Mar
2007
still more on Gardasil
March 21st, 2007 at 09:10 am by wRitErsbLock in UncategorizedI think what bothers me the most about all the news stories I have watched or read about Gardasil is the wording. Generally, I hear/read, “the vaccine prevents young women from catching THE virus that causes cervical cancer.” This is very, very misleading. THE VIRUS vs. A VIRUS or even SEVERAL VIRUSES. There is no ONE virus that causes cervical cancer. (Case in point, one of the articles I link below has this title: “Texas Could Override Cancer Vaccine Order”. This is a STD vaccine, not a cancer vaccine.)
Gardasil guards against HPV, one of the viruses that can cause cervical cancer (it does not guarantee a woman will get cancer if they have HPV). HPV, in case you have forgotten because the MSM have not bothered to tell you, is a sexually transmitted disease. Genital Warts. And I’m sure it’s wonderful that there is a vaccine to prevent genital warts, and were I unwed and promiscuous, I would likely be more inclined to get this vaccine AFTER MORE TIME HAS PASSED SO THAT I’M NOT A GUINEA PIG. Because the MSM is still not reporting on the possible side effects of this vaccine.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the debate continues… (I’m inserting the entire article because I want you to read it. Emphasis my own.)
Texas lawmakers are preparing to vote on a measure that would block Gov. Rick Perry’s order requiring sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.
The House will have a final vote Wednesday before sending the measure to the state Senate.
The bill, which appears to have more than enough support to override a veto, would make the shots strictly voluntary.
Perry’s executive order has bothered conservatives who said the shot, known as Gardasil, contradicts the state’s abstinence-only sexual education policies. Other critics questioned whether the vaccine has been proven safe.
Perry’s order called for all girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated as of September 2008. Parents could refuse the shots for their daughters.
I hope the Governor is outnumbered on this one. The drug is just too new to declare all little girls need to be poisoned vaccinated before entering sixth grade. Florida has been considering passing a similar law requiring little girls to be vaccinated.
Another problem I have with Gardasil is that there is no mention of booster shots. This vaccine is only good for, if I recall correctly, five years. Let’s do some math. Let’s say we take RTY to get her Gardasil shot before she enters sixth grade, because the law requires us to do so. She will be twelve years old, which seems a bit young to require a vaccine against STDs. (I am not naive; I realize some children that young, and younger, are sexually active.) Now then, let’s move ahead five more years. RTY is seventeen, and the vaccine is no longer effective. Only, we’re negligent parental units and don’t think about the fact that RTY probably is sexually active, and we’re in denial, and are not taking her for female doctor appointments. RTY is maybe sneaking to the hell-hole free clinic that I went to when I became sexually active at nineteen. It’s a free clinic, so RTY will get free birth control pills, but will they be dolling out free $120 per shot (series of three shots = $360) of Gardasil? I doubt it. (Although, they did give me a free Rx when I contracted a curable STD, so maybe they will find a way to give free booster shots.) As uninvolved parents, are we going to remember (or did we even know in the first place?) that Gardasil only protected our daughter for five years? And now that RTY is actually sexually active, is she assuming she’s protected from HPV, and therefore engaging in riskier activities?
I can tell you from personal experience that even though I knew about STDs and all that, once I went on the pill, I stopped requiring boys to use a condom. I guarantee you I would have been even more inclined to be reckless if I thought I was immune from one of the STDs out there.
Last week, there was an article in lefty Time Magazine by Claudia Wallis, entitled, “Saying Yes to the HPV Vaccine.” Go read it, it’s not too long. (I wonder if Claudia got a free vacation from Merck out of this article?)
For me, the decision to take her [thirteen year old daughter to be vaccinated] wasn’t difficult. Gardasil, which was approved by the FDA last June, protects against four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Two are believed to cause 70% of cervical cancer, which strikes about 11,000 U.S. women a year. The other two strains cause 90% of genital warts–so the vaccine is a twofer.
Again, I do see the benefit of the vaccine. I just think it’s too soon, the drug is too new, to pass mandates that say twelve year old girls need to be vaccinated with it.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recommended Gardasil for girls at age 11 or 12, though it may be given any time from ages 9 through 26.
If I’m miffed at age twelve, can you imagine my rage when I read age nine?
To me, protecting my child from cancer outweighs any reluctance to ponder her sexual future. “But some parents are totally in denial,” says my longtime pediatrician
I am not reluctant to ponder RTY’s sexual future. But I hope we will have the type of relationship that she can talk to me about things I could never discuss with my mother. It’s tricky, though, because I am not RTY’s mother, and I have to tread lightly because the egg donor is so psycho. I am, however, reluctant to rush right out and have RTY vaccinated at such a young age. As she gets older, and as the drug has been around longer and we understand it’s effects and side effects more, I definitely see the benefit of protecting RTY from HPV.
Maybe I’m jaded because RTY is only ten years old, and we have more time before potential laws affect her.
This drug scares me. It’s too new. The side effects are SCARY SCARY SCARY. And the media, no doubt under pressure from drug lobbyists, are not providing the full story (shocking, I know).
Many parents are sheep who choose not to do any research before jumping on the latest and greatest band wagon.






Your 2¢
Thank you for the links! And, I strongly recommend parents defer this vaccine until more is known about it.
There is no harm in waiting. None.
I hadn’t known till I read your post about the need for ‘boosters’. Not that I would have gotten the shot for my daughter, anyway. This immunization is being pushed for all the wrong damn reasons. And sheeple will just go along with it.
Not this mama!
Contribute your 2¢: