Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drug Conglomerate funds campaign to impose Mandatory HPV Vaccine on Young Girls
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/2/07 | Gudrun Schultz

Posted on 02/02/2007 3:01:03 PM PST by wagglebee

UNITED STATES, February 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A nation-wide campaign to introduce mandatory vaccination against the sexually-transmitted Human Papilloma Virus for girls as young as nine is being funded by the drug company that produced the vaccine.

Gardasil, the highly-publicized vaccine recently developed to prevent HPV infections in sexually active young women, has been aggressively marketed in the US as a protection against the disease responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancer. HPV is contracted through sexual activity, with sexually promiscuous behavior greatly increasing the likelihood of infection.

The massive drug company Merck and Co. developed the vaccine. Merck is helping to fund efforts to establish state laws mandating immunization of 11 and 12 year olds, according to a report released by the Life Issues Institute Jan.31. The company has admitted to funneling money through the advocacy group Women in Government, with a membership of female state legislators. Members of the group have backed many of the state measures to introduce mandatory immunization with Gardasil.

Merck has refused to say how much money is being spent on the lobbying efforts, but reports say their budget in Texas alone has doubled to between $150,000 to $250,000.
 
The US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil in July 2006 for sale and marketing to girls as young as nine. Later that month a CDC committee voted unanimously to recommend that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the vaccine.

Legislation has been introduced in five states that would make vaccination for HPV mandatory for young girls, including Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A similar bill in Maryland is to be withdrawn, but will likely be reintroduced during the next legislative session, according to a report by the Kaiser Network.

Most of the bills would require girls to receive the immunization by age 11--some contain parental opt-out clauses that would allow parents to refuse the vaccine for their daughter by signing a document indicating they were informed on the issue.

If the state measures are ratified, the financial boon to Merck would be significant. As it stands the company stands to reach at least $1 billion in sales per year, according to estimates by drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak with WBB Securites.

Forcing the vaccine on young girls is an infringement on the rights of their parents, opponents say, and ignores the fact that HPV is a highly preventable disease largely caused by risky sexual behavior.

“Even though most states propose opt-out provisions for parents who have moral objections, the requirement intrudes on families’ privacy and it begins to chip away at parents’ authority to make moral and medical decisions for their children,” said Bradley Mattes, executive director of the Life Issues Institute. “Further, it sends a conflicting message to children whose parents advocate abstinence until marriage.

Mandating immunization sends the message to young girls that they are expected to engage in sexual activity, Mattes said.

“It appears nearly everyone discussing the issue seems to have abdicated the concept of abstinence until marriage - the best and most simple answer.”

As well, Mattes said the vaccine would undo years of effort to reduce the pregnancy and abortion rate of teenage girls by providing a “false sense of security among many girls, resulting in more teenage sex, other STDs, pregnancy and abortion.”

See Life Issues Institute report:
http://www.lifeissues.org/breakingnews.html

See report from the Kaiser Network:
http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=4...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: captaingardasil; cervicalcancer; gardasil; govwatch; healthcare; hpv; hpvvaccine; merck; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Mandating immunization sends the message to young girls that they are expected to engage in sexual activity, Mattes said.

“It appears nearly everyone discussing the issue seems to have abdicated the concept of abstinence until marriage - the best and most simple answer.”

But this interferes with the left's agenda and hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

1 posted on 02/02/2007 3:01:05 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 49th; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


2 posted on 02/02/2007 3:03:51 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think it should be up to the parents to get this for their child. The government needs to stay out of this!


3 posted on 02/02/2007 3:06:22 PM PST by proudofthesouth (Mao said that power comes at the point of a rifle; I say FREEDOM does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
being funded by the drug company that produced the vaccine.,p>Nope, no conflict of interest there. Just interested in the public well-being. /sarc.
4 posted on 02/02/2007 3:07:55 PM PST by Seņor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Here's a question...let's say a parent opts out of getting this vaccine for their child. This child grows up and contracts the disease...is the parent culpable? I mean, if there are no side effects...why not? The child doesn't have to know when she's nine years old what the vaccine is for.

Everyone hopes their daughters make the good decisions, but if they don't, does that mean they deserve to get a terrible disease that they didn't have to? I really want a debate about his.


5 posted on 02/02/2007 3:10:48 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I mean, if there are no side effects
But what if there are?
What about long term effects?
What about unintended consequences?

If the government is allowed to order this, what about the next thing that is "for your own good"?
What about parental authority?

Now... A Challenge for you.

Just try and find the drug information sheet that you get with any other drug, or immunization. The one that gives you the test information.
Remember, I'm not talking about the little "trust us" advertising pamphlet; I mean the one with all the fine print.
Ping me when you get your hands on it.

Cordially,
GE
6 posted on 02/02/2007 3:18:28 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

This drug has not been tested and followed over the long term. A friend of mine who worked STD at the CDC while this vaccine was being developed said she would not recommend it for her own daughters for that reason alone.

The drug was developed for high risk girls 11-15 who already had multiple sex partners. There was a risk/reward situation.

Do what you think is best, but what if your daughter were to develop tumors ten years from now?


7 posted on 02/02/2007 3:19:45 PM PST by ShutUpandSing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

You always decide the pros and cons when taking any medication. I don't know the ones on this vaccination. But it's a very complicated issue. As a woman who was once a young girl (sometimes it's hard to believe), I just don't think being vaccinated against a disease is going to make someone go out and have sex who wouldn't have had it anyway. That's the way I see it.


8 posted on 02/02/2007 3:21:13 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

But this is taking MORE of the responsibility AWAY from the parents. Hey, I come from a dysfunctional family. My parents weren't the best but they did make sure that I had all my shots. If this vaccine had been around 40 years ago my PARENTS would have made sure I got it - NOT the state!


9 posted on 02/02/2007 3:21:52 PM PST by proudofthesouth (Mao said that power comes at the point of a rifle; I say FREEDOM does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ShutUpandSing

That's my question...I don't know enough about this drug/vaccination.


10 posted on 02/02/2007 3:22:04 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
"If the government is allowed to order this, what about the next thing that is "for your own good"?<>/i>

Well, this isn't the FIRST time, for crying out loud. There have been other vaccinations kids have had to get or they couldn't attend school - why so much fuss over this vaccination??? And, what has been the "next thing" that was for our own good??

11 posted on 02/02/2007 3:26:27 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I'm going to put my faith in my friend. When someone from the CDC won't vaccinate their own daughters, I think I'll decline to vaccinate mine. Info on this is very sketch. I want to see long term testing on this, and then I want to see the study put out in lay terms that I can understand. And I sure as hell don't want it to come from Merck!


12 posted on 02/02/2007 3:28:05 PM PST by ShutUpandSing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I just don't think being vaccinated against a disease is going to make someone go out and have sex who wouldn't have had it anyway.
I tend to agree with you on this one. The problem with this one is you have no way to weigh the pros and cons. The information is simply not available. The ONLY thing you can get your hands on is the sales pamphlet.
This vaccine has been out only a very short time and was crammed through acceptance testing.
I have done extensive research and to the best that I can find out, it is safe. You wouldn't believe what I had to go through to get the information.
I would resist with everything I have if the government makes it mandatory - it is simply not the governments place to make me give my girls an injection - period.
If this is allowed, it is truly over, there will be no limits to what the sheeple will allow the government to do.
13 posted on 02/02/2007 3:30:35 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle

Don't children have to have mandatory vaccinations before entering school?


14 posted on 02/02/2007 3:37:37 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
There have been other vaccinations kids have had to get or they couldn't attend school
True - the government only mandated these if you attend the governments schools.
They were also diseases that you could get by just being around others.
AND... since YOU brought it up - check the statistics on how often people got polio from the oral vaccine. Somewhere around the early to mid 60's you chances of getting polio from the government reccomended vaccine were greater than if you didn't get the vaccine. Not so with the injection - but the oral vaccine was deadly.
A friend classmate of mine got polio from the vaccine.

And, what has been the "next thing" that was for our own good??
Well, for starters - this.
15 posted on 02/02/2007 3:38:17 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Don't children have to have mandatory vaccinations before entering school?
Only if you want to go to government schools.
16 posted on 02/02/2007 3:39:14 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I don't know enough about this drug/vaccination.
You will not be able to find out any information either.
17 posted on 02/02/2007 3:41:43 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Anytime the medical community gets this excited about a drug, I get the creeps. Thalidomide and RotaShield leap immediately to mind.
18 posted on 02/02/2007 3:41:51 PM PST by LongElegantLegs (...a urethral syringe used to treat syphilis with mercury.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

"I think it should be up to the parents to get this for their child. The government needs to stay out of this!"

Couldn't agree more.


19 posted on 02/02/2007 3:44:42 PM PST by nj26 (Secure Our Borders and Respect Life! Vote Hunter '08! No Rudy or McCain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
If this is allowed, it is truly over, there will be no limits to what the sheeple will allow the government to do.

The governor of Texas (a Republican) signed an E.O. today making this mandatory there, albeit with an opt-out clause for "religious or philosophical" reasons.

Drip, drip, drip....

20 posted on 02/02/2007 3:48:47 PM PST by workerbee (Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson