Religious right in fight over cervical cancer vaccine

[alonzomourning23]

Pharmaceutical giants Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are gearing up for a bruising showdown with America's religious right after the US medicines regulator approved a new blockbuster cervical cancer vaccine last week.

Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus that most regularly causes cervical cancer, Human Papilloma- virus, may lead to sexual promiscuity. "We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government. "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."

The Food and Drug Administration's approval of Gardasil, Merck's vaccine, is likely to increase the volume of such complaints ahead of a meeting on 29 June of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The ACIP is the body that will recommend how, and if, Gardasil should be integrated in the schedule of other mandatory vaccines, such as against polio.

Glaxo filed for registration of its Cervarix vaccine in Europe in March, and expects to file in the US before the year is out. Merck expects approval in Europe later this summer.

Merck and Glaxo have been in discussions with Christian conservative groups in America to assuage their concerns. Lobbying organisations such as the FRC exercise considerable political power, and if they succeed in pushing their agenda it "certainly could have a negative impact" on the use of the vaccine, said Mike Ward, an analyst at Nomura Code Securities.

ACIP's decision will be crucial to the overall penetration of the vaccine in the US, the world's largest drug market. Merck plans to charge $360 (around £200) for the three-jab course given over six months. It estimates that in the US alone there are 32 million females between the ages of nine and 24 - the range for which the FDA approved the vaccine. This equates to $11.5bn.

Ideally, the vaccine should be given at an early age because the Human Papillomavirus it targets is the primary cause of cervical cancer and is passed through sexual contact.

The vaccine does not eliminate the virus in women who are already infected. "For a prophylactic vaccine, it should [be given] before the risk occurs," said Philipe Monteyne, head of Glaxo's vaccines unit.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article755931.ece

 

[Kayden]

You gotta love how they look out for our best interests.

 

[SpazX]

Yeah, there are some pretty ing twisted people on this planet. I'd hate to vaccinate someone against one STD so that they're more protected against cervical cancer, I mean, they wouldn't get cancer if god didn't think they deserved it, am I right?

 

[HumanSnatcher]

I wonder how many of those fundie bitches have HPV?

 

[evanft]

Concentration camps are really the only solution at this point.

 

[Kayden]

[quote name='evanft']Concentration camps are really the only solution at this point.[/quote]

Hey, they've come this far without focusing, why would they start now?

 

[RedvsBlue]

And conservative pundits try to say liberalism is a mental disorder?!?!?

 

[Trancendental]

"We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it,"

It is the government's right to force vaccinations on all, and it has had generally positive results. However it is frightening considering how much modern congress is a slave of the corporate pharmaceutical industry.

:lol: But oh those whacky xians! :lol:

They want to cure us - well I say HPV is the cure!

this is you on HPV
|
|
V

 

[RBM]

"We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government. "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'.

*******
1.) They oppose legal requirements that girls be vaccinated, or that their parents be coerced into having the girls vaccinated

Considering that the vaccine is not free (or dirt cheap,) that sentiment can be appreciated. I haven't heard any talk of Uncle Sam forking over mountains of cash to Merck or GSK to make these vaccinations free for everybody.

2.) They do not want whatever message accompanying these vaccinations to imply that they act as some sort of comprehensive protective measure against all STD's or related consequences of sexual intercourse.

Well, that is common sense. Obviously, a vaccine against HPV infection will help protect you against HPV and that's it. And equally obvious, any implication otherwise would be misleading and a big fat lie.

The FRC is not trying to block acceptance of the drug (not that political bodies aren't already in a position to shoulder their way in front of the FDA, as it suits them.) They have focused on the "message accompanying the vaccine."

I could not care less what TV ads are run or what posters and pamphlets say about it. Smear it as a vaccine which only "bad girls receive," and keep your wholesome daughters at home, for all I care. MY loved ones won't be effected by their moral values. (for now, at least. )

 

[alonzomourning23]

The point is there are many vaccines required for entrance into school, the only way out would be to get some sort of moral or religious exemption. I don't see why this is any different. They do not want this added to the list of standard vaccines kids are supposed to recieve, yet seem to have no issue with the concept of required vaccination, just with adding one that is benficial to sexually active people.

 

[RedvsBlue]

So would they oppose an HIV vaccine as well?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The point is there are many vaccines required for entrance into school, the only way out would be to get some sort of moral or religious exemption. I don't see why this is any different. They do not want this added to the list of standard vaccines kids are supposed to recieve, yet seem to have no issue with the concept of required vaccination, just with adding one that is benficial to sexually active people.[/quote]

Well, I'm saying they have a point in the same way that the ACLU defends the right to speech of the KKK without agreeing with the KKK.

Should people have the right to refuse vaccination? I don't think so, but I wonder if this is a socialist way of thinking.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']So would they oppose an HIV vaccine as well?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like it. Pretty twisted stuff.

 

[Skelah]

I wonder what the religious would say about one shot that prevents all disease?

This kind of thing should be voted on so they can stfu and lose.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='RBM']1.) They oppose legal requirements that girls be vaccinated, or that their parents be coerced into having the girls vaccinated[/quote]
Actually, what they oppose is a recommendation from the FDA that the vaccine be standard. A recommendation doesn't require that everyone be vaccinated - a recommendation means that doctors have to inform patients that the vaccination exists and that its recommended, and that most HMOs will cover it (since a lot of HMOs tie their coverage to FDA recommendations.)

So, without a recommendation, parents won't be informed by their child's doctor about the drug (meaning that they may not even know it exists. Even if they've seen ads for it, they're almost certainly not going to give it as much weight as something from their family doctor), and that a lot of HMOs may choose not to cover it. These 2 factors guarantee that vastly fewer girls will be vaccinated, and a lot of those girls will develop cancer because of that.

What the 'Family Research Council' is fighting for is, quite literally, the right to guarantee that other people's children are at risk for cancer, all for their delusion that 'good girls' are guaranteed always be safe because they're not going to until they're married. The reality, though, is that women can become infected just as easily from their husbands. They're willing to damn even the 'good girls' to be at risk for cancer for their twisted religious sexual phobias.

And I don't even want to think about what their response is going to be on the day that an HIV vaccine is finally developed. I guarantee that they're going to somehow tie that in with the 'gay agenda' ("They want to vaccinate our children against HIV so they can turn them all gay!")

 

[Trancendental]

We should just update the saying to

"Just say NO to sex with pro-lifers and anti-HPV vaccinationists"

Problem solved!

 

[mykevermin]

I've always thought modern medicine is a liberal invention, or, at least, is a device that facilitates liberal thought.

After all, if one approaches life from the vantage point that god knows all things, and decides for you or little Bobby to get tetanus, it's that horrible device of liberalism that seeks to throw god's plan of taking you up into heaven all into a ed-up state by keeping you from dying.

It's a logical slippery slope that, I imagine, is the foundation of the Christian Scientist (and an ironic name, that) philosophy. I still haven't forgiven their faith for unnecessarily killing Jim Henson, although I think that, if one appreciates the argument of the numbnuts in the OP, they shouldn't be involved with medicine in the slightest. 'Cept perhaps bloodlettings, leeches, and burnings at the stake.

 

[RBM]

Hmm...I can't tell exactly what is being proposed. How is a vaccine "legally required?" Hospitals can be charged with vaccination at birth, and schools can require vaccinations prior to accepting students. I had not focused on this practical aspect of enforcement; Alonzo points out the latter method of enforcement, and that would certainly make the most sense for an HPV vaccine, given the target age group of girls to receive the vaccine.

Drocket, your focus on a possible FDA recommendation for voluntary vaccinations in lieu of either previously mentioned method of enforced vaccination seems like it could fall within the vaguely worded boundaries in the quote I had found.

A search on FRC's website for "HPV" only turned up an old page from 2005, in which they do not explicitely describe what they oppose and what they do not (well...insofar as practical, legal precedents go...they are spirited in going on and on as to what vague, emotional movements they oppose.)

This may be a case of "lawyer-speak" in which they are refraining from clear language until they're certain where potential vaccines lie....or, they could simply be seizing upon any opportunity to preach to the masses. I dunno.

 

[Revenantae]

Hahaha I love how everything leads to sexual promiscuity. "Don't cure AIDS, for the love of Pete... they'll be boinking like bunnies if you do!!!1!11!ONE!" What happened to good parenting, and simply teaching your children to make good choices?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Revenantae']Hahaha I love how everything leads to sexual promiscuity. "Don't cure AIDS, for the love of Pete... they'll be boinking like bunnies if you do!!!1!11!ONE!" What happened to good parenting, and simply teaching your children to make good choices?[/quote]

Good point - at one time the Catholic church banned violins because they suggested the form of the female, believe me these people want to take it to the limit.