Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require cervical-cancer vaccine...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/2007 9:55:50 PM Central Standard Time,

Grayson902@... writes:

I'm not anti-vaccine by any means, and I applaud the development of the HPV

vaccine. But REQUIRING school girls to have the vaccine? Hell no, and not

just for the financial reasons. This kind of government mandate flies in the

face of Texas' independent spirit, does it not?

problem being that, despite the up front costs, this vaccine is MOST

effective if given to an unexposed female (which pretty much means a virgin),

and

the ultimate cost savings to Medicaid alone (compared to the treatment of

various levels of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancers, including forced

sterility from unwanted hysterectomies) is expected to be substantial, and far

in

excess of the cost of the vaccine.

I was impressed that he had a big enough pair to make the order effective by

targeting *older pre teens*, who are most likely to benefit from the program.

Arguments about parental consent aside, from what I've seen, this item has

far fewer documented side effects (so far) than standard pertussis toxoid, and

we are still using that ugly dose on a regular basis.

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Guest guest]

I don't understand why it is such a big deal to everyone. Speaking

about the vaccine is just like anyone of the other vaccines that we

have: Hep B, MMR, the old polio. Why is this such a big deal if it

is just anohter way to prevent illiness to someone, we are or were

required at some point to have the old shots why is this any

diffrent?

Cody Rice

>

>

> In a message dated 2/6/2007 9:55:50 PM Central Standard Time,

> Grayson902@... writes:

>

> I'm not anti-vaccine by any means, and I applaud the development

of the HPV

> vaccine. But REQUIRING school girls to have the vaccine? Hell no,

and not

> just for the financial reasons. This kind of government mandate

flies in the

> face of Texas' independent spirit, does it not?

>

>

> problem being that, despite the up front costs, this vaccine is

MOST

> effective if given to an unexposed female (which pretty much means

a virgin), and

> the ultimate cost savings to Medicaid alone (compared to the

treatment of

> various levels of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancers,

including forced

> sterility from unwanted hysterectomies) is expected to be

substantial, and far in

> excess of the cost of the vaccine.

>

> I was impressed that he had a big enough pair to make the order

effective by

> targeting *older pre teens*, who are most likely to benefit from

the program.

>

> Arguments about parental consent aside, from what I've seen, this

item has

> far fewer documented side effects (so far) than standard pertussis

toxoid, and

> we are still using that ugly dose on a regular basis.

>

> ck

> S. Krin, DO FAAFP

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Arguments about parental consent aside, from what I've seen, this item has

far fewer documented side effects (so far)

" So far " ..... that in and of itself raises a concern.

It's been pointed out as being somewhat humorous/ironic, that school

districts that will only officially preach and teach abstinence...will now be

requiring this vaccine.

At least there are still waivers for parents who choose to waive the vaccine

at this time.