Page: 1 2 3
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
The words that I boldface-emphasized at the bottom of this article “say it all” as to Governor Perry’s motive for his order, which is personal financial enrichment for himself and his political cronies.
Joseph Sarandos
------------------------
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4535593.html
Feb. 7, 2007, 10:24PM
Texas gov., lawmakers in vaccine dispute
By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry's office acknowledged Wednesday that legislators hold the power to override his controversial order that schoolgirls be inoculated against the virus that causes cervical cancer, but said any solution they offer should address the disease.
Opponents of the order have argued that legislators should have heard from doctors, scientists and patients before the state implemented the requirement, and some Republican lawmakers have already filed bills to override the order.
Lawmakers are welcome to try to bar the requirement, said Perry spokesman Robert Black. Some lawmakers have said that any legislation they pass on the issue would trump the governor's order — an argument Black agreed with.
"If the Legislature feels strongly one way or another about preventing cancer in young women ... they should act on it," Black said.
Perry's order Friday required the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules requiring the Merck & Co.'s new Gardasil vaccine for girls entering the sixth grade as of September 2008. The vaccine protects girls against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that cause most cases of cervical cancer.
Conservatives say the order contradicts Texas' abstinence-only sex education policies and intrudes on families. They also balk at the $360 cost for the three-shot series and said Gardasil is too new to force on girls as young as 11 and 12.
Parents can elect to avoid the vaccine by outlining their religious or philosophical objections. But several lawmakers said they would prefer a program in which parents opt in instead of opting out.
Perry firmly defended his actions in his State of the State speech on Tuesday, saying "If I err, I will err on the side of protecting life."
State Sen. Jane Nelson asked Attorney General Greg Abbott on Wednesday for a ruling on the order's legality and guidance on legislative recourse. She did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
State Rep. Dennis Bonnen, a Republican who filed a bill to override the order, said his research backs Black's interpretation of the law.
"Sometimes you have to deal with what the rules of the game are, and in this situation it sounds like the rules of the game may not favor the executive order," he said.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws requiring the Gardasil vaccine for girls across the country, funneling money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators nationwide. Perry has ties to both.
One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director of Women in Government.
---------------------------------------------------------
|
|
2/8/2007, 10:16 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4540597.html
Feb. 9, 2007, 12:16PM
Former top Democrats back Perry's vaccination efforts
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry's effort to get young girls vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer drew praise Thursday from two prominent Democrats, former Gov. Mark White and former Attorney General Jim Mattox.
But Mattox, attorney general from 1983-91, said Perry lacked the authority to bypass the Legislature in ordering the vaccinations, a decision that sparked a firestorm from many of the Republican governor's conservative supporters and even from some moderate lawmakers.
White, who was attorney general for four years before being elected governor in 1982, declined to comment on the legality of Perry's executive order, deferring to the current attorney general, Greg Abbott, who has been asked by two lawmakers to rule on the issue.
"I applaud him (Perry) for the courage he had in issuing the order," said White, who recently underwent surgery in Houston for removal of a cancerous kidney. "It's wise for our state officials to be mindful of medical advances."
But, he added, it was "proper" for legislators to seek Abbott's opinion.
Thirty-two members of the Texas House, mostly Republicans, sent a letter to Perry on Thursday, asking him to rescind the vaccination order.
"Regardless of whether it is a wise idea to vaccinate a child to prevent a sexually transmitted virus, the legislative process is robust enough to give voice to every side of this issue and we urge you to allow the Legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation," they wrote.
Perry didn't refer to the vaccine controversy during a speech to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, Thursday. But he promoted his anti-cancer campaign, including a proposal to sell the lottery and use the proceeds to establish endowments for cancer research, education and health care.
And he invoked the name of a deceased governor with whom he often disagreed on issues.
"I happen to believe that the governor who sold the lottery plan to benefit education, Ann Richards, would look with pride upon us for what we are doing to find a cancer cure that's out there in the future," he said.
Richards, a Democrat who died of esophageal cancer last year, persuaded the Legislature and Texas voters to create the lottery in 1991.
Statewide requirement
Perry's executive order, issued last week, requires girls ages 11 and 12 who are entering sixth grade next year to be inoculated against the human papillomavirus before they can enter school. Parents who object, however, can choose not to have their daughters vaccinated.
Texas is the first state to issue such a requirement.
The governor, who has made research into finding a cure for cancer a major priority of his new term, contends the vaccine will help save lives.
But many conservatives, who make up Perry's political base, argue that requiring the vaccinations will promote promiscuity.
And some doctors say it's too early to mandate use of the vaccine, which was approved by government regulators in June.
Bills seek to overturn order
Several legislators have filed bills to overturn the order. And Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, and Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, have asked Abbott to rule on whether the governor, whose constitutional powers are limited, exceeded his authority.
An Abbott spokeswoman confirmed the opinion request had been received but otherwise declined to comment.
"There are not many things I agree with the governor on, but I applaud him for advancing the debate (on the vaccine)," Mattox said. He said he intends to have his 13-year-old daughter vaccinated.
But Mattox said he thinks Perry was "usurping the Legislature's authority to make statutory and funding decisions. To that extent, he's probably stepped beyond his authority."
Mattox said he doubts the Legislature will overturn the order.
However, he said, lawmakers could insert a provision, or "rider," in the new state budget, prohibiting a state agency from spending money to carry out the order.
Perry has asked lawmakers to appropriate $71 million in state and federal funds to cover costs of administering the vaccine, known as Gardasil. It is manufactured by Merck, which has been working across the country to get the vaccine required for school enrollment and stands to make millions.
The three-shot series costs $360.
Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer and veteran litigator of Texas constitutional issues, agreed with Mattox that Perry had exceeded his authority.
Wood said some agencies have complied with executive orders while others have ignored them.
Wood said such directives were legally binding only if they were backed by law or by appropriations set by the Legislature.
Although Perry's appointees on the Department of State Health Services' governing board may attempt to comply with the order, he predicted many local school boards won't.
"The governor doesn't have the authority to tell local school boards to do anything," said Wood, who represented 250 school districts in a recent school finance lawsuit against the state.
---------------------
|
|
2/9/2007, 4:16 pm
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
The quoted article is presented verbatim, with boldface-emphasis added by me to the points that I consider as most significant to the overall situation involving corrupt profiteering.
Joseph Sarandos
--------------------
http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/gardasil-landing.asp
Women to Women gives Gardasil guarded reviews
Questions on the long-term safety, global availability, and sexual politics of the new HPV vaccine
Gardasil targets four out of 100 human papilloma viral strains
Gardasil, the newly FDA–approved vaccine against human papilloma virus, is designed to protect women against infection by four separate strains of the virus. Over 100 strains of the HPV virus have been described, approximately 30 of which can affect the human reproductive tract. The four strains targeted by Gardasil comprise:
* #16 and #18, the two strains out of more than 20 oncogenic (cancer-causing) types that are responsible for 60–70% of cervical cancer cases;
* plus #6 and #11, two of the many other strains associated with genital warts.
Gardasil is being hailed as “one of the major health advances of the early 21st century.” As the first vaccine specifically designed to prevent cancer, Gardasil does make for an exciting start in the race to cure cervical cancer, but huge hurdles lie ahead before we cross the finish line.
How does the vaccine work?
In manufacturing Gardasil, New Jersey–based pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. utilizes DNA technology invented at the National Institutes of Health and licensed for commercial development, isolating empty shells of viral structural proteins called virus-like particles (VLP’s) to serve as the vaccine’s active agents. The way VLP’s work is by triggering the recipient’s immune system to create antibodies against these four specific viral strains, without causing a full-blown infection and subsequent development of cancer.
To be most effective, Gardasil injections must be given in three doses over a six–month period to women who have had no prior exposure to the four strains of the viruses from which it offers protection. It offers no protection from the other cervical cancer-causing HPV strains.
FDA grants blanket approval — warts and all
The data submitted to the FDA represented tests conducted on 27,000 girls and women ages 9 through 26 and boys ages 9 through 15. The makers are now lobbying to mandate vaccination for little girls, while the FDA reports that the data are insufficient to support approval for boys and that separate trials for men and boys are currently under way.
Initial reports of the vaccine’s efficacy first came in 2002 when the New England Journal of Medicine described a trial (funded by Merck) in which nearly 1200 young women (ages 16–23) were vaccinated and an equivalent number given placebo injections. After following the subjects for a median of 17 months, the researchers found the vaccine to be 100% effective: none of the vaccinated women developed either infection or precancerous changes, while 41 of the nonvaccinated women did become infected, and nine of the latter developed precancerous cervical growths.
Since then, Merck has tested the vaccine on approximately 25,000 additional males and females in 33 countries, ages 9–26 and declared the drug to be safe and 100% effective. Richard Haupt, executive director of medical affairs with Merck’s Vaccine Division, says the vaccine is most effective when given to girls as young as nine years of age, before they become sexually active. That’s because trial subjects who had already had exposure to the four strains showed higher rates of cervical neoplasia (abnormal cancer cell precursors), raising questions as to whether the vaccine impairs immune response under such circumstances, or whether there were demographic factors at play, or both.
Company hails Gardasil as “Holy Grail,” belying more sobering aspects
While the physical side effects of the vaccine itself are reported as “minor” — pain, swelling, redness, fever, and itching at the site — we can’t help but ask for more details. Every vaccine contributes to the “load” on our immune systems and shouldn’t be taken lightly. Some of the missing pieces that need careful weighing before we would recommend the HPV vaccine to our patients include the following:
* What are the various ingredients used in this vaccine? Historically, cattle, dogs, rabbits, mice, and insects have all played a role in the development of this vaccine, but which plant or animal proteins are being used as a substrate today in Gardasil production? What chemicals are used in the vaccine suspension? We’ve read that it contains aluminum; do the preservatives contain other metals, such as mercury or other potential neurotoxins?
* What are its possible interactions with medications, e.g., psychoactive drugs, antihypertensives, HRT, cholesterol-lowering agents?
* Are there any side effects seen in subsets of patients with medical conditions such as diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), seizure disorders, allergies and sensitivities (e.g., to yeast), and above all, the immunosuppressed?
* Is it really safe for preteens? The FDA has approved use of the vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26. In Merck’s trials, however, only 250 nine-year-old girls and boys were tested with Gardasil. Where did these kids come from? The other question we ask ourselves is, “Would I volunteer my nine-year-old daughter to test a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease?”
* How long will protection last? Will boosters be needed? Or worse, will elimination of just four out of over 100 viral strains create a niche for other strains to fill? Swimming in its own vast gene pool and with billions of human hosts at hand, HPV has quite a survival advantage. What will happen to the niche currently occupied by strains # 16, 18, 6 and 11, if they are eliminated through vaccination? Microorganisms enjoy an extremely short life-cycle relative to ours, giving them the evolutionary edge when it comes to developing resistance against the very drugs and vaccines (and pesticides) we employ to annihilate them.
(Article continued below)
|
|
2/11/2007, 6:18 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
We cannot exactly say the protection Gardasil affords is narrow, because the strains it targets cause an estimated 70% of cervical cancer cases and an estimated 90% of genital wart cases. Still, these figures are predictive and do not apply globally; moreover, things change fast in the microscopic world. Given the existence of at least 12 other high-risk HPV strains, could an opening arise for more virulent strains to emerge, should the vaccine succeed in decimating these particular four?
For example, there are pockets in Africa where #45 is most common, whereas it ranks third in many other geographic areas, and a 2006 study suggests there has been an increase in HPV subtype heterogeneity from 1930–2000. This is not uncommon in nature. According to studies profiling HPV types, most populations tested are complex. HPV, like the flu, can be deadly, or no big deal. But if you want to vaccinate those most vulnerable, you may need to do it again at regular intervals, as waves of variants sweep in.
* The question to ask then is, “Who really needs it?” Isn’t there a greater call for an inexpensive vaccine in developing countries than for mandating an expensive one in American school systems?
Analysts estimate annual sales could generate up to $3 billion for the pharmaceutical giant Merck through the life of the patent. At $360 per course, Gardasil is well beyond affordability for the vast majority of women who are at highest risk of developing cervical cancer — the underinsured and those in the poorest nations. The major reason behind the lower morbidity from cervical cancer in developed nations is that women here have greater — though far from perfect — access to regular gynecological exams and Pap screening, which, together with HPV DNA testing and improved treatment options, allow for early detection and interception — before cancerous cells have had time to develop. It is this combination that has dropped cervical cancer from the number–one cause of malignancy deaths in American women to eleventh overall since the introduction of the Pap test in the 1950’s.
Meanwhile, on a global scale, cervical cancer continues to rank as the number-two cancer-related cause of death in women — 80% of all cases occur in developing nations (morbidity is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America). And while most insurance carriers in the US are expected to cover the cost of vaccination in young female subscribers, and Merck plans to provide free vaccines to uninsured adults meeting low-income guidelines, there remain billions of women worldwide for whom access to the vaccine is doubtful.
According to a 2005 article in New Scientist, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, estimates that by 2050 deaths from cervical cancer could “reach a million a year in poor countries if rates of infection, and of cancer detection and treatment, do not improve.” According to their own press release, Merck is partnering with India’s Council of Medical Research to study Gardasil, and also has plans to collaborate with PATH and the Gates Foundation to facilitate introduction of Gardasil to impoverished nations. Adequate cervical screening programs can control HPV-caused cervical neoplasia, but if vaccines are more cost-effective in preventing cervical cancer than regular gyn exams and routine Pap screening — another healthcare “luxury” few women worldwide have access to — to what lengths are we prepared to go to ensure affordable global distribution of this vaccine?
* Where have all the young men gone? On another note, if our desire to protect women from cervical cancer is genuine, when would such a vaccine be ready for administration to men and, for that matter, when will boys and men be lined up to receive it? Some speculate that the reason protection is afforded against two genital wart strains by the vaccine is not simply because, as the company describes it, the presence of infection from the two strains can be a confounding factor in determining exposure to oncogenic strains, but because men worry most of all about the cosmetic impact of contracting genital warts, so having resistance to warts would lend cachet to having the vaccination.
We don’t believe any woman, anywhere, should have to suffer from cervical cancer. We have the means to prevent it, but do we have the will? Short of answers to all these questions, it appears to us that even if Gardasil does represent the beginning of an end to cervical cancer, it is a long and winding road ahead toward that end. In the meantime, we’ll stand by, ready to offer women regular gynecological screening, Pap screening, HPV DNA testing, and the intervention methods shown most effective to date in preventing cervical cancer deaths.
Original Publication Date: 06/20/2006
Last Modified: 2/9/2007
Principal Author: Marcella Sweet
-----------------------------------
-END-
|
|
2/11/2007, 6:19 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
The politicians are lying about the consumer prices for Merck’s Gardasil HPV-shots.
No, the cost-per-patient for Merck’s Gardasil is not the “$120-per-dose X 3 = $360” that is being bandied-about in the public and private debates over making these shots mandatory for young schoolgirls in many or most, if not all States.
In fact and indeed, either the parents or their insurers are being charged as much (or more) than $171.50 X 3 = $514.50, as both Merck and some of the private doctors are profiteering, over and above their combined multi-million-dollar “contributions” to politicians’ election and reelection campaign-treasuries, combined with Merck’s multi-million-dollar State-to-State lobbying pushes (thus far admittedly over $14 million).
The below-quoted article (verbatim with emphasis added) is from the independent Biologic Drug Report.
Joseph Sarandos
-----------------------
http://www.biologicdrugreport.com/News/news-020307.htm
Tension Over Biologic Reimbursement Hits Headlines With Cancer Vaccine Gardasil
The growing tension over how health insurance plans deal with the high cost of biologics has erupted into the headlines as managed care organizations battle with pediatricians and gynecologists over reimbursement for the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil.
This new vaccine, launched by Merck and Co. last June, protects recipients against 4 types of human papilloma virus, including the two types that cause most cervical cancers and the two types that cause most genital warts. The vaccine could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars annually.
While medical groups strongly recommend that girls get the vaccine before they are sexually active, Gardasil -- which is administered in three doses over a six-month period -- is the most expensive vaccine to ever come on the market. Merck charges doctors $120 per dose.
That's where the reimbursement battle starts.
Unlike most oral drugs that doctors prescribe and patients get directly from a pharmacy, biologic manufacturers sell vaccines like Gardasil -- and most other biologics that need to be either infused or injected -- directly to the doctors who administer them.
The doctors then seek reimbursement for Gardasil and other biologics from managed care organizations or Medicare through an increasingly controversial, 40-year-old payment system called "buy-and-bill."
Under this system, specialty doctors buy biologics and other high-cost infusable and injectable drugs, sometimes at a volume discount, from the manufacturer, and the difference between their cost and what they turn around and collect from managed care can be a major part of some doctors' income.
This gives specialty doctors a direct financial interest in their choice of which drug to give their patients that does not exist when doctors write a prescription for drugs taken orally that patients then get at a pharmacy.
Howard Flushman of the Health Strategies Group reported in a Sept. 2006 article entitled "The End of Buy and Bill" that the average oncologist in private practice "generates 72 percent of his or her net annual income from in-office drug administrations" -- with almost half coming from drug reimbursements.
While the effort to bring "buy-and-bill" under control -- and ultimately eliminate it -- is a fairly recent battle that has largely taken place behind the scenes, the new focus managed care is bringing on controlling excessive reimbursement costs burst into public view last week with pediatricians leading the rebellion.
The Associated Press reported that pediatricians from Arizona to New York are refusing to stock Gardasil because of "totally inadequate" reimbursement from most insurers.
Medicare, which took the first real steps toward eliminating "buy-and-bill" in 2006 by introducing a new average selling price (ASP) reimbursement schedule, now reimburses doctors 106 percent of the average selling price (ASP+6) of a biologic -- or in the case of Gardasil, $132 -- for a dose. Doctors also get an administrative fee of $18 to cover giving the injection.
Managed care organizations, for their part, have been gingerly adopting Medicare’s ASP approach while seeking to avoid angering medical practices that are part of their networks.
But the American Academy of Pediatrics insists that managed care should be paying doctors at least a 17 percent markup over what they paid for the vaccine -- or in the case of Gardasil, $140 per dose -- plus an administrative fee.
As the struggle between managed care and the pediatricians rages, the result for the moment, the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer both report, is that a number of pediatricians are not offering Gardasil to their patients.
"Doctors are drawing a line in the sand on this," Dr. Daniel Schwartz of Broadway Pediatrics Associates in Westport, NJ, told the Associated Press. "They're either not giving it or requiring a surcharge."
How this struggle between doctors and managed care will play out in the short term is as yet unclear.
The largest New Jersey health insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, has now decided to pay pediatricians $150 per dose of Gardasil -- plus a $21.50 administration fee -- while other managed care organizations continue to hold the line at ASP+6.
Only one thing seems certain. This is an early round in the effort by managed care to eliminate what Flushman terms the "unsubstantiated and irrational payments to and profits for physicians," where the margin [mark-up] on each dose of drugs administered by oncologists can run well over $100.
"Buy-and-bill is not 'untouchable'," concludes Flushman. "It's a matter of not if -- but when -- managed care organizations will eliminate this 40-year practice. Regardless of the actual time managed care takes to terminate this long used system, one must appreciate the result is a true sea change for managed care."
----------------------------------------------
|
|
2/12/2007, 4:25 pm
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
Joseph,
The Publisher and/or Editor of the Washington Post seems to be in agreement with you that this has every appearance of a financial scam for the benefit of the politicians, their relatives and their cronies, although he puts it more kindly and diplomatically than you did.
Aaron
--------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001178.html
Profit and Public Health
A useful vaccine, and a tone-deaf lobbying campaign on its behalf
Sunday, February 11, 2007; B06
THE DEBATE over requiring girls to receive a shot against a sexually transmitted virus that sometimes causes cervical cancer should be about what's in the best interests of these young women. It should not be about the interests of the maker of the vaccine. Regrettably, the two are being confused thanks to a lobbying effort undertaken across the country by Merck & Co. on behalf of its new product.
Merck makes Gardasil, the vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration as effective against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) leading to most cases of cervical cancer. Merck also, according to reports by the Associated Press and Baltimore Sun, is helping to finance efforts across the nation to persuade states to make the vaccine mandatory for all girls. It has had success in Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry (R) issued an executive order requiring the vaccine, and in Virginia, where bills have passed both houses of the General Assembly. Merck's involvement in Texas has become particularly controversial because Mr. Perry's former chief of staff now lobbies for the company and because the governor has ties to a national women's advocacy group that is active in the campaign and also receives funding from Merck. Mr. Perry's unilateral action cut the legislature, and by extension the public, out of any discussion of the issues and is likely to make public compliance with his policy more difficult.
Merck officials say that they are simply promoting policies that benefit public health: What's more benign than a vaccine able to prevent cancer? We don't disagree either about the efficacy of the vaccine, which the FDA says has been demonstrated in extensive tests, or the argument for its widespread use. There is, though, something unseemly about a company that stands to make billions of dollars driving a debate that already is sensitive because it involves young girls, sex and parental rights. Merck's commercial interests unnecessarily muddy the waters and give critics ammunition with which to attack worthwhile legislation. Indeed, in Maryland the sponsor of such a bill recently pulled the measure after reports surfaced about Merck's lobbying.
The best move Merck can now make is to back off. Happily, that's not necessary in the District, where the only role Merck has played has appropriately been to provide information in response to questions from D.C. Council members. Virginia is a different matter. Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax) and Del. Phillip A. Hamilton (R-Newport News), sponsors of bills that passed in the respective houses, are right to push for Virginia to take the lead in fighting cervical cancer. But Merck's help needlessly clouds the issue. While continuing to promote their initiative, the legislators might want to think about how they can bolster public confidence. Returning campaign contributions would be a good step.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
2/12/2007, 4:51 pm
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
Well Aaron,
It appears that more and more publishers and editors are now able to “see the forest despite the trees”.
Getting back to Texas, here’s an editorial from Lubbock Online (my emphasis added):
Gov. Perry stepped over line on HPV
LAST SUMMER, we applauded the medical breakthrough of a new vaccine specifically approved to prevent certain strains of cervical cancer. We asked, rhetorically: Who would be against that? But we also conceded some moms and dads wouldn't want their child vaccinated, as is their prerogative.
Now, Gov. Rick Perry has issued an executive order mandating that all girls in the sixth grade receive the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine beginning in the fall of 2008. This is a bad idea, and here's why:
* Gov. Perry overstepped the line by usurping a health care decision properly belonging to parents, not a paternalistic Big Brother.
* Parents must apply for their child to be exempted from taking the shot. It should be the other way around. Parents should have to apply to have their child vaccinated.
* "The effectiveness or dangers of this vaccine will not be known for at least a decade," according to Steven F. Hotze, M.D., president of both the Conservative Republicans of Harris County and the Conservative Republicans of Texas.
* Debate is raging over whether the order is driven by political cronyism and a hard-lobbying drug company's hunger for profits or is simply good public policy. Public perception favors the former.
There's no question Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, worked hard to make the Texas mandate a reality. It doubled its lobbying budget in the state, donated $6,000 to the governor's re-election campaign, and employed a former Perry chief of staff to make its case to the Legislature, reported the Associated Press.
The good public policy argument is weakened considerably when you consider Merck & Co. stands to make billions of dollars should other states follow Texas' lead.
Unless the Texas Legislature overrides the current mandate, girls entering the sixth grade in September 2008 will have to get Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine against strains of HPV.
Parents who want to apply for an exemption on religious or philosophical grounds must request an affidavit for each child. The address is:
Department of State Health Services, Immunization Branch (MC1946), 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, TX 78756.
* * *
On the Internet: Want more information? Visit the Web site of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for additional details on HPV. The address is:
www.cdc.gov/std/hpv
Click here to return to story:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/021307/edi_021307017.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
2/13/2007, 9:02 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
insider3
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
Joseph,
First I have to admit that I have no daughters or granddaughters in school, so this issue is outside of my fields of interest except as a taxpayer.
But as usual, you seem to be the first to have "seen the forest despite the trees" as you put it, and the current count of views for this topic would suggest that more than a few people have used your analysis as the basis of letter-writing campaigns to their respective legislators.
Hopefully, the resultant "public backlash" against making such programs MANDATORY (which has apparently resulted in the sort of editorials that are now emerging), will cause the legislators to give this up as a bad idea, leaving Merck to "sink or swim" on the basis of how many parents will VOLUNTEER to buy these shots for their daughters.
Good going,
Bob
|
|
2/13/2007, 9:48 am
|
Send Email to insider3
Send PM to insider3
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
quote:
insider3 wrote:
Joseph,
[Omitted]
Hopefully, the resultant "public backlash" against making such programs MANDATORY (which has apparently resulted in the sort of editorials that are now emerging), will cause the legislators to give this up as a bad idea, leaving Merck to "sink or swim" on the basis of how many parents will VOLUNTEER to buy these shots for their daughters.
Good going,
Bob
Thanks for what turns out to be a keen observation, Bob.
From my direct feedback, I can assure you that this is exactly what was and is happening, especially in Texas, but also elsewhere.
I'll be so bold as to guarantee either the withdrawal or overturning of Perry's executive order very soon.
Of course, this event will have a "chilling" effect on Merck's efforts in the other states, especially the ones in which high numbers of legislators will be up for reelection.
Joseph
|
|
2/13/2007, 1:11 pm
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
insider3
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Requiring HPV-Shots for schoolgirls is a CORRUPT FINANCIAL SCAM!
Joseph,
You said,
"I'll be so bold as to guarantee either the withdrawal or overturning of Perry's executive order very soon."
I certainly hope and believe you are right again.
The FDA has just provided some more ammunition for the dissenters and protestors against Merck's "Gardasil," by issuing an official warning against Merck's brand of Rotavirus vaccine for babies, called "Rota Tek".
The warning is on the FDA's web site, at this address:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/safety/phnrota021307.htm
Have a nice evening,
Bob
|
|
2/14/2007, 5:04 pm
|
Send Email to insider3
Send PM to insider3
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 1/7/2009, 9:34 pm
|
|
|
