This is not a vaccine for cervical cancer, it's a vaccine that targets a small range of STD viruses: 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), why is it allowed to be promoted as something it isn't. Their own advertising says this: Now they are pushing for you to pay 350.00 each for your boys to be vaccinated. Time to wise up folks. Teach your children safe sex and you can use that 350.00 for gas. P.T. Barnum used to say there was a sucker born every minute. Why not be one less? One less sucker!
That's just one example of many of how criminal the Pharmaceutical Companies have become.And of course the FDA has sunk so low that they are in bed with these drug pushers.----What about all the drugs "now" made in China for the US market.What little regulations the FDA does do, does NOT apply to China.As far as false advertising,LMAO!!!!The fact that a prescription drug is "allowed" to be advertised at all is a national disgrace.Since the word terrorist seems all the rage these days,well look at the REAL terrorists>>>>> Pharmaceutical companies rank at the top of the list.AND BTW what breakthrough or more effective treatments have they come out with in the last 15 years or so?Really NOTHING.
Gardener, I agree that the advertising is quite misleading... I think they have chosen this approach because of politics and popular perceptions of morality in our times. Do you see the problem? The HPV strains that this product vaccinates from against are the sources of most of the cervical cancers, and most genital warts. Genital warts can put a real damper on your love live, and cervical cancer kills lots of women every year. There is NO CURE for any of these viruses. (Check the wikipedia article on Gardasil for numbers about this.) Doesn't it make sense to vaccinate against something that is incurable, that can cause life-threatening conditions, and that is easily transmitted? The problem is that folks would probably never take their 9-year-olds to be vaccinated against something that is an "adult" problem, even though typical behavior for early adolescents puts them at grave risk. In my mind, the price you quote would be a bargain to protect against these possible consequences. I agree, the product is advertised in a deceptive way. IMHO this is done to help appeal to the more simple-minded and morally repressed sectors of our society. Nonetheless, if you care and have a brain, you'll probably read through the hype and make a decision that is as informed as is possible in our complex world. I agree that many prescription drugs are horribly over-sold, and pushed where they may not necessarily be needed. But in this particular case... If I had a little girl, she would definitely get the vaccine.
My doctor's office called me in the fall of 2006 saying I would be a good candidate for it - I was 39 at the time. I remember thinking "What? Is this a sales pitch? What is this vaccine?". Since I was outside of "approved" age range, insurance wouldn't cover it. I politely declined thanks to the $375 price tag and the fact the vaccine was brand new. I do not agree with some states requiring girls to get vaccinated prior to attending school. I think Texas was the first to do it, via executive order, but I think the bill was overruled. Virginia may be another, I'm not sure...
It guards against different types of HPV, including the one that can eventually lead to cervical cancer. I say it's worth it. A saved life is a saved life. Who cares if it will cost $350-$375? P.S. do your research next time, then proceed with your whining...
What about the 12 year old lives that are lost by taking it, and here in the States there's a push to make it mandatory for school age children. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07092004.html Check the date on that article September of last year, but our media is just now getting around to mention the incidence of death and paralysis reports. And read those promos more carefully they say may prevent. That's a little different than will in all cases prevent cervical cancer. I think I've done my research, I haven't just bought into hype advertising. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00287.htm I remember Vioxx a Merck product. Personally I watched two elderly relatives suffer spontaneous bleeding ulcers and eventually death from cardiac complications, because their physcians pushed a pain killer that hadn't been fully tested. But Merck made a fortune on it. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
With Vioxx the Merck people had this to say: What are they going to say about our preteen daughters dying from their One Less drug? That they died without genital warts or cervical cancer, so their drug was effective?
There is only one thing the drug companies are now interested in,its NOT your health.It's$$$$$$$$$$$. And that's a fact.And many articles(not advertisements) written about health and medications now often are written by "doctors" paid big money by the pharmaceutical industry.So you read an article by a doctor in a magazine etc.,but it might have just as well been written by the drug company.
