I never thought I would be so impressed with Texas. They are really leading the way here...

The AP (2/3, Peterson) reported that "by passing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer." Beginning in September 2008, "girls entering the sixth grade -- meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 -- will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus." Additionally, "Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines" and "he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21."

I suspect that they will make a lot of money particularly as they have no competition yet. I know that they have been lobbying heavily for required vaccination. GlaxoSmithKline is supposedly coming out with a vaccine in about 6 months.

Check this news about HPV vaccine in Texas.

http://vaccines.org/vacnews.htm

Jackson: Perry should admit mistake on HPV vaccine

The Governor's recent Executive Order mandating the Merck produced Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Gardasil be given to all 6th grade girls is not a new issue. Merck & Co. Inc. started their campaign to get states to mandate Gardasil use and to open the public treasury to pay for it before the vaccine was FDA approved.

Almost two years ago, while attending a National Council of State Legislators Conference for emerging legislative health leaders, I along with several legislators were taken to dinner by Merck. We were shown the television ads that have been appearing in the last few months promoting Gardasil, the vaccine for HPV. After dinner the legislators from various states were asked a series of questions. The meeting was obviously meant to promote states mandating universal use of the vaccine and picking up the cost. I told them then that I wouldn't commit to their obvious agenda.

This year, even though the Legislature is in session and bills have already been filed to meet Merck's goals of universal use with heavy tax support, Merck convinced the Governor to issue an Executive Order and bypass the legislative process. This in unfortunate.

It is in the committee hearings where needed questions would have been asked to enable legislators to make an informed decision. Such questions might include:

-Is the $360 quoted a reasonable price?

-How much will such a mandate cost in public funds?

-Will private insurance pay for this vaccine? If so, how will it affect insurance rates?

-The Chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Disease has been quoted as saying he thought it was "premature to recommend making the vaccine mandatory." The FDA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has already received 82 reports of serious adverse events following HPV vaccination. The product has been on the market less than a year. Is it proven to be safe enough to mandate?

-How large is a threat of cervical cancer in relation to other women's healthcare needs? Has the incidence been increasing or decreasing?

-How does the general public feel about such a mandate? When applied to children, should this be a state-driven decision or a parent-driven decision?

These and many more questions would be asked and answered in the public forum of a legislative committee hearing. I can only reach the conclusion that someone doesn't want to answer these questions in public which also makes me believe this issue is more about Merck and profit than about Public Health Policy.

Of 31state senators, 26 have sent the governor a letter asking him to withdraw his order. A similar letter is circulating in the House and will, no doubt, be signed by a large majority. Two House bills have been filed to reverse the governor's action. I am joint author on one and co-author on the other. The governor should just admit he made a serious mistake.

That's very interesting.

I read another article (can't find the link now) that was also of the opinion that Texas acted prematurely. This stance, however, was taken on the basis of how public opinion works. The essence of the article was this... Other vaccines like polio and varicella were not mandated until they had been on the market for years. This allowed some time to see any adverse reactions as well as allow the public to become accustomed to thinking about the vaccine in use. Since no one likes to be told what to do, Texas may have inadvertantly helped to turn public opinion against this new vaccine by mandating it so early.