Gardasil and the systematic destruction of Michele Bachmann

As the election season draws closer, there is a lot of media attention on Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann - namely a systematic destruction of her career a la Sarah Palin - because of Bachmann's views on the controversial HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Many were not happy when Texas governor Rick Perry voted to push through legislation that would make it mandatory for the vaccine to be administered to Texas school kids. Some, including Bachmann, criticized him for being 'sold out' by the vaccine's manufacturer for the tidy sum of $5,000. Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. I think he was just drinking the Kool-Aid prepared for him by Merck - the same crap doctors, nurses, and just about everyone else feeds to us when it comes to making informed decisions for our kids.

The other day I decided to flip on the TV and watch a little Fox News, only to see a group discussing Bachmann and her 'radical' views on Gardasil on Greg Gutfeld's segment. One contributor said she couldn't understand what the big deal was and called the vaccine a "wonder drug for women," and made a reference to schools requiring vaccines anyway - so what's the big deal about this one?

During a news break just a few hours before, the news anchor made Bachmann sound like a complete moron for daring to question "science." Everyone is trying to make her look as pathetic and idiotic as they did Sarah Palin, nitpicking and ridiculing at every turn.

She's the candidate everyone loves to hate - and no one wants to admit that they agree with. Dr. Manny Alverez, a Fox News contributor, stated his piece on their website that he has to 'side with Governor Perry' on this one, but doesn't agree that it should be mandated by the government. He also goes on to say that it isn't 100 percent effective at preventing or treating all strains, and thinks Perry made the wrong move by endorsing it. Well then, it doesn't sound like you are siding with Perry at all, does it? Did I read that correctly?

He latches on to her claim that a parent told her it caused her child's mental retardation after she received the vaccine. True or not, he isn't making any mention whatsoever of the potential side effects of this or any other vaccine, a completely legitimate argument not to vaccinate. Bachmann never said she personally made the claim, only related the story of someone else that did - and Merck immediately, unsurprisingly, went on the defensive.

Basically what I have noticed is that they are completely ignoring the issues surrounding Gardasil - whether they're political, philosophical, medical or spiritual - and ganging up on her to destroy her credibility and her reputation. No one mentions anything about side effects or potential complications, or that it ideally should be administered to children as young as nine years old.

Apparently Perry's legislation did include an opt out* for parents, but that also seems to be publicized little. Some argue that bureaucratic red tape could make it difficult or virtually impossible to refuse, combined with pressure from districts to go ahead with it. The word 'mandate' implies that parents don't have a choice when really they do, but I bet Merck and others involved want you to think you don't - sort of the "if you can't beat 'em, you might as well join 'em" approach.

What everyone except Bachmann seems to be missing is the idea that yes, this threatens personal liberty - that of the child in question and that child's parents. The state, to some extent, does intervene in our lives, in the sense that we would be arrested if we were doing our children bodily harm. Unfortunately to some, not vaccinating your child constitutes as 'bodily harm.' Where do you draw the line?

As a result, the State of California is giving children as young as 12 years old the power of informed consent to be given Gardasil, without their parents' knowledge. Groups that support the legislation include the ACLU, ACOG, and Planned Parenthood, and opposition is considered "largely faith-based." (I find it laughable that the ACLU, of all organizations, is basically saying only the rights of certain people - in this case, not the parents - count.)  I find this probably the most alarming, least-talked about aspect.

As parents, we know how hard it often is to refuse vaccinations at the doctors' office that we might philosophically disagree with, and are frequently pressured by pediatricians, healthcare workers, school nurses, friends and family to vaccinate for everything, without question. How then, do you expect a 12-year-old to adequately make that decision? And why are they essentially ignoring the rights of the parents? What happens if a well-informed child tries to refuse? And if children are fed scare tactics to get the shot, but know their parents don't approve, isn't this essentially a situation of the school district (and the state) pitting the child against her parents?

Apparently this legislation is part of an already existing bill that enables children as young as 12 to seek treatment and testing for STD's without parental permission. (Click here) The thinking is that those kids who are too afraid to talk to their parents will get the treatment they need. Unfortunately, I think that is only feeding the problem.

The core issue at the heart of the state-forced Gardasil vaccine is that parents are not often adequately talking to their kids about sex. Period. Kids know little information about what constitutes sexual contact, and parents admit to not having appropriate conversations with their children about it. The state, in an effort to curb STD and pregnancy rates in teens, has no doubt decided to do the parents' jobs for them - figuring that if they don't, we will.

The problem is, many parents do educate their  children about the reality of sexual relationships and the dangers of STDs. In many circles this vaccine, and our overall sheeple mentality on vaccines in general, is that it will fully protect our children 100 percent of the time. Even though some suggest educated teens do wait longer to have sex, there is still the idea that "teens are teens" and will do this sort of thing, so why not provide a safety blanket of sorts. Others think that safety blanket is not enough, and it might fool teenagers into thinking they have a green light to engage in even riskier behavior.

In order for the vaccine to work, it's suggested that patients receive three doses, and some are speculating that often the girl doesn't get the remaining two vaccines. You're considered more at-risk for HPV if you've had multiple sex partners, or been with someone who has. Additionally, the younger a girl is when she starts having sex can also increase her risk. The irony in this is that culturally, we seem to condone teen sex or even embrace and tolerate it in an effort to remove the stigma. Combined with the fact that many parents do not adequately inform their teens about the potentially life-threatening repercussions of sexual relationships, this is like setting a trap for our children and then pushing them into it. Even so, is that really up to the state to decide?

In the meantime, legislators had to disclose that Merck personally paid them to push legislation through. And at $360 for a trio of doses, that's a lot of money the drug manufacturer stands to gain.

The Gardasil problem joins a number of other ones surrounding our medical community. What once started out as an altruistic approach for the common good, now the boundaries are blurred as more and more people want to take initiatives to force that "common good" on others. Forced or coerced vaccinations are just the tip of the iceberg; it's not unheard of for women to be forced into cesareans by court order, or for cancer patients who refuse treatment to be ordered to do so. A UK woman with severe hospital phobia and "learning difficulties" has been the subject of just such a debate, and was ordered into surgery to save her from potentially fatal cancer. What does it take to deem a patient unfit to make their own medical decisions? Probably not a whole lot.

Because Bachmann is essentially questioning the motives of the medical community and others' blind trust in it, I think it will be hard for her to wade through the mire of opponents. I'll also be waiting to see if Merck personally decides to take action to shut her up already regarding her claims on Gardasil, or if the media will essentially take care of that problem for them.

I'm seeing an interesting turn of events, though - perhaps what will amount to parents on both sides of the political and faith-based spectrum siding with Bachmann because she is such an outspoken opponent of this policy.

More reading:
Judge criticizes council for trying to force contraception on woman - The UK Telegraph
One More Girl - Truth About Gardasil documentary
Bachmann's Vaccine Theory pulls GOP to Jenny McCarthy Territory 

*The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. issued this statement on Perry's approach to state-mandated Gardasil, as copied and pasted from the blog, "A Time for Choosing:"

“Opting-Out” of HPV Vaccine WILL NOT WORK for Many in Texas

Governor Perry is misleading legislators and families in Texas by claiming that they will be able to “opt-out” of having their 6th grade daughter vaccinated with the vaccine for the sexually transmitted virus HPV. For many families currently, the exemption isn’t worth the piece of paper it is printed on. Besides the simple fact that parents should not have to get permission from the state to make informed consent medical decisions for their own children, here are four reasons why “opting-out” of state mandated vaccines doesn’t work for many families in Texas:

“Opt-out” or Conscientious Exemption to Vaccination Process is a Bureaucratic Nightmare

To get the exemption form, parents must first submit a written form to State Health Department in Austin which forces the disclosure of the child’s full name, birthdate, and mailing address. The Health Department takes those written requests and creates yet another form on which they print the child’s same personal information that the parent had to send to health department, and the Health Department sometimes takes weeks to mail out these forms inevitably disrupting the child’s school attendance. The Health Department only sends the forms by U.S. mail, and once the parent receives the forms, they must be notarized within 90 days of submitting them and then repeatedly resubmitted every 2 years even though there is no expiration set in statute.

[1] Because the Health Department further eroded parental rights by publishing more rules getting rid of provisional enrollment for exemptions, (families used to have 30 days at the beginning of school to get their paperwork in), now schools participate in aggressive misleading education campaigns touting “no shots – no school” while not informing families of the exemption or the instructions how to obtain it.

Private Schools Deny Admission

The Texas attorney general issued an opinion in April of 2006, ga0420, that states that private schools do not have to accept the conscience exemption to vaccination in Texas Law[2], and many private schools do not. For example, the Dallas Diocese for Catholic Schools policy number 5024 states, “Schools will comply with immunization requirements established by the Texas Catholic Conference Education Department. Conscientious objections/waivers are not accepted in schools of the Diocese.” [3] Every new vaccine mandate causes more children with valid legal exemptions to be denied their private school education.

Doctors Refuse Medical Care

Even though you may be able to get a piece of paper from the state health department affirming your right to refuse state mandated vaccines for your child, just try and find a doctor who will honor it! According to a recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 39% of pediatricians surveyed said they would throw kids out of practices who are not vaccinated. [4] PROVE has documented this rampant problem of doctors dismissing families utilizing a vaccine exemption in Texas to the legislature in previous sessions. Please review our report entitled “The Erosion of Public Trust & Informed Consent through Immunization Harassment, Discrimination and Coercion” prepared for the House Public Health Committee in 2005. [5]

Insurance Rates Rise and Accessibility Affected

Responsible parents who have secured health care coverage for their children will be forced to pay higher insurance rates whether they want the HPV vaccine or not. Even if you “opt-out” of the HPV vaccine mandate for Gardasil by Merck by securing a conscientious exemption waiver, there is no way for Texas parents to “opt-out” of the corresponding rise in their insurance premiums. § 1367.053. (a)

(2) of the Insurance Code REQUIRES that any vaccine required be law must be covered by insurance. [6] This first-dollar coverage requirement results in corresponding direct hiking of insurance premiums to meet costs, and for a vaccine as expensive as this one, an HPV vaccine mandate risks putting premiums for basic health care coverage out of reach financially for even more Texas families. Additionally, we have received complaints from families where insurance companies are harassing parents with letters and discriminating on coverage based on whether or not the child has had all their state mandated vaccines.

My response to Free Advice Legal Forums: Childbirth issues

Once in a while I stumble on the mother lode of all blood pressure triggers: in this case, it wasn't The sOB but the legal forums on freeadvice.com. "Outstanding advice, unbeatable price" is their motto. Let me tell you: you get what you pay for.

There are no shortage of odd, extremely sad cases floating around over there, and this was one of them: in short, a mother was 38 weeks pregnant with a breech presentation, and requested an ECV to turn the baby. The doctor was hesitant - probably taking the "Well, it might not work and you'll end up with a cesarean anyway!" approach that is so typical. Basically, the mother was given a VE-turned-membrane sweep and began labor three hours later. *sigh*

It's clear that the doctor was hesitant to do the ECV because she was afraid it would work, not because it wouldn't. The patient was obviously somewhat, at least, informed that she had options, and when she tried to exercise her rights, was thwarted. A cesarean ensued, and the patient had other problems as a result. While this was three years ago (so her child would be about six now), she still had lingering thoughts and bitterness over it, which was understandable and completely justified.

Boy, did the idiot comments fly after that. Of course the "You have a healthy baby, get over it!" was among them. I had been reading this forum for a few days prior, and saw the nastiest comments come up from the same woman every time - but this time I could not keep my big mouth shut. I had to say something before my brain exploded.

Here is my response:

While I know this is an old thread, hopefully someone might return to it to gain some perspective and help. 

There are some major philosophical issues that first must be addressed here - namely, the rights of the pregnant patient. People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding those areas and that, even though you are pregnant, you are still entitled to be treated like a person. Some of the comments here are so hateful and almost misogynistic - and I think that is indicative of our legal culture when it comes to childbirth issues and injuries/malpractice that might occur - that basically say, "You wanted a baby - you should therefore subject yourself to anything that might happen to you in order to deliver that child." That is not true, but because it's the predominant theme among most people, they'd lead to believe that the things happening to you were somehow normal and justified, and you should just "get over it." Too bad!

Unfortunately, I can't say their answers would be the same if this were a male patient; or someone receiving cardiac care, for example. There is such a double standard that exists when discussing childbirth issues and most of it, I think, is from ignorance. Yet, ironically, those very same people come back and tell YOU that YOU are uneducated. Very sad. 

You have every right to be bothered by this, but unfortunately because of the time frame, you probably don't have much recourse legally. Unless there are multiple complaints filed against the physician or hospital, they probably wouldn't do much to entertain your complaint. Even if there were multiple complaints filed, they probably wouldn't do much more than issue a perfunctory slap on the wrist. I say this not as a legal or medical professional, but as a childbirth advocate who has talked to many (MANY) women who have gone through similar scenarios, and as a mother of three young children. 

Reading between the lines here, I think it was obviously very unwise of your doctor to purposely strip your membranes without your permission. While some people think you can't really "prove" that this is what happened, you will know that a typical vaginal exam does NOT feel the same as when your membranes are stripped - that is your first clue. Not only that, but the obvious admission from your nurse friend says that she knew in advance that a stretch and sweep was going to be performed; I'd be curious to know what it says in your chart about that. Why would they do this when the baby was in an unfavorable position? Because they wanted you to go into labor and hence deliver the child by cesarean. I think your doctor hesitated about the external cephalic version because she was afraid it *would* work, not because she feared it wouldn't. A portion of them ARE successful, and while painful, that is why they admit you to the hospital and administer an epidural - most of the people who commented here either overlooked that or didn't know that is usually standard procedure. Unfortunately, what they also don't know (or don't want to admit) is that sometimes, babies will turn up until the last minute, even while in labor, into a vertex position. While some people will tell you this is rare, I think it's probably because the baby was never given a chance to turn because mother was sectioned before labor even began. 

A healthy baby DOES matter, but so does a healthy mother. Many people are too quick to completely dismiss any emotional or psychological aspects of birth, especially those that are traumatic. What many of those same people - including mothers - don't realize is that often times the very procedures we're subjected to cause more problems than if they had just been left alone; in other words, they treat birth like an accident waiting to happen, instead of treating things as they happen, IF they happen. Preventative, defensive healthcare in pregnancy and childbirth often causes more harm than good. 

It is the lack of compassion and utter venom that people like these forum members spew that makes women afraid to file complaints against their doctors, and the idea that unless you've lost your uterus, your baby or your life, there is no harm done. Bull----. And if you do complain, someone steps up and gets into a virtual pi***** match to compare birth stories and just how more terrible theirs was than yours, so you just better sit down and shut up. The truth is, few people know what normal is anymore, and are actually normalizing the abnormal. Unfortunately, it's rampant in obstetrics, and very difficult to just up and switch care providers, especially at the last minute. While it sounds like a good idea to just tell the OP to change doctors - at 38 weeks? Are you kidding me? No one would have taken her on, I'm sure. 

Consider your rights and options should you have another child (maybe you've already had one) and at least know that you have them. I'm glad someone mentioned ICAN; they are a good resource for support. Your lack of trust in doctors is not uncommon and you should not be made to feel like a freak because of it - you were violated and had things done to you without your permission. If this had been a sexual rape, would those same people tell you to just "get over it?" Is it simply okay because this was a physician, someone we should trust and respect, who did it instead? It's still a violation of your body and your rights and has changed the course of the way you birth future children FOREVER.

Sally, who thinks your birth was the worst ever and you didn't sue, no! This one's for you.

I'll anxiously await a response. *eyeroll*