which she reported to me at the time of the second injection. I asked her to tell me if it happened after injection #2 and did not hear back, so I assume all was well. However, this article does talk about reports of Guillane Barre and facial paralysis as well as other side effects, especially when given in combination with other vaccines. I think we have alot to learn about it before we make it mandatory. I also think that is why Merck suddenly said they would stop pushing legislation to require it. Like fetal monitoring and so many other things, before we make this a standard of care we should make sure it actually helps more than it hurts.
Fran Wilson, CNM Wild Rose Womens Clinic Kennewick, WA
http://www.wildrosemidwife.com
From: dpriver@aol.com (David Priver)
Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
Subject: Re: A Necessary Vaccine [NYT Editorial]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:51:36 -0600
It is intriguing, is it not, that we have heard not a peep out of ACOG,
our spokesperson on this issue. I would submit that it is debateable
whether Gardasil should be mandatory. While HPV is a potentially
dangerous disease, this is clearly not small-pox. What is not
debateable is that this mandate would not have occurred without the
strenuous lobbying of the drug industry, which, interestingly, is now
backing down from its campaign to enrich itself. Is this the way our
government should
make policy? Let's just hope we don't live to regret
this hasty action. Perhaps we may live long enough for ACOG to consider
exercising its voice for a change.
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Kim Elise Goldman wrote:
>
>Who paid for this editorial?
>
>On Feb 26, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Dean Huffman . wrote:
>
>> .
>>
>> Editorial in today's NY Times
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon1.html
>>
>> - - - -
>>
>> A Necessary Vaccine
>>
>> Published: February 26, 2007
>>
>> Debate over a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital
>> warts has
>> reached a high pitch. State legislatures are debating whether to
>> mandate the
>> vaccine or insist that its use be kept voluntary. The
manufacturer
>> stopped a
>> vigorous lobbying campaign lest it provoke more opposition than
>> support. And
>> some health professionals who had been championing the vaccine
>> flinched at
>> making it mandatory, at least for now.
>>
>> Even so, state legislatures should require that all young girls be
>> given this
>> vaccine, which protects against a virus that causes some 10,000 new
>> cases of
>> cervical cancer in the United States each year — and 3,700 cancer
>> deaths.
>>
>> Three weeks ago we applauded Gov. Rick Perry for making Texas the
>> first state to
>> require vaccinating young schoolgirls — ages 11 and 12 — against
>> the human
>> papillomavirus. In the ensuing uproar, the Texas House has moved
to
>> overturn
>> his order, but the Virginia Legislature has approved a similar
>> mandate. Some 20
>> states have bills pending to require the vaccinations for school
>> attendance.
>>
>> We have endorsed a mandate because the vaccine — Merck’s Gardasil —
>> looks highly
>> effective against strains that cause 70 percent of all cervical
>> cancer. With
>> more than two million doses already distributed, the reported side
>> effects have
>> been mostly minor, such as dizziness or fainting. Many parents who
>> oppose a
>> mandate are aghast at the thought of vaccinating such young girls
>> against a
>> sexually transmitted disease. But the vaccine works only if taken
>> before a girl
>> becomes infected. Social
conservatives object that the vaccine will
>> encourage
>> promiscuity, but it seems farfetched to believe that protection
>> from cervical
>> cancer will change any girl’s behavior. Others complain that a
>> mandate will
>> pre-empt parental rights to make health decisions, but all vaccine
>> mandates do
>> that, to protect the children and those they might infect.
>>
>> The strongest arguments against moving ahead quickly tend to be
>> practical and
>> financial. States have typically used school mandates for vaccines
>> that are
>> already in wide use, and it is possible that unexpected side
>> effects could
>> emerge (though any mandate could be suspended if that happened).
>> Health
>> professionals also need to be certain
that there are stable
>> supplies, adequate
>> insurance coverage, ample public money to vaccinate low-income
>> children and
>> physician support.
>>
>> Merck deserves praise for developing Gardasil at a time when many
>> companies shun
>> the vaccine business as risky and unprofitable. But it is charging
>> $360 for a
>> three-dose regimen, a price that might come down if a competing
>> vaccine enters
>> the market soon, as expected.
>>
>> The vaccine could prevent thousands of new cases of cervical cancer
>> annually and
>> hundreds of thousands of cases of genital warts and precancerous
>> growths. A
>> mandate would force the health care system to get cracking. And it
>> is the best
>> way to ensure that
all children get the vaccine, not just those who
>> are aware
>> of it and can afford it.
>>
|
|
