Winter weather photos
Madison vs. Waynesville
A look at WHIO Radio
Debate over HPV vaccine requirement coming here
Rep. Edna Brown, D-Toledo wants all sixth-grade girls to get the shot, which protects against a sexually transmitted virus.
Monday, February 26, 2007
COLUMBUS — Ohio may soon jump into a national debate over whether to require sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against a sexually-transmitted virus that sometimes leads to cervical cancer.
State Rep. Edna Brown, D-Toledo, plans to introduce legislation to mandate Ohio girls going into sixth grade be vaccinated against human papillomavirus.
Extras
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have introduced bills to require, fund or educate the public about the HPV vaccine, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. No bills have passed, but Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order earlier this month requiring the vaccine and the Texas Legislature responded with a bill to override that order.
The HPV vaccination is controversial for several reasons: It was approved less than a year ago; at $360 a dose, it's expensive; it guards against a sexually transmitted disease beginning with relatively young girls; and its only maker ran a quiet lobbying campaign to get states to mandate HPV vaccinations.
It recently came to light that drug maker Merck & Co. had been lobbying via Women in Government, a group of female lawmakers. Merck announced last week it would suspend that lobbying push. Brown is a member of Women in Government and learned of the HPV vaccination in the group's literature. But she said, "Merck has absolutely nothing to do with my introducing the bill. I saw it as a good issue. I see it as beneficial to female health."
Ohio has roughly 156,000 sixth-grade girls. At $360 each, the HPV vaccine would cost $56 million a year. Brown's aide, Mercy Sutyak, said private insurers, Medicaid and federal immunization plans probably would pick up the tab.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Merck's Gardasil in June. About 20 million Americans are infected by HPV, including 80 percent of women by age 50. Almost 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts cases are linked to the four strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against.
Information from the Associated Press is included in this report.
Contact this reporter at (614) 224-1624 or lbischoff@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Comments
By hmmm
March 3, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
I would say that mandating this is wrong I can only imagine what next drug they want to give people.Also this dont last very long as shot and doesnt mean you wont get hpv.Also if parents would be more stricter on their children this prob wouldnt be so bad now would it people just let their kids do whatever they want now not all parents but alot like my parents I am 18 and I am not no whore.Its pretty sorry that people are so weak they cant save it for marriage and how females have bad names now
By happy homeschooler
February 27, 2007 9:17 PM | Link to this
No one said we should ‘abandon medical science’. It is just crazy to MANDATE a ‘new’ vaccine, to possibly prevent something that is not an epidemic, when most people that contract HPV will clear it on their own. Merck themselves states, in the package insert, that the complete safety has not been tested: “GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.” What happens if we have a huge rise in #’s of girls with other cancers from this vaccine?
By Concerned Citizen
February 27, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this
Vaccines should only be required for school attendance if they mitigate some risk to students. HPV should not be transmitted at school, so this one should be left up to the parents.
By Markus
February 27, 2007 6:15 PM | Link to this
I guess our parents could have waited 20 or 30 years to see if polio vaccines were “safe,” but they didn’t.
By steelerhawk
February 27, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
No medicine of any kind is 100% safe or 100% effective. Some people, and there is often no way to tell in advance, may have an adverse reaction. This is no reason to abandon medical science. Or…maybe you just want to pray…
By happy homeschooler
February 27, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
Freedom lover- I agree with you. Having a child on the autistic spectrum has made me look at everything that goes into my children in a different light. Kids are being diagnosed with all sorts of ‘issues’ these days and I believe that at least some of the cause is all the junk being pumped into their bodies (not only through medicines, but foods also). Gardasil has aluminum in it, and aluminum has been linked to Alzheimers. And that’s just the potential problem from 1 ingredient.
By Freedom Lover
February 27, 2007 12:11 AM | Link to this
Maybe Merck would like to explain why there are so many auto-immune diseases with the rise of more and more vaccines? How about the link between autism and the DPT shot? ( although they finally removed Thimersol( mercury) from most of them). Merck also pushed their varicella ( chicken pox) on the American populace, which was derived from an aborted baby, and has not proven to have long term effectivenss. Merck’s heavy handed tactics should be a wake up call to all.
By Jim
February 26, 2007 10:59 PM | Link to this
This is just another clear example of big business controlling our government. At over $300 per shot, this is a multi million dollar contract for Merck. There’s no way this should be forced. I thought we lived in a free country.
By Larry Greenwalt
February 26, 2007 10:41 PM | Link to this
Does this drug have a chance of stopping some cancers? If so what is the argument? Would we have this debate if it stopped cancer caused by hamburgers? I doubt it! We just hate that it deals with sex. If this whole thing causes us to have uncomfortable talks with our daughters then so be it—-I would rather have that talk now then have to explain to her later that her cancer was preventable but I was too scared or too much a prude to help her when she was 12.
By former teacher
February 26, 2007 8:54 PM | Link to this
I wish people would understand the facts before they talk. HPV is a virus people. NOT a bacteria…this means it’s in your blood. It’s sexually transmitted…and even though boys are the carrier of the virus, there is NOT a way to detect it with them. There are over 100 types of this virus…NOT one. And only three or four of the 100 are cancer causing. This shot will not cure HPV, it can only help prevent it…that is help prevent against the really bad kind (the three or four)Get the shot!
By happy homeschooler
February 26, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this
Sheesh I can’t believe that some honestly think that you are endangering your child by not getting the vaccine for your child. All because the FDA approved this as safe and effective? Yeah, well, they also approved Vioxx and we all know how that turned out. What about those estrogen treatments for women going through menopause? But, of course, the FDA would never approve something unless there is 100% guarantee that it would never harm a person, right? rolls eyes
By AJ
February 26, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this
Far more many women will die from heart disease than from all types of cancer COMBINED. What are the schools and government doing to address this issue? AND why isn’t there a vaccine for males (who carry HPV and transmit it to females)? AND after vaccinating my child for rotovirus in 1998 (the vaccine was pulled off the market for safety reasons) and vaccinating my family for chickenpox (they all got chickenpox anyway)—-how do I know that this vaccine is safe or will work?
By Michelle
February 26, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Actually Kathi, the flu vaccine is an inactivated vaccine meaning it contains the killed virus. The flu vaccine that is a nasal spray contains LAIV (Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine). So the virus is part of the vaccine.
By jms
February 26, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
Don’t get or require any vaccine without being fully informed; see the front-page story which ran in The Washington Times last week at www.washtimes.com…look on the right part of the screen and input ‘hpv vaccine’ in the search box labelled ‘Long Term Archives’…click on the story titled “Cancer-virus vaccine targets wrong age group…”
By MomOf2
February 26, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this
It’s laughable to me that not allowing my daughters to be used as guinea pigs by a drug company would be seen as ‘endangering’ them. If I were to find this vaccine necessary for my daughters, I will determine that…not a drug company, school system or certainly not the government. Marketing this as a cure-all for cervical cancer when it simply might prevent an STD that causes one type of cervical cancer is as irresponsible as putting it into 6th graders before long-term studies are done.
By Kathi
February 26, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
Hey AJ You do NOT get the flu from the flu shot! No one does! They do not use the viris in any form for the shot. I believe that all girls and yes even the boys should recieve this vaccine. It is needed! Just like the mumps vaccine was needed. How many of those cases are you seeing???? It only recently has begun to pop up here and there again due to parents using the FREEDOM act to refuse it. Which by the way you can refuse this one too. But you;ll feel bad when baby girl has gotten this.
By AJ
February 26, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
Does anyone realize that vaccines normally contains weakened or dead versions of the virus that it tries to prevent? Vaccines don’t always work, and sometimes infect the person that they are trying to protect. How many people get the flu from the flu shot every year? We’re exposing children to an incurable STD to protect from a virus that has been linked to an increased risk of cervical cancer, which is detected in annual PAP tests and can be treated. Merck is scaring parents for profit.
By steelerhawk
February 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
All vaccines have their fist year on the market. The vaccines against measles, mumps, german measles, etc… And yes they are all mandated by the government. The hangup with the HPV is all related to sex. All of the people who don’t want to be told to vaccinate their daughters feel they don’t need to because their little girl will never have sex until she is married to a good boy, who of course never had sex either.
By freedom
February 26, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
FREEDOM! Oh only if your rich!! As usual a rich drug company is telling our government how to run the country!! It needs to stop! Yes HPV is a bad virus and a vaccine would be nice. But as we know this vaccine has been proven! The decision for this vaccine should be with the parent, not the government. As a consumer, I’m tired of all the new drugs…this drug will work: but the side effect is headache, bleeding, etc..are they worth it!!!
By Lyn
February 26, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Any parent who doesn’t immunize their daughters against HPV is guilty of child endangerment. This has been approved by the FDA as safe and effective. I think the concerns expressed here are more about parents being uncomfortable with their daughters becoming sexually active someday than legitimate concerns about the vaccine. Face it, even if our daughters wait until marriage, that still doesn’t protect them from HPV if their husbands already have it or cheat and get it later and pass it along.
By Sarah
February 26, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
As a young woman who will be facing a third colposcopy this week(where abnormal cervical cells are observed and tested), I can tell you that if there was a vaccine I had known about 5 or 10 years ago, I would certainly have received it. I don’t know if mandating the vaccine is the answer. It is going to cause waves of protest that could result in fewer women having access to it. And by the way, males do not get cervical cancer, but they do carry the virus and spread it unknowingly.
By Heather
February 26, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
I am the mother of a 9 year old daughter, and I myself have contracted HPV at age 15. It has caused me may problems, and I do not want her to have to go through this. As much as you try to teach your child to make the right decisions with sex, they are going to do what they decide no matter what. I am planning to keep tabs on this vaccine and will decide in time whether or not to have my daughter vaccinated. It WILL, however, be my decision NOT the schools.
By Denise
February 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
Big Brother strikes again. There is something terribly wrong about this on all ends. The drug company has too much power and money. I don’t trust them. The government is out of control to mandate that 6th graders have this shot. Where are the parental rights anymore? How many more mandates will the government pass before we all become prisoners in America?
By Lea
February 26, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
As the parent of a girl in 6th grade I will probably have her vaccinated… But not until the vaccine tests are made public and they can prove a real benefit. However I do not believe that the state should mandate a vaccine that protects against personal choice. If it were a virus communicable by airborne droplets (such as from coughing or sneezing), or be passing contact such as doorknobs, etc., it would be a real health issue and therefore a government mandate would be reasonable.
By Big Daddy
February 26, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
If each state spent 56 million annually in educating kids about the dangers of pre-marital sex they might cut down on that 80% figure. I have 2 5th grade girls and I don’t want to expose them to an unproven vaccine. I personally think that if kids are less exposed to the liberal/secular lifestyle on TV and Radio they will make better choices in a mate. There are never any certainties in life. But I certainly don’t like this being forced on my little girls. I will fight this tooth and nail
By Nicole
February 26, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
First off Sue, they are actually testing the vaccine on boys, which could slow the spread of HPV to females. So it was not exactly a dumb idea. Second, I do not believe that the state should mandate this vaccination. It should be a choice made by parents and doctors, and should involve education in addition to the vaccine. This is a relativly new drug. More tests need to be done to determine the effectiveness and safety. This drug only caters to 4 strains of HPV. HPV has THOUSANDS of strains.
By Sue
February 26, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
Chris, maybe because boys can’t get cervical cancer? DUHHHHHH
By Stephanie
February 26, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I will fight this tooth and nail! I am the mother of a 6 month old and will not have the government mandating my choices for her. If Gardasil had been around for over 5 years, I would consider it. Because by the time she reached the 6th grade, it will have only been around for 12 years. My husband and I will be the only ones making this choice for her!
By K
February 26, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Absolutely. 1 in 4 have HPV. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. At the age of 19 I was a dumb “invincible” teenager and I became infected with HPV. Almost 20 years later I live with the fear of getting cervical cancer. I had a high risk pregnancy because of leep procedures on my cervix because pre-cancerous cells had to be removed. A 6th grader doesn’t need to know all the details of an HPV vaccine but it can save their lives in the future.
By Chris
February 26, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this
Why don’t they vaccinate boys since they also get HPV? One boy can spread it to multiple females.
By tallsandi
February 26, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this
They neglected to mention that Merck got the government to give them a sweetheart deal. They hold sole rights to sell the drug AND they can not be sued if your daughter later in life gives birth to monsters or is sterile, or some other problem comes up. Even if it is proven catagorically that the drug did it, so sad to bad. It has not had what I would call thorough testing either to insure that it won’t harm. They have immunity forever.
By patti
February 26, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this
why have we become a “Push-these-drugs-society”? i will not vaccinate my daughters (age13 & 10) until this drug has a proven tract record. this type of drug should only be by choice, not force.
By tomr
February 26, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this
In addition to my other commets, if this was so good why did Merck sneak around pushing for this instead of being out in the open. They have a lot to gain if state governments require this vaccine.
By tomr
February 26, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this
This is so wrong, first for the ressons stated above. It has been on the market for less than a year, and it does not have a good track record yet. Second, no one says how this drug was tested and what was its succes rate. In an addition HPV is a virus will it protect against all of the strains of that virus?? Third, it should be the parents deciding whether or not to vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus and not a politician who read some literature on the subject.
By Gail
February 26, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this
As teacher and parent, I realize most parents do not realize that the state CANNOT force you to vaccinate your children. My kids are vaccinated, but if I had to do it all over again, I may not have vaccinated. We are often duped into things without questioning what other choices exist. If you do not want your child vaccinated,write a formal letter to the district that declares your position and allows them to waive responsibility if your child is ill from not vaccinating. It is your right.
By Dawn
February 26, 2007 7:21 AM | Link to this
As a pediatric nurse and mother of a 9 year-old daughter, I will definitely have my daughter vaccinated. Gardasil protects against HPV, a leading factor in cervical cancer. It does NOT protect against other STD’s. While I do not condone extramarital sex, why would I NOT vaccinate a child against something that could be completely preventable and provide her with the protection she will need as an adult?
By karen
February 26, 2007 7:02 AM | Link to this
I don’t think we as parents should be forced into giving our children a drug that hasn’t been on the market for even a year now. Too many of these products have been pushed by well meaning people only to find out that the side effects are worse than first thought. I don’t want to be a parent that finds out that pushing this drug on my child has caused her a severe illness 5 or 10 years down the road.
By striated
February 26, 2007 7:01 AM | Link to this
With the problems after celebrex and other drugs being rushed to market or improperly tested, why would anybody want to force a new drug on a child. Will we find out in 1, 5 or 25 years that this vaccine has a detrimental effect?