Let's Use Teenage Girls As Lab Rats For a Monopoly
It Is The 100th Anniversary of Eugenics After All!
By Erick Posted in Policy — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This has been discussed a bit here, but today the Wall Street Journal is running this article (subscription required) on states requiring girls to get the HPV vaccine. What I didn't know was that the effort at the state level corresponds to Merck Pharmaceutical's lobbying efforts. Merck has a monopoly on the vaccine and the vaccine is more expensive than vaccines like the MMR shot.
From the article:
Bills being drafted in some 20 U.S. states that would make a cervical-cancer vaccine mandatory for preteen girls are sparking a backlash among parents and consumer advocates.
The bills coincide with an aggressive lobbying campaign by Merck & Co., the maker of the only such vaccine on the market. Called Gardasil, the three-shot regimen provides protection against the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that is responsible for the majority of cases of cervical cancer.
If the state bills become law, they would guarantee the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drug maker billions of dollars in annual revenue from the vaccine.
I'm not one of those unabomber types that lives in the woods and refuses to comply with mandatory vaccination laws for my children. But, let's be clear here -- this vaccine is not needed to stop a readily communicable disease like chicken pox or measles or mumps, etc. The disease in question, HPV, is spread by sexual conduct. It sometimes causes cervical cancer. And the vaccine does not even prevent all strains of HPV. Again from the article:
Read on . . .
Merck says cervical cancer is the second-leading cancer among women around the world, but the disease's prevalence is actually low in the U.S. The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,150 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,670 will die from it in the U.S. this year. That's equivalent to 0.77% of cancers diagnosed in the U.S. and 0.65% of U.S. cancer deaths each year. By comparison, the society estimates that 178,480 American women will get diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 and 40,460 will die from it.
I think a responsible parent might want to get the vaccine for their daughter. But I don't think it is sound public policy to be forcing the profit stream of a pharmaceutical company onto an unwilling public when the company has a monopoly on the drug and seems clearly to be behind the efforts to get these laws passed.
Lastly, the drug just came out. Do we really want to forcibly treat school girls as guinea pigs for Merck when the majority of them probably will never even need the vaccine or get the disease the vaccine hopes to prevent? And Merck does not even know if booster shots will be needed later in life. The drug is that new. In fact, it hasn't even been fully tested on children and doesn't wipe out all strains of HPV, and the risk of pelvic disease has doubled in those who have had the vaccine. Oh, and boys aren't getting the vaccine despite the fact that they also can contract the virus.
This gives me the creeps. With the 100th anniversary of eugenics being remembered in the country, it just gives me the creeps that we might be forcing teenagers to serve as guinea pigs for a new drug held monopolistically by Merck that probably is not needed for most of them -- but we're doing it for the children.
Sure, it sounds good. It sounds like an excellent idea. But the lobbying by Merck behind the proposal and the fact that the drug is so new and prevents a virus that is not nearly as communicably infectious as standard mandatory vaccines gives me pause. No doubt we might all decide that this is sound public policy. But why rush into with the lobbyists pushing for it when we can, right now, educate parents and let them decide.
« Upset About The World Food Crisis? — Comments (3) | The Global Warming Kooks — Comments (94) »
Let's Use Teenage Girls As Lab Rats For a Monopoly 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Bah, there's ALWAYS such speculation about Repubicans. The job of the press is to bash Republicans, after all.
Run like Reagan!
right wing radio. the thing to remember is that Perry is a republican, but no true conservative.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
With all the legal brouhaha over vaccines, mercury, and autism - and given the known data on side effects already, we are guaranteeing multibillion-dollars law suits in the future (from which Merck will have immunity, but not the taxpayer).
But worse is the arrogant disregard for the health interests of the purported beneficiaries of these shots and the iatrogenic pain and injuries they're going to suffer - and all this for benefits that may never happen (not to mention that there will never be any way to figure out whether the vaccine prevented anyone from getting cancer).
The cost of lost trust - incalculable.
HPV is sexually transmitted. In order to actually, fully eradicate HPV within a few generations you would have to vaccinate all the young boys who become carriers as well. As I understand it the vaccine is not being tested and there are no plans to test it or modify it for males. The reason this is not being explored, is because there would be no benefit to the male carriers of the disease. Currently it is believed that HPV is harmless to males. Using their own reasoning, and if we are to take their, argument for mandated testing at face value, why would they not make it law to vaccinate the male carriers as well?
A responsible parent may get their daughter vaccinated to reduce her risk of cervical cancer. Would a responsible parent administer a new vaccine on their son it that son who would get no benefit from it?
If they are going to use government force against us, why stop at girls? Why not force all the boys to get a vaccine too?
Maybe eradicating HPV quickly is not actually their intent? Black helicopters aside, this raises some interesting questions.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
is only effective against a few strains of HPV and not even effective against all the strains linked to cancer. So, in reality, is a relatively short period of time the vaccine will be pretty much useless.
witch is why, if their motivation is to be believed, they would need to vaccinate both sexes categorically, and over a short period of time for it to achieve maximum effectiveness. Just vaccinating girls would be far less effective, and all of it leaves the probability of mutation left dangling.
It is a massive step to legally force people to do something that is considered healthy, even if the science is very sound. There are intrinsic questions it raises that must be dealt with, and in my opinion it is very authoritarian, very anti-American, very anti-freedom, and no matter how good the benefits seem it sets a horrible precedent, and assumes the American people are too stupid to think for themselves.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
HPV can be transferred from female to male, male to female, male to male, and female to female. Still vaccinating only girls makes sense because it would stop women (who are the major sufferers , some believe that HPV causes penile cancer if so, it is still rare) from getting cancer at half the cost of vaccinating the whole population. It costs dollars to save lives so when health care dollars are wasted, lives are lost.
Currently the only disease that has been completely eradicated is smallpox. As long as there is immigration and travel, these diseases are only virtually eliminated (although they may be so rare as to be virtually unheard of). Polio may soon be eradicated but there are always a few cases each year in a handful of countries.
My analysis continues here: http://www.michiganconservative.com/reagan/viewtopic.php?t=735
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
-Attributed to Yogi Berra
the government has no business -- i.e., neither constitutional nor moral authority -- forcing parents to vaccinate their children against the viruses that can cause STDs. I will strenuously oppose any such requirement in my state.
I would caution, however, against underestimating the enormous utility of this HPV vaccine.
Erick correctly points out that the vaccine "does not even prevent all strains of HPV." My response is, so what?? We should be relieved that a vaccine has been invented that often prevents infection by ANY strains of HPV.
The vaccine protects against infection from four strains of HPV. Two of these strains, HPV-16 and HPV-18, account for about SEVENTY percent of cervical cancers. The other two strains covered by the vaccine, HPV- 6 and HPV-11, account for about 90% of genital warts. See http://www.webmd.com/content/article/123/115099.htm.
I'll wait and see what kind of track record the vaccine shows in widespread real-world use, i.e., efficacy and side effects.
But barring a surprising development, it could be something worthwhile for tens of millions of women -- BEFORE they're sexually active, to greatly improve their odds of avoiding infection by those HPV strains later.
The vaccine is currently only for women, but it's in clinical trials for men. We should hope that it proves effective & safe for men as well.
and he said they were not testing it on males...
You could be right though. In that case my earlier comments are even more important, because this raises an even uglier specter of use of force against us.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
that we haven't tested the vaccine in children though we do know that children have markedly different reactions to vaccines from adults.
The fact that the vaccine protects against four strains that seem to cause 70% of the cases of cervical cancer does not imply that we will reduce cervical cancer by 70%. What the vaccine will do is eradicate those strains but we don't know what, if any, effect it will have on instances of cancer.
Most shots require booster shots, we don't know if the HPV vaccine requires a booster. By giving these shots to young girl does not mean they will have the immunity when they become sexually active, it could very well mean they will become sexually active after the vaccine has expired.
Regardless of the efficacy of the vaccine, we have historically vaccinated kids against contagious diseases (mumps, measels, etc). We've only recently started requiring vaccines against notional risks (like hepatitis B). One has to question whether a parent can really give informed consent for such a vaccine if there are penalties attached to refusing consent, like losing custody of your child.
it's been approved by the FDA, so i would think the "lab rat" portion of its existence is well behind it.
also, what are the ties to eugenics? eugenics was about selectively breeding people like we were dogs... i don't get the connection you're making
out of procreation, and left it up to the government to decide who a person would breed with to produce the best offspring. As is common in this world, the science is solid, and the results are immoral, inhuman, and diametrically opposed to freedom and inalienable rights. Just because something is scientifically provable, or science has created a capability, does not mean that we must embrace it, or we should be forced to embrace it.
That is the clear connection.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
From what I have read elsewhere, there hasnt been any testing on 11-12 year old girls, which is when some want to give the vaccines. I forget if all the testing was 18-26 or 16-26, but no where as young as they are talking about.
That said, I still think it may be a good idea, but since I dont have any children yet, Ive got a few years to let others guinea pig it.
Without question, this shouldn't be available or mandated until we know that it's been thoroughly tested and is completely safe. But that's not the argument that's being made.
Here's the way I see it:
If this is safe and effective, it's a way to prevent catching an eventually deadly disease. Just because that disease gets transmitted through sexual contact rather than through the air, there is an organized movement against the vaccine. Parents can do their best to raise their kids not to have sex until marriage, but even once they get married, what if they get married to someone carrying the HPV virus? Or what if they get raped by someone carrying the HPV virus?
It just seems like smart policy to protect our kids in every way possible. That's what we'd be doing if these vaccinations prove to be safe and effective.
Why do liberals feel the need to lump the two together? The two options, according to you, seem to be 1) available and required by law or 2) unavailable. How about 3) available and not mandated?
it's a way to prevent catching an eventually deadly disease
One that families should have the option of choosing.
It just seems like smart policy to protect our kids in every way possible.
I'm not sure what is so smart about government taking over the roles of the parents. It seems like smart policy to let those most affected by the decision (the family) make the decision for themselves. It seems like smart policy for the government to not force people to do x unless x is essential and there is absolutely no alternative to resorting to force.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
the vaccine was not tested on younger boys and girls. IIRC the lowest age in the clinical trial was 18. The vaccine is being proposed for use in girls as young as 9.
So, no, the lab rat part has not been dispensed with.
Here:
"Two studies were also performed to measure the immune response to the vaccine among younger females aged 9-15 years. Their immune response was as good as that found in 16-26 year olds, indicating that the vaccine should have similar effectiveness when used in the 9-15 year age group."
Here:
Merck has tested Gardasil's safety and immune response in 9- to 15-year-old boys and found that they have a slightly better immune response than girls and women, Barr says. "What we don't know yet is whether the vaccine will protect against infection and disease caused by HPV in young men," he says. To answer that question, Merck is conducting a clinical trial in men as old as 26 and expects to complete it in 2008, Barr says.
Government officials caving in to big industry? Gee, what a surprise.
But what can we do? This seems to be one of those issues on which both parties seem to agree on (and it's pretty obvious why), so really, what are our options?
But what can we do? This seems to be one of those issues on which both parties seem to agree on (and it's pretty obvious why), so really, what are our options?
In Texas at least this executive order only applies to girls attending public schools so one choice is to send your child to a private school or homeschool (which is a private school in Texas).
There is also an affidavit that can be signed to exempt students from vaccinations. If a rash of these afficavits where suddenly signed it might send a message.
Of course you can always write your congressman/governor.
I don't think any vaccines should be mandatory. It should be the parent's call whether the vaccine should be administered. Not the government's.
A few people are always going to be injured or killed by vaccines. That's fine when it's just risk factor that the patient can weigh when deciding whether to get the vaccine. That isn't fine when the vaccine is being forced on the patient whether he wants it or not.
I have the same problem with air bag mandates. Air bags, on balance, save lots of lives. But they have also killed and injured people since they were mandated by the government. Those people weren't allowed weigh the potential risk to themselves based on their specific build and their driving habits. They were simply told they were going to have one whether they liked it or not.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
attendance-I think some deseases are dangerous enough that vaccinating them around people who easily pass them to each other is probably a wise idea.
I just don't think they should be required for things that kids aren't going to be likely to pass around or catch at school.
But one that should be left to the parents. 95% of the kids are going to get the MMR anyway. The 5% are at a much lower risk of contracting measles simply because of the 95% that has chosen to vaccinate. And the 95%'s risk of contracting the disease is not significantly higher thanks to the 5% vaccinated population. I don't see a problem there that calls for the use of force.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
age group to get the vaccine, I am very leery of it being mandatory.
At this moment in time I am reluctant to get it for my daughters, mostly because of safety concerns. Some problems with vaccines and medications don't show up until they hit the market-there was a rotovirus put on the market, when my son was an infant that was taken off within few months.
I also don't see why the vaccine should be made mandatory for teenage girls, unlike other vaccines that are mandatory for school that prevent deseases that are caught in ways a typical student could catch it from another student, HVP is something you catch through sexual contact, and sexual contact isn't part of the school curriculum as far as I know.
Promoting it, encouraging it, providing information on it etc may be in order, but I don't think preteen girls should have to get it in order to attend school.
... the objections to this program come in several flavors:
1) This vaccine shouldn't be mandatory because it only works against some strains of the virus. As it happens, it doesn't prevent mad cow disease either, but I think that's not a valid argument for not having a mandatory vaccination program.
2) This vaccine shouldn't be mandatory because all the profits are going to one company. Since when are Red State readers anti-profit and anti-intellectual property rights?
3) This vaccine shouldn't be mandatory, because it prevents a cancer that is spread by sexual contact. Do people who have sex deserve to get cancer?
It seems to me, there is only one reason not to have your daughter vaccinated - that as this is a new vaccine, there are still possibly rare side effects that haven't been seen yet. Someone brought up the rotavirus vaccine - it has a side-effect in about one in one hundred thousand people that wasn't noticed until after it went commercial (because quite frankly, you can't test on one hundred thousand people - the only way to get that many people involved with a new drug is to go commercial). For the rotavirus vaccine, the side-effect (intussussception) was nasty. This is a valid reason to question if this vaccine should be mandatory yet.
The sad issue here is that people think it should be mandatory at all. That is, there's enough evidence that parents would think the 3 reasons I've outlined above are important enough to deny this vaccine to their children.
for me.
I am not convinced that the drug/vaccine is safe for use in pre-teen girls.
Therefore, let parent decide whether they want to get their children vaccinated, not the government.
Also, nobody deserves to get any STD, but they also don't deserve to have their health possibly compromised by a vaccine that wasn't tested in preteens and teenagers. Let parents decide whether they want to assume that risk for their children, without having their childrens educations threatened (granted at this point somebody might chime in with homeschool, but that is another debate).
And last-unlike the various deseases that government mandates, the only way to catch HPV is through sexual contact. Other deseases are airborn or transfered from person to person through cross contamination with the hands to things/their hands. Schools can't prevent this kind of transfer, but they sure as heck better be preventing sexual relations while at school (what happens outside of school is up to the parent, but my opinion is a vaccine shouldn't be mandated unless it is a desease a school can't easily prevent against or could cause an epidemic if somebody gets it).
IE vaccines for whooping cough, meningitis or measles would be a good idea, because all of these can be deadly and easily passed from one child to another.
my view is that there is no public health reason for this vaccine to be mandated. Where the standard battery of childhood immunizations are against diseases which are easily spread, cervical cancer is not a childhood disease. By making the vaccine mandatory for school attendance, as is being proposed in several states, a parent can no longer give informed consent. This is simply medically unethical and morally wrong.
But to your points
1. It only works against a few strains of HPV. This means we will increase the prevalence of the strains which are not affected by the vaccine so in the long run this is an expensive boondoggle which evolutionary biology will overwhelm.
2. We are against a company creating a market for their drug by presuading state governments to mandate the vaccination of children, with or without parental consent, for an disease they cannot acquire in school through casual contact.
3. The vaccine should not be mandatory because of (2) above and because informed consent cannot be given under duress.
Actually reading the posts might have helped you understand, though. I guess I missed the part where it was proclaimed that people who have sex deserve cancer. They must've used code words for that one.
The sad issue here is that people think it should be mandatory at all.
Apparently you think it should be mandated... and yes, that is pretty sad. But hardly surprising. Liberals do love to wield state power.
That is, there's enough evidence that parents would think the 3 reasons I've outlined above are important enough to deny this vaccine to their children.
Yes, or all the parents that think the vaccine is part of some kind of mind control plot by the Romulans. There's enough evidence of that here as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't know what anyone else thinks, but having a vaccine to prevent the deaths equvilant of a WTC attack every year seems like something we should use. And 3600 saved lives is really an underestimate, since HPV is also the cause of about half the throat and oral cancers, among both men and women.
The chickenpox vaccine prevents about 100 deaths a year, and no one complains about taking it.
The HPV vacine will prevent >3000 deaths each year and people complain that HPV has a low prevalence? Chicken pox is much more contagious, but in the current world HPV is very contagious too: By senior year in college >65% of all women will be HPV positive and at risk for cervical and other cancers.
"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
I guess I missed the part where this was about the vaccine needing to be banned.
Lots of deaths could be prevented by mandating all kinds of things. Think about how many deaths could be prevented by installing cameras in every room of everyone's homes and monitoring them to make sure they eat right and practice safe sex. Or installing GPS tracking devices (with remote shutdown) in cars to make sure they obey every traffic law. We could buy a lot of safety with government intrusion.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
A difference could be that this isnt a choice made by the teens, but by parents. Setting aside this particular vaccine, due to its uncertainties and its controversy stemming from the method HPV is spread.
If there is a "perfect" (forgive me) vaccine which prevents a major virus that kills thousands, some parents will still choose not to have their child vaccinated. Is it right that many children will die because of their parents bad decision? Without doubt a slippery slope could be found here as well, that I realize; but the question remains..
Hey, I dont even know exactly where I stand on this, just voicing why I can go back and forth.
This is no different in that respect. They have no say in most medical decisions. They cannot enter contracts. They don't have anything to say about where they live or what school they go to. Now, the state could step in and make all these decisions, any of which could certainly have a major impact on a kid's life... but I have no interest in that intrusive and controlling of a state, myself.
If you want to change the age of majority from 18 to 16 or 14 or 8, that is a completely different argument. You aren't talking about empowering 14 year olds to decide for themselves, in this case, you are talking about empowering the state to decide for them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If a parent chooses to deny medical treatment for a terminally ill child, the state will step in and provide treatment for the child contrary to the wishes of the parent. Think blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses (I think they're the ones that don't like blood transfusions, but it could be a different one). The rationale is that an adult has the right to martyr themselves, but they're not allowed to martyr their child.
The state also forces parents to put their children in child seats. Does personal liberty suffer that we force parents to buy a product that will keep their child from being plastered all over the highway in a car accident (but that doesn't have 100% reliability...).
I'm not saying the state doesn't already have too much power, I am saying I'm not in favor of expanding it further. I'm not in favor of nanny state laws like helmet laws, seat belts, child seats, etc.
As far as denying medical treatment goes... at some point you have to draw a line, obviously. If somebody is beating their kid or forcing them to turn tricks or giving them crack to smoke, the state has to step in and take over. We just wouldn't draw that line in the same place... you are much more comfortable with the state exerting control over people's personal lives than I am. No big surprise... as I've said, liberals fundamentally don't seem to have any problem with that. I do.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that later on have turned out to be not so glorious.
Baycol, Bextra, Celebrex, Dexatrim, Fen Phen, Ephedra, Lotronex, Paxil, Redux, Pondimin, Propulsid, Avandia, Vioxx, to name a few are/were all approved drugs involved in class action lawsuits for various reasons. Some caused profound damage to many while others negatively affected small percentages of people but were still left available without proper warnings for too long and became simply targets for the trial lawyers like the channeling John Edwards.
Can you imagine if Vioxx had been mandated? Not a good idea even though for many, it worked wonders.
I have a daughter, 16, and my wife and I have talked about the pro's and cons of this. We are both in agreement that the negatives are too high a factor. Mind you my wife is a pediatric RN in one of the leading research hospitals in the country, so she gets good information. She was told, don't bother, it's stupid, just look at the numbers. Meaning that the number of cases are so small as a percentage of population compared to other things like a serious auto accident or being shot.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg
I personally have some experience with a medication that is FDA approved but is under attack by trial lawyers. The medication is one of those double edged swords, some people die spontaneously from it and others do not. Thus far I'm in the "no not" category, but without it I would not have any life whatsoever, so I'm willing to take that chance because life is that precious to me.
I can attest though, that those blood suckers, the trial lawyers, have contributed greatly to the cost of the ongoing medication that is the only thing, I believe, that enables me to chose to live another day. The financial cost is huge and I know that in no small way the trial lawyers play a part.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Fascinating issue, generally I'd immediately oppose any government-mandated program that coerces people like the one proposed in Texas. On the other hand, I find myself struggling to come up a sufficient reason why I would oppose this specific vaccine but still accept the others that have been ongoing for years. One figure I looked up said, for example, the rate of death for measles in developed countries is only 1 in one thousand. Mumps fatality sounded quite rare. Why are we still mandating vaccinating for them - or at least, why if we object to the HPV virus on the basis that it combats something for which death is unlikely, do we not now make the same argument for discontinuing coerced Mumps and Measles vaccination? There is a risk from both for subsequent problems that arise as a consequence of being infected, but then the argument parallels that being made for HPV and the subsequent risk of cancer after infection.
One would think with all available facts presented to parents that they could be allowed to make the decision about vaccination themselves, without coercion. It would be interesting to know how many would opt out of current standard vaccinations given the opportunity. Should they not be given that choice?
If we vaccinate for Mumps and Measles at around 12-18 months of age, yet recognize that the time of likely infection doesn't occur until the child is a few or several years older, again, how is that any different in principle from vaccinating for HPV at 11 or 12 when the time of likely infection may not be for a few or several years later?
I have no problem with Merck. They fulfilled all the regulations enacted by the FDA, and they're doing nothing unethical from a business standpoint in attempting to work the market to their advantage - working the State governor angle isn't illegal. I question the government's role in this but struggle to envision a consistent position on vaccinations in general, since I don't yet see a compelling argument for why Gardasil is significantly different from other vaccines. It would be interesting to understand the trials that vaccinations for mumps, chickenpox, etc went through - were they more thorough than Gardasil? Were standards higher or lower for those vaccinations? Are we being consistent in our expectations for drug approval, or do we assert that the FDA needs to enact more regulatory oversight and raise the standards beyond whatever they are today for the scope and timespan of clinical trials - for all new drugs and treatments?
All very interesting stuff, thanks.
I would draw the distinction in a few different ways.
First, exposure to mumps is not voluntary and mumps are easily spread. Mumps can cause hearing difficulties in children and a woman in the first trimester of pregnancy has a very high chance of miscarraige if she gets mumps... most likely brought home from school by a child. Though you do make a good point, why don't we require annual vaccination of children for flu because it is also spread casually and schoolchildren are very logical vectors for the disease.
Comparing it to measels and chickenpox really isn't that accurate as both these diseases have devastating effects on pregnant women and 1/1000 measles cases develops into menigitis or encephalitis.
HPV is not spread casually, or at least as most of us would understand the word, and even HPV infection ≠ cervical cancer. So why make it mandatory in pre-pubescent children? Why not make it an elective vaccine targeted at teens?
and in 10 years everyone will wonder why there is such a high infertility rate. Parents SHOULD be worried that a large drug company wants to inject their children with their chemicals.
How much long term (10 / 20 year) testing has gone into this? Has the last 30 years taught us nothing? How many other drugs were deemed "safe" initially, only to find out 10, 15, 20 years (or even longer) that it wasn't safe.
This is just downright evil - there I've called it out for what it is. Can't you sense it? They don't want you to decided for yourselves so they use fear to try to force this on your children and THAT is not of the Lord, so it must not be good.
Real big by Governor Rick "Highway to Tampico" Perry. There is a lot of speculation as to his ties to the pharma industry since no one else seems to think this is important.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle