BombShell's tags:
Texas just recently passed a mandate to vaccinate girls for the human papaloma virus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease.  All girls, grade 6 and up, must receive the vaccine to register for school.
 
HPV is the same virus that is attributed to genetal warts and herpes.  Many of the women who get cervical cancer also at one time had HPV, so they're thinking that vaccinating against HPV will prevent cervical cancer. According to the National Institutes of Health National Cancer institute, in more than 90% of the cases, HPV infections are harmless and go away without treatment. The CDC says there are more than 100 strains or types of HPV and over 30 strains are sexually transmitted. Yet the vaccine under consideration for mandate covers only 4 strains. About 30% of cervical cancers can’t be prevented by the vaccine, so women will still need regular cervical cancer screenings.  Also, the median age of women diagnosed with cervical cancer is 48. Therefore, there isn't a good claim to proove cervical cancer can be prevented by vaccinating preteen girls.
 
And there are a bunch of groups in Texas that are all up in arms about it because the subject wasn't really discussed.  The governor just used his executive power to issue the mandate.  There are groups calling to rescind the mandate until it can be further discussed and debated.
 
What do you all think about this?  Do you think we should vaccinate our 10-year-old girls for a sexually transmitted disease?  (And if so, do you think we should also vaccinate boys?)


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    ah, i see you didn't see ladygamer's blog entry about the same thing.

    i think it's a horribly bad idea to make mandatory a vaccine that's so new we don't know what long-term problems, if any, may result.

    ed
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Yes, but people should have the option to opt out of it and should be educated about the possible side effects blah blah blah.
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    There is an opt-out procedure, but private schools and colleges don't have to honor it.  Also, most pediatricians refuse to take patients who have vaccine waivers.
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Well all of those are private entities.  As far as I'm concerned a private school/college/doctor/store/etc should be able to refuse service for any reason.  If they want to not let people who haven't been vaccinated in, that's their call. They don't want to serve coloreds or gays or Jews that's also their choice.
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    You're right, they don't have to serve anyone.  But it kind of forces your hand, as a parent.  If you've fought to finally get your daughter into a prestigeous private school that she loves and the next year she can't attend until she's vaccinated, what do you do?  Do you give in because you don't want to disappoint her and you're not sure if you're going to win the fight anyway?  Or do you stick to your principles and go through the hassle and heartbreak of putting her in a different school?
     
    The vaccine is unproven, thus it shouldn't be mandatory, IMO.  The whole thing was just sprung upon parents and also makes it difficult to ask questions or make opposing decisions.  Big Brother has our hands tied.
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Yeah you put her in another school.  If that is what it means to stand by your principles then yes.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    sean, this is a state-wide initiative.

    ed
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    But you can opt out of it and unless thre is something I didn read only private universities can reject you for not having it.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    ah, beg pardon--i misread.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    wow, sean is advocating for the allowance of racial discrimination. He never ceases to amaze.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    bloc: whoa, how do you figure?

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    "If they want to not let people who haven't been vaccinated in, that's their call. They don't want to serve coloreds or gays or Jews that's also their choice."
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    No, I'm advocating that in MY bussiness I should be allowed to serve whomever I want and not serve whomever I want.  If the rules for my store are that you get served for free if  you are wearing polka dots, checks and stripes then I should be allowed.
     
    I'm pretty much advocating a free market.  Yeah I'm willing to concede that at certain times and places regulations need to be put in place to allow X,Y,Z to occur.  I also believe that after the immediate need is gone that you shouldn't need those laws. 
     
    But yeah I did advocate the allowance of racial discrimination.  Stupidity, bigotry and everything else.  I do believe that we live in a sane world and in a sane world stupidity is its own reward.  Unfortunately sometimes eventually is a really long time.  I'm not a fan of affirmative action but it was/did serve a purpose.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    sean: so you're more libertarian than anything, then. i can understand that stance.

    ed
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    I didn't take it as Sean advocating anything.  Technically, he's right.  Private businesses have a legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.  Not too long ago I heard on the radio about this company in Houston that is privately owned and needed a landscaper.  They rejected a business offer from one business because it was owned by two gay guys.  They have the legal right to do so.
     
    Now, in the aftermath, the gay guys hit the media and caused a mass boycott of the company that didn't want them and caused a big outrage in Houston's limited gay community.
     
    Personally, regardless of my views on homosexuality, I think two gay guys would probably be better landscape designers than two straight guys.  But that's just MHO.  ;-)
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    "I'm pretty much advocating a free market.  Yeah I'm willing to concede that at certain times and places regulations need to be put in place to allow X,Y,Z to occur.  I also believe that after the immediate need is gone that you shouldn't need those laws. "

    Disallowing service based on race should never be allowed.

    "Private businesses have a legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. "

    Not true. McDonalds can not refuse service to someone for being black. There are other examples as well.
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    I know McDonalds can't refuse. But IMHO they should be allowed too.  Just like I believe that if Mc Donalds wants to accept pesos, ruples, Euros or puppies in exchange for their goods/services that too should be allowed.  If I'm not mistaken puppy dog tails are a vital ingredient to the creation of little boys.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 06, 2007....
    bloc: OTOH, private clubs are allowed to refuse membership to anyone they like. a small business has that right. an institution as well-known as mcdonald's can't afford the negative publicity.

    ed
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    McDonalds isn't a private company.  The right to exclude only applies to PRIVATE companies.
  • lioneljay said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Just a quick point of clarification: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce" and it exempted private clubs. Thus if your business is engaged in interstate commerce in any way, it is against the law to pick and choose your customers according to your own racial preferences.

    Most states have similar statutes on the books that outlaw racial discrimination without restricting the law to those engaged in interstate commerce.
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Thanks Lionel.  So the little company in Houston (I don't remember what their business was) was exempt from the Civil Rights Act as far as with whom they can do business.  Technically, a private school (getting back on topic) has the right to refuse students for any reason. 
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    thanks for looking that up lionel :) I was being lazy.

    I also confuse state and federal laws on a regular basis. We have such great laws out here in CA and i assume some of them are federal only to find that they aren't.

    @sean
    I bet you'd feel differently if you lived in Mississippi under your libertarian utopia ;)
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Other than jt because why is the interstate thing impotant?  As far as McD's not being private because (presumably) it sells stocks then couldn't a majority vote o ban trans fats?  Or fatties?
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    I'd move.  And just because my "libertarian utopia" doesn't always work out in my favor doesn't mean I don't still strive for it.  I just also strive for people inteligent enough to live in this kind of society without illing each other. 
     
    I honestly believe that all intelligent, informed people have similar goals.  In the end what is good for you is good for me save in a few specific circumstances.  I know its a bit naive but I feel that even as far up as say President of the United States that if the better guy wins that everybody is going to be better off and thus while competing both me should want the better man to win.
  • lioneljay said on Feb 06, 2007....
    @Sean, the interstate commerce thing is important because that's the way the law is worded. I don't really know why the congress chose to write the law in that manner in 1964, Perhaps there's a lawyer around who could illuminate this for us.

    As for your questions about McDonald's ability to ban certain things if they chose: the answer is that the board of directors could, indeed, direct the management to stop selling products that are made with trans fats. However, it's my understanding that discrimination against obese people is understood to be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and so is against the law.
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    "Do you think we should vaccinate our 10-year-old girls for a sexually transmitted disease?  (And if so, do you think we should also vaccinate boys?)"

    I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I don't think it's absolute as some have argued. For example, I think the mandatory polio vaccine was the right thing to do. I'm not sure this one is at the level that it should be mandatory.
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....
    okay...I'll be back tomorrow to referee.....
  • IdeallySublime said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Does anyone else find it at all distressing that 6 graders would even need to be protected from STD's?  I'm only 25, I've only been an adult for about 5 minutes, but I don't remember this being an issue for me and my friends.  Maybe we were dweebs or something, but most of us didn't start having sex till damn near the end of high school.  Two of the guys were 18 and 21 before they decided to do it.  What the hell is happening in jr. high?  Is there something in the milk?
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 06, 2007....
    First me and Bloc don't need a ref we get along just fine despite opposing views.
     
    As far as 6th graders the umber was set there because that is BEFORE it becomes an issue.
  • IdeallySublime said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Thank God
  • bloc said on Feb 06, 2007....
    Sean is my favorite person to debate with. We get along well, we like to debate, and we have different views on many things. Oh, and his arguments are logical, usually ;)
  • BombShell said on Feb 06, 2007....

    I.S.: Your point is one of my biggest reasons I'm not so sold on the idea of vaccinating my daughter.  Seriously, I am just not comfortable with the idea of vaccinating a 10 year old for an STD, just on principle.

    However, to play Devil's Advocate - they feel that this is the age to vaccinate because for some reason it must be done before the girl becomes sexually active and I guess 6th grade is the average age girls start to menstruate.  (Off topic, but WTF is that about either?  Most of my friends didn't start until around 8th grade.  I think it *is* something in the milk.)

  • LadyGamer said on Feb 06, 2007....

    I will move my girls to a different state before I allow such a thing.

    It is that simple for me.

  • husbandhater said on Feb 07, 2007....
    The state rep is corrupt like most lobbyists. He has burned both ends of the candle stick. Lady G. move is right. What is it with this country and telling us how to raise our kids?
  • BombShell said on Feb 07, 2007....
    H.H.  Did you know it's not the state rep that made the decision?  Gov. Perry bypassed the state legislature and used his executive power to mandate the vaccine.  There are several activist groups trying to get the legislature and/or Gov. Perry to rescind the mandate until it can be discussed through the proper channels of passing legislation.
  • lioneljay said on Feb 07, 2007....
    BombShell and IdeallySublime, it's not in the milk but there is evidence linking early menstruation to part of our diet. I don't have the reference right at hand but I'll find it later today and post it here.
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 07, 2007....
    First I'm proud that Lady G stands by her morals enough that she would move rather than let somebody do somthing she disagrees with.
     
    Second it frightens me that there are people who would rather theri kids not be vaccinated.  The vaccine isn't 100% safe, neither is anything else in the world of medicine. 
     
    As for girls menstating earlier its called being healthy.  We develope faster because we're eating and living better.  And at some point we re going to ave to settle with the fact that our children are LITERALLY, in every sense of the word be it exposure to "adult" content or having fully developed bodies, are growing up faster than we did.  The rules, the pacing that our parents used on us logically cannot be applied to or own children. 
  • LadyGamer said on Feb 07, 2007....
    Here are some HPV facts:

    "Most women with HPV infection do not get cervical cancer. Doctors believe other factors must come into play for this cancer to develop. Some of these factors are smoking, HIV infection, Chlamydia infection, diet, long-term use of birth control pills, multiple pregnancies, low income, mothers who took hormonal drug DES, and family history. These are not typical risk factors affecting junior high girls.  A large percent of the population already has the virus, and there is no research saying that the vaccine will prevent cancer. According to the National Institutes of Health National Cancer institute, in more than 90% of the cases, HPV infections are harmless and go away without treatment. The CDC says there are more than 100 strains or types of HPV and over 30 strains are sexually transmitted. Yet the vaccine under consideration for mandate covers only 4 strains. About 30% of cervical cancers can’t be prevented by the vaccine, so women will still need regular cervical cancer screenings. The only current vaccine manufacturer for the HPV vaccine, Merck, admits on their package insert that the duration of immunity from the vaccine is unknown. In clinical trials, the vaccine’s effectiveness was only followed for 4 years.  Yet we do know from the CDC that the incubation period for the HPV virus is about 20 years and the median age of women diagnosed with cervical cancer is 48.  Therefore, no claims to proof of cervical cancer prevention by vaccinating preteen girls should be made."  TLC www.texlife.org

     

  • kelly said on Feb 08, 2007....
    Wow, it looks like the Texans For Life Coalition has picked and chosen just a few notes from the Center for Disease Control to prop up an anti-vaccination stance.  Those who would like to get the full picture--including what this will and won't protect against--will be interested in looking at this page:

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 08, 2007....
    kelly: no stance on the actual issue? that doesn't sound like you at all. ?

    ed
  • kelly said on Feb 08, 2007....
    Oh, I have an opinion but I don't really care that much about it.  If BombShell wants to keep her child from getting that protection that's her deal.  I don't think it should be mandatory since obviously BombShell's little girl will never have sex until she's married to exactly the right man.

    I do, however, think mandatory vaccinations for things like TB and polio and other highly infectious diseases are a good idea.

    The reason vaccination of the boys wasn't on the table is because they weren't the subject of the medical testing.  They don't know enough yet.  You can read about that in the link I posted above.  In my mind this is a nice reversal of so many clinical tests of years past that focussed solely on men as test subjects for medical breakthrough drugs.  We're only now coming to an understanding of what heart disease looks like in women because all those earlier studies concentrated on men.
  • BombShell said on Feb 09, 2007....
    Just for clarification, I'm not completely against the vaccination.  I'm against the way the Gov went about mandating it.
     
    And I do agree that the coalition is completely biased.  But all the propaganda which promotes the vaccine is too.
  • BombShell said on Feb 09, 2007....
    One of my good friends informed me that babies can contract HPV during birth if it is active in the mother.
     
    Which means that a vaccine would be useless because the girl would already have the disease.
     
    Did I mention that the vaccine only covers four of the 100 strains of HPV?
  • VICARIOUS said on Feb 09, 2007....
    Of course and of course, if:
     
    It will allow them to see their grandchildren one day rather than expire early in life due to an STD.
  • bloc said on Feb 09, 2007....
    "Did I mention that the vaccine only covers four of the 100 strains of HPV?"

    Are those 4 strains more common than the others? Are they more dangerous than the others?
  • kelly said on Feb 12, 2007....
    BombShell, is your good friend a pathologist?  A doctor?  An infectious disease expert?  Is your logic that because a child CAN be infected at birth then the vaccine is useless for all children?

    We have the benefit of some incredible vaccines these days.  Some diseases were nearly wiped off the face of the planet due to vaccination programs.  Polio comes to mind.  Are you against all government mandated vaccination programs?  What about measles?  Smallpox?  I think the fact that this is related to eventual sexual activity causes people who have a problem with sex to go ape.

    If there was a vaccination against cancer but it only worked against four types of cancer would you still be so adamantly against it?

    By all means, get the facts, but get the facts, not some hearsay from a friend.  As a parent you're supposed to be doing everything in your power to protect your child.  Don't let hangups get in the way of doing everything you can for your child. 
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 12, 2007....
    kelly: no, the fact that mandatory vaccinations for highly-communicable diseases are what's setting this off for folks. mandatory vaccinations are required for the good of the public, which condition is met by highly-communicable diseases such as chicken pox, measles, etc. the same cannot be said in this instance. please drop the "you're all puritans" message, kelly. it lacks coercive force in a discussion and just makes you look self-righteous.

    ed
  • LadyGamer said on Feb 12, 2007....

    I have never been interested in discussions like this where people who would otherwise be considered intelligent and open suddenly narrow everything down to "YOU are just a "puritan" or whatever.

    ANYone who would suggest that I would keep necessary health treatments from my girls knows nothing of me and in that very statement loses all credibility. The fact is, the state of Texas is getting bought in this and I personally? Not for sale.

    This vaccine should NEVER have become mandatory this quickly. FOUR years of testing? Four? NONE of the now required vaccines moved that quickly, in fact large numbers of people refused them even after the governments got behind them. AND THE GOVERNMENTS LET THEM refuse.

    I don't need a nanny, thanks.

  • BombShell said on Feb 12, 2007....
    Kelly, I'm not afraid to be a hypocrite.  I have persuasions on both sides of the debate.  You are totally right; my friend has no medical background.  And I have no problem with any other childhood vaccinations.
     
    When a woman is pregnant and has risk factors for certain genetic defects, one option is an amnio.  The risk in the procedure is often greater than the risk for the birth defect, so many women forego the procedure.  I guess that's how I stand on the vaccination issue.  Hypothetically speaking, even if the chances for getting HPV are 100%, it only needs treatment in 10% of cases.  And in only 30% of those cases, does it causes cervical abnormalities.  So, is the chance of getting cervical cancer worth the risks associated with mandating a virtually untested vaccination?
     
    And all this, for me, is based on principle alone.  I fortunately have seven years before my daughter will need the vaccine.  By then, there will be more known about it.
  • Redhead said on Feb 12, 2007....
    I hate to insert myself in here and hijack a discussion, especially when I am relatively new here - but this is a subject about which I have a bit to contribute and I have a few comments and questions for Kelly:
     
    You mentioned polio above - are you aware of the travesty inflicted upon innocent people with the implementation of the oral polio vaccine?  Alexander Horwin, is only one.  Not to mention that other polio vaccines contain formaldehyde, if I'm not mistaken don't they use that to preserve corpses? 
     
    Are you aware that most of the diseases you've mentioned above were already being eradicated well before the implementation of vaccines, but the CDC deceptively only presents partial information (small pox comes to mind)?   Vaccination is not responsible for wiping them off the planet - and this information is present in modern medical journals. 
     
    Did you know that in 1985 an outbreak of measles occurred in  Corpus Christi, TX among vaccinated children? 
     
    Did you know that because of the 3 year statute of limitations that vaccine injury carries, if your daughter got this vaccine and four years later was deemed infertile, you have no recourse?
     
    Are you aware that the simple correlation of HPV being present in a majority of cancerous lesions on the cervix really means nothing?  Those tested were also deficient in many minerals, does that mean that mineral deficiency causes that cancer or the virus?  To tout this vaccine as a cancer vaccine is a fear mongering tactic and extremely foolish, when it's an HPV vaccine - and since boys do carry the virus as well - it makes little to no sense why females are being experimented on.  The cervical cancer studies with relation to HPV do NOT reveal very significant information about the subjects of their studies such as:  current meds, other vaccinations, other illnesses, etc... all extremely important when measuring individual susceptibility.  Why do some who get HPV get cancer, and some don't?
     
    Are you aware that 5 women who received Gardasil within 30 days of becoming pregnant, gave birth to children with congenital birth defects?  (FDA Docket 4222B3).
     
    Are you aware that the FDA (through a lovely loophole in the FFDCA) allows drugs and vaccines to enter the consumer market without those drug manufacturers completing the safety evaluations as they have committed to completing to the FDA?  I believe as of Friday, 71% of the drugs that entered the market in 2006 had not done so, Gardasil included.
     
    Vaccination stimulates one form of immunity at the expense of the other, which is ill advised and results in a whole host of autoimmune disorders.  And here is a little help with understanding the difference.  No disease enters the blood stream directly, and doing so bypasses the body's natural defense mechanisms.  IF overstimulation were in any way appropriate, there would not be studies underway trying to steer the responses - and there are.
     
    The preservatives used in vaccines, have absolutely no place in the human body.  Here are 30 studies published for your perusal.  These doctors were hired to perform independent research when it was revealed that the CDC submitted altered and fraudulent data to Congress about the relation of autism and mercury.  You cannot dispose of a thermometer in a landfill because mercury is toxic - second only to plutonium... it's got no place in your body.  The FDA denied the petition submitted by the autism movement removing mercury entirely, so when you think you are getting a mercury free vaccination, you are not - trace amounts still remain.   
     
    Aluminum was also linked to breast cancer at one time, and to those who study the data (like myself) that theory holds merit.  Gardasil contains an aluminum adjuvant, do you find it odd that this vaccine - praised for prevention of one cancer contains the heavy metal linked to causing another?
     
    And finally, Bombshell is correct - HPV can be passed from mother to infant during labor and delivery.
     
    It was estimated that approximately 4,000 women will die of cervical cancer every year.  Did you know that iatrogenic disease (at the hands of physicians, hospitals, unnecessary surgery and medications or harms by medications) claims the lives of almost 200 times more people?  I believe current estimates are at 780,000 annually. 
     
    Clearly this post has drug on long enough, and I'm not trying to be an asshole here - but those who question (like myself) do not do so blindly and given some of the information I've just given you, I hope you understand why.
     
    --red 
     
     
     
     
  • bloc said on Feb 12, 2007....
    @sw
    "please drop the "you're all puritans" message, kelly. it lacks coercive force in a discussion and just makes you look self-righteous."

    No it doesn't, because that is the central issue for many people in this debate. Care for me to provide links?

    Kelly's question, why care so much about this vaccine and not the others, is a fair one. Drawing the conclusion that this one is different for a lot of people because of the sex angle is valid and can be backed up if you'd like for me to spend 10-15 minutes on google.

    @redhead
    Many of your arguments seem to be; "it's not perfect so we shouldn't do it". Nothing in life is perfect, the question we have to ask ourselves is if the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. Some of your arguments are completely meaningless without context.

    "Are you aware that 5 women who received Gardasil within 30 days of becoming pregnant, gave birth to children with congenital birth defects?  (FDA Docket 4222B3)."

    Are you aware that 5 people with jobs were hit by buses on their way to work this morning? Let's abolish all jobs!
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 12, 2007....
    bloc, what links should could you possibly provide to combat the assertion that this is a puritanic reaction when the reactions here are from people who have a very, very pro-sex attitude? kelly has not meaningfully addressed the con responses that STDs, being nowhere near as communicable as measles, should not be subject to mandatory vaccination using a vaccine which is not particularly well-tested.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 12, 2007....
    "I think the fact that this is related to eventual sexual activity causes people who have a problem with sex to go ape."

    That's a generalized statement, and I didn't read it as being directed at anyone here in particular. I think you made it into more than it is and inadvertently turned it into a rad herring.

    Also, there is reason to see sex as an issue for the people in this conversation.

    bombshell said
    "Your point is one of my biggest reasons I'm not so sold on the idea of vaccinating my daughter.  Seriously, I am just not comfortable with the idea of vaccinating a 10 year old for an STD, just on principle. However, to play Devil's Advocate - they feel that this is the age to vaccinate because for some reason it must be done before the girl becomes sexually active and I guess 6th grade is the average age girls start to menstruate."
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 12, 2007....
    i suppose that's possible, bloc, but even so, it ignores the previously-voiced concerns.

    ed
  • Redhead said on Feb 12, 2007....
    Bloc: I'm going to need some elaboration on your idea of meaningless, and they were comments and observations. Arguments? I have plenty as this issue is about a lot of things. 1. Informed consent, and the fact that it does not exist. Issuing a statewide mandate on a vaccine yet to be proven safe, and already has 80 reactions reported to VAERS - one of those being seizures followed by passing out, is irresponsible and bad policy. 2. The notion that HPV is the absolute causal factor of cervical cancer is a crock of shit and doubt was casted over 15 years ago - and gone unnoticed. 3. Chris Bell, Democratic candidate in the recent Gub. Election was in favor of implementing this vaccine upon school aged girls - Perry said "this should not be a government choice". So what the hell is he doing issuing an EO mandating it? As Ed pointed out, HPV is not a communicable disease - implementing into the vaccine schedule in this fashion makes little to no sense. The difference between five people getting hit by a bus on the way to work and birth defects associated with this vaccine, is the fact that side effect relates specifically to the safety of this vaccine. I'd like to see you make that risk statement to those mothers. --red
  • BombShell said on Feb 12, 2007....
    Welcome to SC, Red.  I didn't know Perry was initially against government involvement in this!  Grrrr!
     
    Bloc,  I think you may be onto something with this abolishing jobs idea....
  • bloc said on Feb 12, 2007....
    @redhead

    I wasn't saying that you are wrong, only that your statement doesn't tell me anything without context. Let me give you an example.

    Let's say there are 5 women all of whom lived in chernobyl during the nuclear meltdown and were exposed to high amounts of radiation. All 5 of these woman are also pepsi drinkers. Let's assume that you don't know any of this and you see the following statement.

    Are you aware that 5 women who drinked pepsi within 30 days of becoming pregnant, gave birth to children with congenital birth defects?

    Clearly the full context is important. Now, let's assume that the defects were actual caused by Gardasil. How many woman took it? Let me make up some numbers to make a point. Assume 1 million women took it, 5 had kids with birth defects, but 5000 fewer women got cancer because of the vaccine. Even if it caused the birth defects it may be a good thing in general. This would be a good argument for choice which is sw's main point. A person should not be forced to take this medication with the risks involved even if it's affects are positive overall.

    Also, what percentage of woman have kids with birth defects in general? Maybe the 5 out of 1 million is within the normal rate of birth defects!

    Do you see what I mean? Without any context the statement doesn't tell us much.

  • Redhead said on Feb 12, 2007....
    bloc: Sorry, thought I linked the VRBPAC data http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf , safety begins on page 21 I believe. And they skated the finding, so I can't answer that and I do not know the percentage of birth defects from a "general" standpoint - but without significant information about the women who give birth to children that have defects, you cannot determine any one causal link, but in this case - that is the only relation we have.   I think it's fair to say that birth defects are not normal, however, and the fact that they did occur should require further investigation and require more information be made available with regard to the study and the subjects. Nor can I provide further details about the deaths that occurred either which were a total of 18 - with 7 of them being in the placebo group.

    The points you have made, also substantiate my claims of failure to sufficiently prove that HPV is even the causal link between HPV and cervical cancer. And as you point out "context is important", so why then is this wonder drug being marketed as a cancer vaccine - that is unmistakably being taken out of context.

    Any vaccine, not just Gardasil - causes encephalitis, something doctors don't deny and swelling of the brain, no matter how insignificant - is harmful. I cannot provide statistics for you as to how many people naturally fall victim to it, I would venture to guess it's not a normal occurrence and to discard the vaccination link is again irresponsible, it should only encourage people to do their own research.

    The clinical study trial is a joke, basing it's structure upon the absurd notion that all people experience disease the same way and all people are identical. Example: you have the flu, and so does bombshell. You feel tired, hungry and thirsty. She feels wired, has no appetite and doesn't want to drink - so yes you both have the flu - but to take that broad brush and lump you into the same category or diagnosis is utterly foolish. Oh, and you both got a flu shot. But, it's part of the medical process - which is not a democracy no matter what context it's in. --red
  • LadyGamer said on Feb 12, 2007....

    I have a fourteen year old, a twelve year old, a ten year old and an eight year old.

    THREE of my four children will be forced to have this vaccine NOW. As soon as the mandate kicks in which is JUNE.

    Lots of people have the time to sit back and see what horrifying things it might do to someone else....I am not one of them.

  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 12, 2007....
    Then move, Texas is a crappy state anyway.  Move out here to California.  We've banned smoking indoors (and we're working on outside too :-(
  • Redhead said on Feb 12, 2007....
    ladygamer:  I'm in Texas too.  Here are the procedures to opt out, but when I received my affidavit from the health department for my soon to be 11 year old the HPV vaccine was not on there.   When I spoke to the hag that I have been harassing over there (about the privacy violation for taking down vital information on those who go against the grain), she said that they intend to put the opt out waiver for HPV on their website but if not, that it will definitely be on there before the mandate takes effect.

    Submit a written request to the department, and fax it or mail it - I think you can also hand deliver it.  I got my affidavit within a week.  Execute in front of a notary, and submit it to the school or day care within 90n days.  Private schools may take a different stand on the issue, I've not researched the matter.  I don't think the EO is going to survive there are several Bills in place. AND Greg Abbott has been formally asked to rule on the matter and I've written to him along with numerous others.  Coincidentally tomorrow, I'll be on Capitol Hill with about 200 others - in protest.

    --red
  • kelly said on Feb 13, 2007....
    OK, I can see there's a lot to potentially respond to here.  Perhaps I can shortcut some of the self-righteous people who think I'm self-righteous.

    Way back in my second post I said I didn't think the vaccine should be mandatory.  I meant that.  At the very least there might have been some public discussion about it.  I also meant it when I suggested BombShell get the facts, not just the hearsay and propaganda (although I hear that scientific evidence is considered propaganda these days).  Despite the issue of forced vaccination she might want to consider doing something for her daughter that could be very beneficial.

    Another thing, sexually transmitted diseases ARE highly infectious.  AIDs comes to mind, and it's a wonder that people who are infected don't have to be immediately reported, the same way that a person with a TB infection does.

    Since obviously no one bothered reading the CDC article

    "Studies have found the vaccine to be almost 100% effective in preventing diseases caused by the four HPV types covered by the vaccine– including precancers of the cervix, vulva and vagina, and genital warts. The vaccine has mainly been studied in young women who had not been exposed to any of the four HPV types in the vaccine.

    The vaccine was less effective in young women who had already been exposed to one of the HPV types covered by the vaccine.

    ...

    The FDA has licensed the HPV vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in over 11,000 females (ages 9-26 years) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is soreness at the injection site. CDC, working with the FDA, will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccine after it is in general use.

    Does this vaccine contain thimerosal or mercury?
    No. There is no thimerosal or mercury in the HPV vaccine. It is made up of proteins from the outer coat of the virus (HPV). There is no infectious material in this vaccine."

    Once again, before anybody construes this as a defense of the forced vaccination let me say I'm not for it in this case. If something like the avian flu starts another killing like we had when the flu killed 50 million people in 1918 I'll be changing my tune. And I'll be first in line.
  • Redhead said on Feb 13, 2007....
    Kelly: 
    I read the CDC article, and I know many others that have too, but I also read the CDC's  fraudulent claims and altered reports in addition to Congressional testimony with regard to the causal link between autism and mercury.  That has led to indendent research, as it should with all parents.

    This vaccine contains aluminum and as I stated above, not completely ruled out is a potential link to breast cancer and I believe Alzheimer's (although my research is limited to vaccines at the moment).  I also mentioned, that the FDA has currently allowed drugs/vaccines to enter the market without post safety evaluation commitments being submitted, this vaccine included.  So, to state it's safe and effective without post safety evaluation is rather an oxymoron no? 

    I posted the actual committee report contained in the FDA docket, and currently 80 reactions have been submitted to VAERS - including seizures followed by passing out (I wonder who determines what is serious and if those young women were monitored after their events)... so your paragraph quoted above taken from the CDC site, not entirely true once you do independent research.  Having said this (again), I still fail to see how it is beneficial having not been thoroughly proven safe.  I don't want to split hairs here - but "continuing to monitor the safety" and proving the safety are entirely different. 

    --red


  • silverwhisper said on Feb 13, 2007....
    kelly, are you seriously likening the infectiousness of AIDS to that of these other ailments? i find that...well, surprising.

    ed
  • bloc said on Feb 13, 2007....
    @sw
    how is aids infectiousness different from hpv?
  • kelly said on Feb 14, 2007....
    Redhead: Just what is a "post safety evaluation?"

    Silver: How could I possibly think this is a group of puritans?  There are so many posts about sex around here it would be impossible for me to draw that conclusion.  Unless all the writing is about repressed sexuality.
  • Redhead said on Feb 14, 2007....
    Kelly:  Apologies if you already know this, my intent is not to "preach".  Once a drug has been through all phases and marketed to the consumer, the drug manufacturer is required to submit post-marketing approval safety evaluations to the FDA as part of the post-market regulation of those meds.  They "commit" to reporting that information to the FDA and supply the data in writing within a certain time frame.  Here's a lovely piece on the process, and its problems.
     
    If deaths occurred in the trials, 5 women gave birth to children with congenital defects, and there have been 80 reactions reported to VAERS (part of the post safety requirements as well) AND they have yet to supply the FDA with their post marketing safety evaluation data, how in the world can they make an assertion that this vaccine is 100% safe and effective?  That has clearly yet to be proven. 
     
    No, we don't know the context of the deaths or the birth defects, but given the fact they exist - doesn't Merck owe it to the public to follow up and furnish more data?  Once again, this is about informed consent.  If someone chooses to vaccinate their child with Gardasil, that is their choice - but, have they really given informed consent?
     
    --red 
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 14, 2007....
    bloc: i'm confused, where did i suggest the infectiousness of AIDS and HPV are different?

    kelly: you can i trust understand my confusion, then?! :>

    ed
  • anonymous said on Dec 28, 2007....
    I read a news at anonymous HPV dating and support site pozgroup.com several days ago. It says FDA knew as early as 2003 that HPV was not linked to cervical cancer. Despite this knowledge, the FDA, along with key pharmaceutical companies, has continued to push for the use of HPV vaccinations as a defense against cervical cancer, even when its own research showed no link exists.
  • nicolexue said on Feb 22, 2008....
    The litle girl is so...
    I hope STD people at STDromance.com can give some useful tips

Comment on "Little Girls with STDs"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts....
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?...
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....
How's Obama doing with the economy and his stimulus.......
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....