Yesterday, September 27, was my mother's 52nd birthday.
She died of cervical cancer in November 1992.
So last year, when news broke that Merck produced a potentially life-saving vaccination, Gardasil, against the human papillomavirus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer, I cannot describe the joy I felt at the thought of future families not having to bury 37-year old mothers of four like mine did.
Meghan O'Rourke, writing at Salon today, picks it up there.
So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil--as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known--a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.
In one sense, this reluctance seems understandable. Merck is the same company that made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients. Gardasil is a brand-new drug, and the company has conducted only limited testing on it. Though the pre-release studies suggest it is highly efficacious, the vaccine's long-term side effects are not fully known. What's more, the vaccination comprises three painful shots, at an estimated cost of $360. Given all this, it is hard to blame parents who resist putting their daughters on the drug's front line, preferring to wait until more is known about it.
That is a totally understandable, precautionary skepticism that any responsible parent would display. Just as O'Rourke points out, it is the other argument pushed forward by opponents that is problematic.
Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do--and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.
O'Rourke notes the rank ignorance of proponents of this absurd argument. With this logic, cancer research -- namely, much needed governmental funds -- should be chauffeured away from deadly illnesses such as AIDS/HIV and lung cancer caused by emphysema.
Also, State Senator George Runner (R-Los Angeles) doesn't seem to realize that HPV can be caused as easily as casual skin-to-skin contact or environmentally, notes Wikipedia. Ever take a shower in a college dorm with a community bathroom? It is that easy.
In fact, most Americans don't even know they have it, and can unknowingly pass it along to others. O'Rourke notes the troublesome data:
The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And--contrary to Runner's insinuations--you needn't be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.
Sluts, all of them, according to George "the Cruel."
Disgraceful.
[This post is not endorsing a mandate for Gardasil, but I do hold out hope for its potential in sparing families the pain that mine went through. The medical evidence is not all in, and skepticism is healthy, especially given Merck's history. But the rhetoric of those like Runner has no place in this debate. At all.]
Now their ads show adult women. As they should have from the beginning. Then, after a while, they could have gradually eased up to the idea that younger females might benefit too.
But their greed blinded them to the fact that most parents don't want to contemplate their twelve-year-old daughter's cervix. Icky.
Forget about all this supposed "I don't want my daughter to become promiscuous" uproar. The plain truth is that the yuck factor ruined any chance that parents would ever get on board with this idea. Those original ads almost seem like they were shot by some sick, leering pedophile.
If Merck had been more insightful and patient, and less greedy, they would have marketed only to adult women in their TV ads, all the while quietly and below the radar screen whispering in the AMA's and FDA's ears that young teen girls would be well-served by adding this vaccine to the mandated list.
Eventually it would have been quietly added to the list, and each parent would find out individually only when their daughter was already at the doctor's office. Then the individual parent would have thought their gut reaction against it was all in their head. There wouldn't be this massive support system against it brought about by Merck's foolish ad blitz and lobbying of states.
Whomever designed the marketing strategy that Merck started out of the gate with should be fired.
I'm sorry for your loss, but please don't let your grief cause you to exaggerate the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. It's effect is temporary, not lifelong.
Get a shot before middle school and then before college. Sounds like perfect timing to me.
The only reason Merck is recommended the vaccine for 12 year olds is because they knew it would cause the Ferderal government to add it to the Federal mandated list for school children, creating a huge market for the vaccine. It's all about the money.
If you don't trust my information, take a look at the Physicians Desk Reference for yourself.
A young person could get it just from the floor of the community bathroom in a college dorm. It is that easy.
Also, as I note, I am not saying that this is a cure, or end-all-be-all. Rather, I am writing against the empty-headed rhetoric that this will make young women more promiscuous, and that HPV is obtained due to "personal choices." (Wrong.)
By that same logic, we should not commit research funds to AIDS/HIV or emphysema because, as State Sen. Runner callously suggests, those are contracted through "personal choices." (Someone can get HIV from a blood transfusion. I don't think one should condemn that person, or anybody with HIV, to die.)
It is ridiculous to argue that.
The HPV vaccine is currently listed on the Federal mandated list, meaning it's required for 12 year old girls to attend public school, although that can vary upon which state the girl lives in.
Do you really want young girls to be guinea pigs for an experimental new vaccine? Look at the list of side effects the manufacturer admits to:
fever
nausea
pharyngitis
dizziness
NVD (neurovascular disease)
upper respiratory infecton
gastroenteris
appendicitis
PID (pelvic inflammatory disease)
bronchospasm
If you have a daughter, and you believe in vaccines enough to submit her to this one, (and "belief" is an applicable term here, because vaccine theory is not based on any real science) fine, but both parents and children deserve to know the both the pros and cons of vaccination, and to weigh them against each other before making a decision whether or not to vaccinate.
According to George 41 the greatest threat to the civilized world is unwanted pregnancies in the 3rd world and over population.
Whose unwanted pregnancies?
Who claims them as unwanted?
Who made Daddy Bush King?
HPV?
George (The Cruel) probably shares the views of his Daddy and the Eugenics Society. Forced sterilization. Population control. *Them little 3rd world-er sluts*
This disease can bring on cancers for women at all ages.
Condoms and circumcision. I agree.
OH WAIT!
For 3000 years we all thought circumcision was just a funny old tradition? You know, a mutilation of the male for stupid superstitious reasons or ego and esthetics.
No wisdoms there.
ODD, how many women have been saved from the horrors of uterine and cervical cancers over the centuries??????
Oh,,,,,, WAIT Again.
George (the Cruel) Would probably discourage even the passing out of condoms. You know,,,,, *It would give the little sluts ideas.*
Even,,,,,,,, MORE Population Control. Gosh will Daddy be happy or what. But, diseases (HIV) (HPV) slow, agonizing, oh so fitting punishments for these deviants,,,,,, BUT take so darn long. There must be a better way for population control of the unwanted, the odd and the different? Darn it! People are even sneaking them condoms.
Humm? What to do? What to do?
They outlawed Gas Chambers.
Shoot!!!
Wait,,,, wait,,,, wait.
I know!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thermal Nuclear War!!!!
YEAH!!!!!!
All the best
Knute (Neo-LIB)
Ladies, carry one, insist on it's use and teach your daughters.
Granted, you're *less* likely to contract it using a condom but still.
I also pointed out that new research indicates a potential for an increased risk of throat cancer, which to me says oral sex (where a condom is almost never used) is also a risk for HPV transmission (among other things).
PS---Seriously though, how could anyone possibly think an HPV vaccine would lead people to start having sex like crazy? It's such an ABSURD idea.
Most people don't even KNOW about HPV, despite that fact that it's the most common STD. It's not like people would suddenly forget about, say, Aids and Herpes, not to mention pregnancy.
I think it should be that way as opposed to having parents opt-in, because FAR more kids would end up NOT getting the vaccination if the parents had to opt-in. In the long run that means higher rates of HPV and ultimately, cervical cancer.
Which reminds me, there is some new research suggesting HPV can cause an increase in throat cancer (use your imagination as to why).
And again, if the vaccine bothers YOU that much, then YOU take a minute and opt-out (who says you don't have choice? There it is).
Also, keep in mind that condoms aren't 100% effective against HPV, even when used properly (because skin is still exposed).
Deciding that a certain age group is simply "too young" to get this vaccine is ridiculous. Do you really want to play Russian roulette with your kid's health just to pretend your little princess won't have sex until she's 30 and married?
And what about rape and molestation? How awful would it be if your daughter contracted HPV after an already horrible event outside of her control? Now the poor girl has a regular reminder of the traumatic event in the form of pap-smears to detect early cervical cancer.
PS---Of COURSE an HPV vaccine would increase promiscuity. I mean, after all, who doesn't have fond memories of chewing their first rusty nail on the way home from their tetanus shot?
Oh,,, not to worry.
Fox News will search the basements of some obscure Fundamentalist University and come up with an EXPERT that refutes the efficacy of immunization. All tog tether.
I can hear them now!
**If God wanted us to be immunized he would have4 passed out needles to Adam and Eve.
**If God wanted to eradicate HIV, he would have passed out condoms to Adam and STEVE.
Sheeese!
Go Fox new GO!
You doofs!!!!!
All the best
Knute