Comments on: Wisconsin Should Follow Texas on Cervical Cancer Vaccine

By: Angi

Angi — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:46:10 +0000

One would think, before they accused parents of not wanting to protect their children, consider that maybe those not wanting this mandated ARE. I refuse to give my child any drug where the clinical trials were minimum AT BEST. Not to mention NO long term testing and the fact the drug was pushed through by the same company that pushed through another badly tested drug, Vioxx.

Not to mention our governor shouldn’t be in the pocket of ANY corporation, let alone a pharma company, let alone a pharma company who is recovering very badly from the Vioxx escapade. And trying to emotionally blackmail people with the threat that they aren’t good parents because they don’t “protect” their children as YOU think they should is obscene. Some of us don’t hear a five minute ad bit *one less* and fall all over ourselves buying it. I arrived at my decision after extensive research…how about yours?

By: Tom Gaertner

Tom Gaertner — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:23 +0000

The radical fringe on the right IS having a snit over this - the claim is that it will encourage promiscuity. What they lack in confidence in charting the path of their own children, they’re making-up for with their usual “more righteous than thou” howling.

If this can be an effective tool in preventing cervical cancer, I’m all for making it available.

I have some problems with the mandate, even with the parental opt-out. I also understand that this is a very new drug and understandably there are some fears about its proven effectiveness and safety.

On a side note, the radical fringe would have more credibility if they would refrain from injecting themselves into the very personal reproductive decisions of everyone else.

By: appleton14

appleton14 — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:40:15 +0000

Gee. what about all the millions, billions, etc. of women through the ages that have not received this shot and have not had cervical cancer?

By: Snarpple

Snarpple — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 03:59:35 +0000

Given the low rate of cancer we are talking about â€“ there would not be much savings. Additionally, it must be noted that even if girls do get the genital warts, they can be treated and the cancer prevented.

I am afraid that this whole vaccine craze is little more than a very well run marketing campaign.

I think parents should give the vaccine careful consideration, but they should do that with their doctor. The governor really doesnâ€™t need to involve himself in this.

By: Jim McGuigan

Jim McGuigan — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:22:30 +0000

Yes, the legislative bypass does concern me but your mention of the $350 with the implication that it’s a lot of money to prevent cervical cancer is a bit of a stretch. If we’re able to save the amount that a couple of medicaid or medicare cases of cervical cancer would cost, you would easily pay for the vaccine for every female in the country and then some.

By: Snarpple

Snarpple — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:20:23 +0000

And the legislative bypass question doesn’t bother you at all?

‘Merck & Company pharmaceuticals, has been spending money to lobby for laws and orders similar to Perry’s throughout the nation. According to the Associated Press, “One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff.”‘

If the state wants to hand out info to parents - fine, but to do an executive order - requiring an opt out - is just plain wrong.

This isn’t like whooping cough. Kids don’t just catch it by showing up at school.

And, at $350 who the hell is going to pay for it? Let parents ‘opt-in’ and do the same with medicaid, but government should be very careful about these types of mandates, especially those that come from an executive order.