Did you miss me? I know I have been for some time. I should be back to my regularly scheduled programming now though. My fabulous husband was sick for several days so we have been away from the computer a lot more. He is a lot better & back to work today. He is not back to his usual 100% so we would appreciate any prayers for a speedy recovery. Back to the blog posts......
Took my youngest to the doctor a few days ago for an ear infection. I couldn't believe MY ears when our pediatrician of 17 years told us we should have our 12 year old vaccinated with the Cervical Cancer vaccine. What??? Did I mention she is 12? Oh my gosh.
In case you don't know much about this let me fill you in a bit. Merck had some problems and financial losses with Vioxx and more losses (you may remember that) so they came up with a NEW vaccine for CHILDREN. They should make up a lot of their financial losses on this one. Filling people with fear is certainly NOT going to hurt the size of their wallets.
How much financial help will there be? This website says the following:
Wall Street analysts have projected Gardasil sales could reach $140 million this year, $670 million next year and $1.9 billion by 2010.
One analyst, Steve Scala, of Cowen & Co. LLC, cautioned that the Gardasil sales projections may be high and said GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine still could prove to be better. Nonetheless, Scala called Gardasil a likely blockbuster drug that could provide Merck a needed boost.
(My comments below are in red.) In case you think it is just me saying this check out the following comments from CNN Money:
There might be enough good news to balance out the bad. Merck's 2006 gains have been driven by pipeline break-throughs with the cancer vaccine Gardasil and the diabetes drug Januvia, as well as a strong dividend yield of 4.2 percent, said Al Rauch, analyst for A.G. Edwards & Sons.
"We have high expectations for Gardasil," wrote Tim Anderson of Prudential Equity Group in an analyst's note, where he said vaccine sales could be fueled by routine vaccination in girls as young as 11 and 12. Anderson projects annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2010. (Follow the money!)
This is supposedly to protect girls from getting cervical cancer. Do you realize that this kind of cancer is spread through s*x? (My pediatrician must have seen the look of horror on my face. She immediately said that she felt that children should get the vaccine early so it can be building up inside of them! Oh my gosh!!! Of course, she didn't mention she wanted it to be building up inside of my daughter for when she became s*xually active in a couple of years!---did I mention she is 12? Just think of what she will say when I take my almost 17 yr. old in there. Ugh! Has abstinence been totally forgotten? )
On this website where you can get a lot of questions answered I thought this Q& A was priceless. (Do you think I am going to give this to MY daughter?)
How long does Gardasil last?
Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.
The National Cancer Institute said this.
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
I think this title on another website is amusing.
Debate rages on use of cervical cancer vaccine
While almost 100% effective, some contend use condones teen s*x (Ya think???)
This article also says the following:
Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become s*xually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus. (Watch out little boys, you are next on their list!)
"I would like to see to it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel. (Thanks a lot Juan!)
If that isn't enough for you check this out or this. Here is a short comment from the previous link.
Webmd.com also claims that Gardasil has been 100 percent effective in the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Makes one wonder about their manipulation of data when not one of the women in the study cited by Merck to gain FDA approval was ever followed long enough to determine protection, especially given the fact that most women develop cervical cancer in their late 40s and 50s—not between the ages of 11 and 26, the ages for which Gardasil is being recommended. (Seems a bit odd that they can say it is 100% effective doesn't it?)
There are SO many things wrong with all of this that I can't take the time to cover them all. On top of that anything that the government wants to make a requirement makes me pretty nervous. If there wasn't any money to be made on it would it still be something they wanted to require? I guess we will never know. Call me crazy if you like but I am not ready to sign my daughters up for being Guinea Pigs.
Took my youngest to the doctor a few days ago for an ear infection. I couldn't believe MY ears when our pediatrician of 17 years told us we should have our 12 year old vaccinated with the Cervical Cancer vaccine. What??? Did I mention she is 12? Oh my gosh.
In case you don't know much about this let me fill you in a bit. Merck had some problems and financial losses with Vioxx and more losses (you may remember that) so they came up with a NEW vaccine for CHILDREN. They should make up a lot of their financial losses on this one. Filling people with fear is certainly NOT going to hurt the size of their wallets.
How much financial help will there be? This website says the following:
Wall Street analysts have projected Gardasil sales could reach $140 million this year, $670 million next year and $1.9 billion by 2010.
One analyst, Steve Scala, of Cowen & Co. LLC, cautioned that the Gardasil sales projections may be high and said GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine still could prove to be better. Nonetheless, Scala called Gardasil a likely blockbuster drug that could provide Merck a needed boost.
(My comments below are in red.) In case you think it is just me saying this check out the following comments from CNN Money:
There might be enough good news to balance out the bad. Merck's 2006 gains have been driven by pipeline break-throughs with the cancer vaccine Gardasil and the diabetes drug Januvia, as well as a strong dividend yield of 4.2 percent, said Al Rauch, analyst for A.G. Edwards & Sons.
"We have high expectations for Gardasil," wrote Tim Anderson of Prudential Equity Group in an analyst's note, where he said vaccine sales could be fueled by routine vaccination in girls as young as 11 and 12. Anderson projects annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2010. (Follow the money!)
This is supposedly to protect girls from getting cervical cancer. Do you realize that this kind of cancer is spread through s*x? (My pediatrician must have seen the look of horror on my face. She immediately said that she felt that children should get the vaccine early so it can be building up inside of them! Oh my gosh!!! Of course, she didn't mention she wanted it to be building up inside of my daughter for when she became s*xually active in a couple of years!---did I mention she is 12? Just think of what she will say when I take my almost 17 yr. old in there. Ugh! Has abstinence been totally forgotten? )
On this website where you can get a lot of questions answered I thought this Q& A was priceless. (Do you think I am going to give this to MY daughter?)
How long does Gardasil last?
Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.
The National Cancer Institute said this.
The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer.
I think this title on another website is amusing.
Debate rages on use of cervical cancer vaccine
While almost 100% effective, some contend use condones teen s*x (Ya think???)
This article also says the following:
Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become s*xually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus. (Watch out little boys, you are next on their list!)
"I would like to see to it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel. (Thanks a lot Juan!)
If that isn't enough for you check this out or this. Here is a short comment from the previous link.
Webmd.com also claims that Gardasil has been 100 percent effective in the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Makes one wonder about their manipulation of data when not one of the women in the study cited by Merck to gain FDA approval was ever followed long enough to determine protection, especially given the fact that most women develop cervical cancer in their late 40s and 50s—not between the ages of 11 and 26, the ages for which Gardasil is being recommended. (Seems a bit odd that they can say it is 100% effective doesn't it?)
There are SO many things wrong with all of this that I can't take the time to cover them all. On top of that anything that the government wants to make a requirement makes me pretty nervous. If there wasn't any money to be made on it would it still be something they wanted to require? I guess we will never know. Call me crazy if you like but I am not ready to sign my daughters up for being Guinea Pigs.
1 comment:
Did her Dr tell you that they haven't even tested that vax on children younger than 15 years old?
Nice huh!?
The May/June issue of Mothering Magazine had an excellent article about the vax:
http://www.mothering-digital.com/mothering/20070506/?pg=51
I doubt it will become legally required. In all states parents have the right to say "no" to vax. There would be quite an uproar from no-vax parents (like myself) if they tried enforcing law like that. Plus, even those who aren't anti-vax should be alarmed because if they do that, what's next for them to force people to do?
Post a Comment