Sorry that your acuteness isn’t cuter. Sorry that I don’t trust Big pharma for test results they DON’T HAVE.

*One* dose protects for five years. It’s a three-dose series. After the third dose, the protection lasts longer than they’ve been able to test for it. That’s called the “boosting effect”. If you’re going to be deliberately obtuse, do it less obviously, ‘k?

The state mandate for the vaccine, as has been previously noted ad nauseum, is to force scumbag insurers to pay for it. Find another revenue source, or pass some tough laws regulating medical insurers, and we won’t have a problem with mandating the vaccine.

Does Cancer.org have a right wing bent too? I KNOW Merck does.

So- If my daughters have sex between the age of 12-17 it will protect them from 1/5 of the HPV out there. This new drug has only been tested on a limited # of women, and the results are only 4 years old. And after age 18, the drug is useless. It has no duration beyond this point.

So, you want to make your daughters take an experimental drug that only protects them until they are 17? Uh. No thanks. I’ll pass. But if Perry gets his way, I WON”T BE ABLE TO. You cannot register your kids for school if they don’t have their vaccinnations in Texas.

This drug is no panacea. It’s possible risks FAR outweigh preventing my daughters from getting HPV in the time frame of 12 to 17 years of age.

And you know what? If more information comes out, I can change my mind and allow them to get the vaccine. I like it better that way than being forced to use my daughters as guinea pigs for a drug that hasn’t been fully tested, in my opinion.

I agree with you 100%. I’m glad my daughter is getting her series.

I never underestimate the effort by conservative christians to generate (deceptively named) pseudo-authority organizations. Just look at The Discovery Institute. Wish I could call that irony, but they chose that word for a very propagandistic reason.

Fortunately, I left that belief system years ago.

Sorry, Fade, you been played.

I’m no fan of Merck, and they’re definitely tryin’ to get paid on this one, but here’s the problem: unless the vaccine is required, the scumbag parasite insurance companies won’t cover it. That’s when that $360 rears its head. Now everybody’s hosed.

It’s not required of boys–yet. The plan is to finish the studies on boys, then approve it for them, as well. Once approved for use…

Human papilloma virus is nastier than polio–it causes cervical cancer, which is one of the leading causes of cancer death among women. Let me repeat that: this vaccine would effectively prevent a major cause of cancer deaths in women.

Dakota Voice references an opinion by the American College of Pediatrics. I’ve never heard of them; I’m a Fellow of the American *Academy* of Pediatrics, which supports the use of this vaccine. You could look it up at aap.org.

As a pediatrician, I would recommend that your two Texan daughters get this immunization once they’re older than nine years of age. Of course, you’re the parent; do as thou wilt.

I’ve no love for Rick Perry, nor for forcing people into things, but I do think that this vaccine is a very good idea, and I do know that the disgusting fucks that run insurance companies won’t pay for it unless it’s compulsory.

http://houserisingsons.blogspot.com/2007/02/gov-perry-issues-special-vaccination.html

There’s a lot to this story- and Perry isn’t some unsung hero trying to save little girls.

The 2006 elections showed some promise in moving things in the right (left) direction, but it will be a long time before these Jeebus creeps loosen their stranglehold. How about some love for those of us who slog it out down here with these backwards ass morons?

Yes, as well as toothbrushes, razor blades, and bites. My point was not to call into question the wisdom of the required Hepatitis B vaccine, but rather to note that for those moralizing Texans, in and out of the legislature, who oppose the required HPV vaccine because of their assumption about the message or messages it would send regarding girls’ sexual activity, there already exists a law on the books that could be taken as reflecting a similar assumption about children’s potential involvement in this and another disreputable activity (intravenous drug use).

“Paging preview button!”

Yeah, and now the poor kid that’s got the hepatootis has got a one-in-three chance of hepatocellular carcinoma, if I remember my stats right from med school. Nothin’ like cancer to keep those with religious convictions happy…

Also a recent case of dental-to-dental pt. transmission through, as far as they can gather, SURFACES (chair, table). I understand it is viable for a considerable length of time (for viruses) under ambient conditions.

anangryoldbroad

I agree. What really irks me is the “religious convictions” exemption which allows non-immunized students into schools (at least in this state). Consequence: at this university, only last week, three cases of the measels. Source: student who had traveled abroad was also someone who had not received an MMR…for religious reasons. (Don’t know what the deal was with the other two).