Mandatory HPV Vaccine for Texas School Girls [Archive]

Aggie

02-06-2007, 06:51 AM

I might have to home school my kids. I heard about it this morning and even though I don't have any kids yet I was NOT happy with this news. I think it's ridiculous to make this mandatory with what looks like not enough research, especially when they want to give it to girls who are still so young and developing. What if this causes fertility problems long term? Do we know that yet? Big government = Bad in my eyes. Let me make my own decisions about my daughter. A shot isn't the answer for everyone. What about smart decisions and a healthy lifestyle? That's not an option anymore? I hate how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have.<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm" target="_blank" title="Mandatory Vaccine">http://washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm</a>"The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls.  Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures.......................................... .................... But physicians disagree with public health officials over whether Gardasil is the panacea for cancer. Clayton Young, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck's claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer.  "There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer," he said. "They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim."  Merck spokesman Chris Loder said the vaccine is effective for five years and the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drug maker is not sure how long afterward the vaccine will work. Critics point out that an additional booster shot may be necessary. "

MrPink

02-06-2007, 07:32 AM

Looks like being at a possible risk for cancer means the government can tell you what to do. Kind of like the same logic that is used to force people to wear seatbelts.

Furtherman

02-06-2007, 07:37 AM

Aggie wrote: What about smart decisions and a healthy lifestyle? That's not an option anymore? Although I agree that total testing should be done to consider any side effects and long term complications, I don't think that you can stop a kid from fooling around or having sex no matter how much you teach them to make smart decisions.  It's gonna happen and there is nothing you can do about it.  How many of us can say we breezed through puberty with smart decisions and a healthy lifestyle?If the diagnosis for the shot is a 100% cure against cervical cancer, then I think it should be mandatory.   Edit: Not so much mandatory, (if you refuse, hey, it's your kid and you should have that right) but if you knew that it was 100% effective, why wouldn't you have your kid take the shot?

This message was edited by Furtherman on 2-6-07 @ 11:39 AM

A.J.

02-06-2007, 07:44 AM

It'll make a nice compliment to the condoms the taxpayers are picking up the tab for.

Recyclerz

02-06-2007, 08:15 AM

I understand Aggie's concerns here but I'm not sure I agree with her apparent conclusions (the vaccinations should be optional).  I'm on-board with the idea that any widespread medical intervention should be thoroughly studied for possible side effects.  But I also think you have to use a Utilitarian balance to determine whether the overall benefits out weigh the risks. *I think the reason this particular vaccination program is more controversial than those for whooping cough or measles is that it introduces the idea of teen fucking, which tends to get everybody's attention. If you just look at it from a public health point of view (and set aside the pre-marital sex morality issues)  this looks like a no brainer:  a vaccine will prevent a large number of women (but not all), especially young women, from getting cervical cancer. This not only saves lives and the reproductive possibilities for a lot of women but also does so at a lower financial cost to society than treating all the potential cancer cases.  Of course, this being America we never can separate the "morality" issues from anything anymore.  This issue is really a precursor to the debate we'll have if science ever comes up with an effective AIDS vaccine.  Should that be mandatory for everybody?  Does society have the right to demand that its members take the proverbial ounce of prevention to avoid having to pay the pound of cure later on?In most cases I vote Yes. *  I'm going to work for a Big Pharma company next month so factor that in when you're deciding whose water I'm carrying.

Snacks

02-07-2007, 10:09 AM

Recyclerz wrote: I understand Aggie's concerns here but I'm not sure I agree with her apparent conclusions (the vaccinations should be optional).  I'm on-board with the idea that any widespread medical intervention should be thoroughly studied for possible side effects.  But I also think you have to use a Utilitarian balance to determine whether the overall benefits out weigh the risks. *I think the reason this particular vaccination program is more controversial than those for whooping cough or measles is that it introduces the idea of teen fucking, which tends to get everybody's attention. If you just look at it from a public health point of view (and set aside the pre-marital sex morality issues)  this looks like a no brainer:  a vaccine will prevent a large number of women (but not all), especially young women, from getting cervical cancer. This not only saves lives and the reproductive possibilities for a lot of women but also does so at a lower financial cost to society than treating all the potential cancer cases.  Of course, this being America we never can separate the "morality" issues from anything anymore.  This issue is really a precursor to the debate we'll have if science ever comes up with an effective AIDS vaccine.  Should that be mandatory for everybody?  Does society have the right to demand that its members take the proverbial ounce of prevention to avoid having to pay the pound of cure later on?In most cases I vote Yes. *  I'm going to work for a Big Pharma company next month so factor that in when you're deciding whose water I'm carrying. Very well stated.I was watching the news and some mother who had a problem with the vaccine said what do I tell my 5 year old daughter when she asks why am I getting a needle? How about nothing shes 5 you dont have to explain exactly what it is or what its for. You dont have to tell your child the shot is to help protect her when shes having sex, tell her its for a cold or whatever.I think this is a great idea HPV is getting worse. I have a friend who has this and she lucky its not cancer, but it has been precancer and she has had to have it scrapped out and she almost couldnt have kids.

Aggie

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

Snacks wrote: Recyclerz wrote: I understand Aggie's concerns here but I'm not sure I agree with her apparent conclusions (the vaccinations should be optional).  I'm on-board with the idea that any widespread medical intervention should be thoroughly studied for possible side effects.  But I also think you have to use a Utilitarian balance to determine whether the overall benefits out weigh the risks. *I think the reason this particular vaccination program is more controversial than those for whooping cough or measles is that it introduces the idea of teen fucking, which tends to get everybody's attention. If you just look at it from a public health point of view (and set aside the pre-marital sex morality issues)  this looks like a no brainer:  a vaccine will prevent a large number of women (but not all), especially young women, from getting cervical cancer. This not only saves lives and the reproductive possibilities for a lot of women but also does so at a lower financial cost to society than treating all the potential cancer cases.  Of course, this being America we never can separate the "morality" issues from anything anymore.  This issue is really a precursor to the debate we'll have if science ever comes up with an effective AIDS vaccine.  Should that be mandatory for everybody?  Does society have the right to demand that its members take the proverbial ounce of prevention to avoid having to pay the pound of cure later on?In most cases I vote Yes. *  I'm going to work for a Big Pharma company next month so factor that in when you're deciding whose water I'm carrying. Very well stated.I was watching the news and some mother who had a problem with the vaccine said what do I tell my 5 year old daughter when she asks why am I getting a needle? How about nothing shes 5 you dont have to explain exactly what it is or what its for. You dont have to tell your child the shot is to help protect her when shes having sex, tell her its for a cold or whatever.I think this is a great idea HPV is getting worse. I have a friend who has this and she lucky its not cancer, but it has been precancer and she has had to have it scrapped out and she almost couldnt have kids.Thanks for your comments everyone. My real problem is that it's mandatory. I understand HPV is a major problem and that it makes sense if it can help but let the parents decide or when the girl goes to get birth control or her first Gyno exam, have it offered there. If you are not planning on being sexually active in junior high or high school why should you be subjected to the side effects? It's not right.I just don't like how he forced this through without the regular process and that it's mandatory. Where does it end?

Yerdaddy

02-07-2007, 11:23 AM

I agree with Aggie because she has a glorious rack. And she makes good points. Arguments that is. Polio and measels and the other vaccines that are mandated by federal and state governments have always been based on the the idea that they were potential epidemics - kid comes to school with measels, coughs on the other kids, the whole fucking school's got it. So the denial of the individual's right not to vaccinate their kid is based on the risk to all the other kids. This is apparently the first time a vaccination has been required based on the epidemic risk of sexual transmission yet the governor bypasses the legislative process to force this through? Why would he do that? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but there seems to have been very little public debate for such precident-setting action with really serious constitutional and health issues. There doesn't seem to be alot of press investigations but the whole process seems to have been rushed through. Anyway, there are some interesting sources linked off the bottom of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil" target="_blank">the wikipedia page</a>. The two blog sites [<a href="http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html" target="_blank">one</a> and two] even seem reasoned and well-sourced.I don't know. Could be a perfectly safe drug that does what it claims, but some of the aspects of this story smell fishy. <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all</a>

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 2-7-07 @ 3:29 PM

SatCam

02-07-2007, 12:49 PM

I was watching the news and some mother who had a problem with the vaccine said what do I tell my 5 year old daughter when she asks why am I getting a needle? How about nothing shes 5 you dont have to explain exactly what it is or what its for. You dont have to tell your child the shot is to help protect her when shes having sex, tell her its for a cold or whatever.

How about you tell her it's so she doesnt get a sickness that can give her cancer? How hard is that?

Bulldogcakes

02-07-2007, 02:08 PM

Recyclerz wrote: I understand Aggie's concerns here but I'm not sure I agree with her apparent conclusions (the vaccinations should be optional). I'm on-board with the idea that any widespread medical intervention should be thoroughly studied for possible side effects. But I also think you have to use a Utilitarian balance to determine whether the overall benefits out weigh the risks. *I think the reason this particular vaccination program is more controversial than those for whooping cough or measles is that it introduces the idea of teen fucking, which tends to get everybody's attention. If you just look at it from a public health point of view (and set aside the pre-marital sex morality issues) this looks like a no brainer: a vaccine will prevent a large number of women (but not all), especially young women, from getting cervical cancer. This not only saves lives and the reproductive possibilities for a lot of women but also does so at a lower financial cost to society than treating all the potential cancer cases. Of course, this being America we never can separate the "morality" issues from anything anymore. This issue is really a precursor to the debate we'll have if science ever comes up with an effective AIDS vaccine. Should that be mandatory for everybody? Does society have the right to demand that its members take the proverbial ounce of prevention to avoid having to pay the pound of cure later on?In most cases I vote Yes. * I'm going to work for a Big Pharma company next month so factor that in when you're deciding whose water I'm carrying.  To quote Recyc, from a public health standpoint its a no brainer. Children are required to have all sorts of vaccines to enter public school, to think that none of them will be having sex is unrealistic. I understand it may undermine the messages many parents are trying to send, but if it can save lives we'll just have to come up with a way of explaining it to the kiddie poos that doesn't sound like a lisence to hump. Which is doable. Unlike the NYC transfat ban, and some of the more insane smoking bans, this one will work with proveable results.   As far as the "Big Government" argument goes, get over it. Its over, there is no political party that believes in less government anymore. Reagan was a blip on the screen in the march towards european-style socialism that started with FDR. You have as much freedom as the busy bodies allow you. The government will tell you what to do, when to do it, and you will do it. Period. Remember that the next time you sing "land of the FREE, home of the BRAVE" We are neither. Even WALMART (you heard me right) came out today side by side with the SEIU pres in favor of national health care. Its over, folks. Welcome to England.

TheMojoPin

02-07-2007, 08:40 PM

I thought the big push for this to be so widespread was that it was so successful in preventing cervical cancer.  The sex stuff, OK, fine, it's there, but it's always sounded like people wanted this out there more for the cancer prevention and certain groups picked up the "but it'll encourage them to have teh SECKS111!11!11" instead and ran with it.I'm not so sure I'm big on this being mandatory.  On the one hand, cancer isn't contagious.  On the other hand, the OTHER stuff this vaccine prevents is, but it's warts.  I mean, yeah, that sucks and they can spread, but it's not like it's fucking polio or something.  Kids are gonna have sex, for better or for worse.  Making it as safe as possible is something that sounds good, but FORCING them to do it seems wrong, especially since this vaccine can potentially cause other serious health problems.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.They should just make it available as much as possible, a la the flu shot, inform the public as much as possible, and then go from there.  The mandatory part of it really seems kind of wrong.  Make it available, but don't force it on people.

Bulldogcakes

02-08-2007, 02:32 AM

The argument about lack of contagion doesn't hold here. This IS a contagious disease, its a virus similar to many others that states require vaccinations to prevent. Since state and federal governments are either subsidizing or outright paying for the medical treatment of many people with cervical cancer, they have a say in taking steps to reduce the burden on them, and ultimately the taxpayers. As far as "educating the public" goes, that just delays the inevitible. Smoking, trans fats, even seat belt laws start out with warning labels and raising public awareness. But ad campaigns simply dont get the results the busybodies want. Have all those anti drug ads stopped/curbed drug use among teens? No. So then the heavy hand of gov't comes down with outright bans. You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-8-07 @ 6:39 AM

TheMojoPin

02-08-2007, 08:00 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.

Aggie

02-08-2007, 08:09 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? And you will comply. Like it or not.This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-8-07 @ 6:39 AM No, no I don't want it.And you're OK with that? Comply, no questions asked? I don't think we live in China, there are things we can do to make changes and challenge the government. It may not always work but apathy isn't how I choose to react.

angrymissy

02-08-2007, 08:33 AM

I don't think it will be exactly "mandatory".  I know in NY, you can sign a vaccine waiver when you register your children for school and decline vaccines.  Looks like you can do the same thing in TX An affidavit signed by the applicant or, if a minor, by the applicant's parent or guardian stating that the applicant declines immunization for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief. A form must be obtained at the Health Department.  http://www.909shot.com/state-site/Texas.htm

angrymissy

02-08-2007, 08:38 AM

Yeah, I looked into it more, and you can decline immunizations in basically every state.  They can't force you to give your kids shots.  You just have to have the waiver on file.

Aggie

02-08-2007, 08:44 AM

angrymissy wrote: Yeah, I looked into it more, and you can decline immunizations in basically every state.  They can't force you to give your kids shots.  You just have to have the waiver on file. Thanks Missy. I knew that but my uncle did that with his kids and I heard that he had a really hard time getting them to accept things. Of course this is just one person's experience but because it was religious beliefs of his, just his choice. He's a chiropractor and unless a hospital or doctor is neccessary he'd rather his kids not have the shots. Also, doesn't it make it hard to do things that require physicals and your required shots like be on the sports team and other stuff? I may be making that up. Hopefully it's as easy as the form but I don't know what else may be required. At least there's a chance to get out of it.

Bulldogcakes

02-08-2007, 01:07 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.No. As usual, you just dont understand where I'm coming from. And I've tried before to engage you in debate its pointless.

Bulldogcakes

02-08-2007, 01:16 PM

angrymissy wrote: I don't think it will be exactly "mandatory". I know in NY, you can sign a vaccine waiver when you register your children for school and decline vaccines. Looks like you can do the same thing in TX An affidavit signed by the applicant or, if a minor, by the applicant's parent or guardian stating that the applicant declines immunization for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief. A form must be obtained at the Health Department. http://www.909shot.com/state-site/Texas.htm  Good find Missy, if this isn't mandatory then there's no problem here as far as I can see.

HBox

02-08-2007, 06:22 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.No. As usual, you just dont understand where I'm coming from. And I've tried before to engage you in debate its pointless. No, you're not making any sense. Socialized medicine has nothing to do with this. We've had mandatory immunizations for a long time and the least socialized medical system in the industrialized world forever. Is there even a medical system in the world who forces people to have immunizations? With no exceptions?

scottinnj

02-08-2007, 07:53 PM

I find it scary that the media is calling this "mandatory" to grab your attention-then in the middle of the story mention that parents can opt their girls out of this.  If you can opt your kid out, it's not "mandatory" I blame the media for this one.............

TheMojoPin

02-08-2007, 08:16 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.No. As usual, you just dont understand where I'm coming from. And I've tried before to engage you in debate its pointless. No, you're not making any sense. Socialized medicine has nothing to do with this. We've had mandatory immunizations for a long time and the least socialized medical system in the industrialized world forever. Is there even a medical system in the world who forces people to have immunizations? With no exceptions? Thank you.BDC, it's usually all too clear where "you're coming from."  If debating me is pointless because I won't fold, fine.  But don't get bent out of shape just because someone calls you out for having a point that doesn't really add up.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-9-07 @ 12:23 AM

Snacks

02-08-2007, 08:21 PM

scottinnj wrote: I find it scary that the media is calling this "mandatory" to grab your attention-then in the middle of the story mention that parents can opt their girls out of this.  If you can opt your kid out, it's not "mandatory" I blame the media for <strike>this one</strike> everything, they sensationalize everything.fixed it for you.

This message was edited by Snacks on 2-9-07 @ 12:22 AM

scottinnj

02-08-2007, 08:23 PM

Thanks Snacks.

Bulldogcakes

02-09-2007, 02:09 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.No. As usual, you just dont understand where I'm coming from. And I've tried before to engage you in debate its pointless. No, you're not making any sense. Socialized medicine has nothing to do with this. Question-What is Socialized Medicine?Answer-Government run health care, where politicians and bureaucrats mandate all medical decisions for people based on what they believe is in the best interest of the public. Government decides, not you. Question-What is this thread about?Answer-Bureaucrats mandating a specific medical decision for what they believe is in the best interest of the public. Government decides, not you.  No connection whatsoever. Cant imagine why I brought it up. I generally dont assume people on this board are so myopic that you cant bring up points related to the topic at hand. I still dont, but I apparently need to start making exceptions.  H-Box, as to the rest of your post I already stated earlier that as long as its not mandatory, I have no problem with it.

Bulldogcakes

02-09-2007, 02:11 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:BDC, it's usually all too clear where "you're coming from." If debating me is pointless because I won't fold, fine. But don't get bent out of shape just because someone calls you out for having a point that doesn't really add up.Hey Mojo, How about I post whatever I want without you telling me what I can and cant do? Can you handle that?

narc

02-09-2007, 02:44 PM

If you've read anything I've written, I don't usually agree with bigger government either. But this seems like a no-brainer provided this vaccine is safe. And I think that in light of the Vioxx and Celebrex verdicts that have come out, big pharma will be a bit more cautious (although I suppose you could go the other way). Obviously parents should be able to opt out, but for me, it's not even about the sex. It's about public health. I look at it this way: when I became a teenager, my parents had me get a Hep B vaccine. In this country, you pretty much get it through needle sharing and sex. Were my parents anticipating me becoming a junkie or having sex? Probably not. Did they want to protect me in case "something" happened? Absolutely. In fact, I wasn't sexually active for a long time, but in keeping that particular vaccine updated, when I finally did become sexually active, I was sure as hell glad I had one less thing to worry about.

TheMojoPin

02-09-2007, 04:29 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: BDC, it's usually all too clear where "you're coming from." If debating me is pointless because I won't fold, fine. But don't get bent out of shape just because someone calls you out for having a point that doesn't really add up.Hey Mojo, How about I post whatever I want without you telling me what I can and cant do? Can you handle that?    You act like I'm constantly attacking you when all I'm doing is disagreeing with the points you make and the broad, declarative statements you tend to fall back on.  Is it really necessary to take my opinions on the subject or your ARGUMENTS (not you) so personally?

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-9-07 @ 8:30 PM

SinA

02-09-2007, 04:44 PM

As president of the local Parent-Teacher Association in my town, I'm going to authorize Mandatory Hot Beef Injections for High School girls, which I will be dispensing in the back of my van all next week.

HBox

02-09-2007, 04:54 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: You want socialized medicine? Get ready to give up the ability to make these kinds of decisions. They will be made for you, by the drug companies and hospitals who are providing these services and the gov't that is paying for it (notice who's missing from that equation? You are). And you will comply. Like it or not.You're all over the place here.No. As usual, you just dont understand where I'm coming from. And I've tried before to engage you in debate its pointless. No, you're not making any sense. Socialized medicine has nothing to do with this. Question-What is Socialized Medicine?Answer-Government run health care, where politicians and bureaucrats mandate all medical decisions for people based on what they believe is in the best interest of the public. Government decides, not you. Question-What is this thread about?Answer-Bureaucrats mandating a specific medical decision for what they believe is in the best interest of the public. Government decides, not you. No connection whatsoever. Cant imagine why I brought it up. I generally dont assume people on this board are so myopic that you cant bring up points related to the topic at hand. I still dont, but I apparently need to start making exceptions. H-Box, as to the rest of your post I already stated earlier that as long as its not mandatory, I have no problem with it.  What? I believe the point you are trying to make is that if there were some sort of single payer health care system that the government would mandate what they would cover and what they wouldn't, which wouldn't be any different from what insurance companies do.If your point is any different than that then you are going to have to give me an example because the worst horror stories I've heard of single-payer/universal/socialized/whatever you want to call it consist of obscene wait times and doctor shortages. I've never heard of people being forced into proceduresa dn taking drugs against they're will.

Bulldogcakes

02-27-2007, 04:03 PM

Follow up from the CDC<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-02-27T213209Z_01_N27380525_RTRUKOC_0_US-HPV-WOMEN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22">HPV infections seen in over quarter of U.S. women...</a> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than a quarter of U.S. girls and women ages 14 to 59 are infected with the sexually transmitted human wart virus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer, U.S. health officials estimated on Tuesday.That means human papillomavirus or HPV infection is more common than previously thought, particularly among younger age groups, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers said. Its prevalence was highest among those 20 to 24, with 44.8 percent infected, and nearly a quarter of teenagers aged 14 to 19. It gets betterHPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. High-risk HPV types can cause cervical, anal, penile and other genital cancers. Low-risk types can cause genital warts.   PENILE CANCER?!?! AAAAAAAAAAGGGHH!!!!!! VACCINATE EVERYBODY!!!! I DONT CARE IF IT FUCKING KILLS THEM!!!!

AgnosticJihad

02-28-2007, 07:27 AM

Aggie wrote: I might have to home school my kids. I heard about it this morning and even though I don't have any kids yet I was NOT happy with this news. I think it's ridiculous to make this mandatory with what looks like not enough research, especially when they want to give it to girls who are still so young and developing. What if this causes fertility problems long term? Do we know that yet? Big government = Bad in my eyes. Let me make my own decisions about my daughter. A shot isn't the answer for everyone. What about smart decisions and a healthy lifestyle? That's not an option anymore? I hate how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have.<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm" target="_blank" title="Mandatory Vaccine">http://washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm</a>"The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls.  Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures.......................................... .................... But physicians disagree with public health officials over whether Gardasil is the panacea for cancer. Clayton Young, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck's claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer.  "There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer," he said. "They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim."  Merck spokesman Chris Loder said the vaccine is effective for five years and the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drug maker is not sure how long afterward the vaccine will work. Critics point out that an additional booster shot may be necessary. "I agree. This mandatory viccination is all about the pharmacuetical companies. They used thier political clout to push politicians into doing this, all so they can profit off the public coffer. How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of shit? And it's not just the pharmacuetical industry, it's all of them. The government has become nothing more than a tool for corporate interests to flex thier will on the American public (not that it was ever anything more than that). The only way out is a revolution of the Marxist or anarchist type. Death to the bourgousie!Just kidding. Marxism is bullshit, as is so-called liberal democracy

angrymissy

02-28-2007, 07:29 AM

It's not mandatory.

AgnosticJihad

02-28-2007, 09:46 AM

angrymissy wrote: It's not mandatory. It is mandatory, in that parents have to go out of thier way to prevent thier children from getting the vaccination. Otherwise, thier child will recieve it.

Dan 'Hampton

02-28-2007, 09:59 AM

This comes down to the fact that there are alot of parents who don't care/pay enough attention to their kids and won't even judge if this is a good idea/ right thing for their kids and because of that the big ol government has to come in and decide for you.

angrymissy

02-28-2007, 10:56 AM

AgnosticJihad wrote: angrymissy wrote: It's not mandatory. It is mandatory, in that parents have to go out of thier way to prevent thier children from getting the vaccination. Otherwise, thier child will recieve it.All you have to do is sign a waiver.  You do have to make an informed decision for your child, but the way the press reported this was like the government is going to hold down your child and inject them.  Maybe it's just because I'm from a metropolitan area, but I know when I was in High School, they informed you of the right to decline vaccines.  Don't know if that would be the same in a more rural area.

AgnosticJihad

02-28-2007, 11:01 AM

angrymissy wrote: AgnosticJihad wrote: angrymissy wrote: It's not mandatory. It is mandatory, in that parents have to go out of thier way to prevent thier children from getting the vaccination. Otherwise, thier child will recieve it.All you have to do is sign a waiver.  You do have to make an informed decision for your child, but the way the press reported this was like the government is going to hold down your child and inject them.  Maybe it's just because I'm from a metropolitan area, but I know when I was in High School, they informed you of the right to decline vaccines.  Don't know if that would be the same in a more rural area.This is true. All I was saying was there are people out there who are to lazy or apathetic to make an informed decision, and thus will not sign the waivers even if they don't like the idea (potentially because they aren't even aware of the vaccine in the first place). Thus, it becomes mandatory by default. I'm not sure how it works in rural areas either as I live in a city, nor do I remember from my time in high school. As far as I am concerned, parents should be required to give permission for thier children to recieve the vaccine, not be required to sign a waiver to refuse the vaccine.

This message was edited by AgnosticJihad on 2-28-07 @ 3:03 PM

angrymissy

02-28-2007, 11:05 AM

My question would be, are they going to administer these IN SCHOOL?  Like at the nurses office?  Because I seriously doubt they could do that without informing the parents first.  To take any kind of medication you need a waiver signed by the parents.  Or, are they going to ask that you get the vaccine at your doctors office and bring back paperwork from the doctor?

Furtherman

02-28-2007, 11:18 AM

Remember you could tell the school nurse that your tummy hurt and you'd get to go home?  Those were the days.

LordJezo

03-01-2007, 11:35 AM

I don't know why people are against this shot, it should have a high a priority as the Polio vaccine did back in the day. Not everyone got Polio but everyone got the shot, and now we don't need to worry about it. No one seemed to complain about that, or maybe they did, it's not someone I need to worry about since it was wiped out so many years ago. I'm an ultra right wing crazy man but when it comes to this shot I think everyone should get it. 25% of women end up getting this thing, what's the problem with wiping it out completely? Everyone who is against it (at least from what I hear on the radio) seems to say "Oh no, not my daughter! She wont be a slut so there's no reason for her to get it." Shut the hell up. This virus is so everywhere that no one even knows they have it. Guys can carry it and have 0 knowledge of it until they pass it on to someone and find out from her. I can't comprehend at all why people are against it. People have sex, get over it, and your daughter will too. HPV isn't something that you can tell someone has and now that there is a chance to wipe it out, we should, and then prevent future generations from having to deal with it.

This message was edited by LordJezo on 3-1-07 @ 3:37 PM

angrymissy

03-01-2007, 12:08 PM

Well, from what I was reading at some news sites, the vaccine is apparently very new, and people don't think it has been tested enough.  Regardless, if I had a daughter, I would probably have no problem with her getting this shot.

nate1000

03-01-2007, 12:49 PM

LordJezo wrote: I don't know why people are against this shot, it should have a high a priority as the Polio vaccine did back in the day. Not everyone got Polio but everyone got the shot, and now we don't need to worry about it. No one seemed to complain about that, or maybe they did, it's not someone I need to worry about since it was wiped out so many years ago. I'm an ultra right wing crazy man but when it comes to this shot I think everyone should get it. 25% of women end up getting this thing, what's the problem with wiping it out completely? Everyone who is against it (at least from what I hear on the radio) seems to say "Oh no, not my daughter! She wont be a slut so there's no reason for her to get it." Shut the hell up. This virus is so everywhere that no one even knows they have it. Guys can carry it and have 0 knowledge of it until they pass it on to someone and find out from her. I can't comprehend at all why people are against it. People have sex, get over it, and your daughter will too. HPV isn't something that you can tell someone has and now that there is a chance to wipe it out, we should, and then prevent future generations from having to deal with it. This message was edited by LordJezo on 3-1-07 @ 3:37 PM Couldn't have said this better myself. Well maybe I would have used "Shut the f up, you puritanical prude". It amazes me that whenever you attach sex to any subject, people lose their f-ing minds and cannot put together a coherent thought. If, in fact (I only say if b/c I am not familiar with the study), 44.8 % of those 20 to 24 and nearly a quarter of teenagers aged 14 to 19 do carry this virus, which causes cervical, anal, penile and other genital cancers and can cause genital warts; and and if, in fact, this vaccination immunizes our daughters from contracting the virus- this is a no brainer. Seems to me the point is getting lost on bullshit side arguements. The fact that people are getting hung up on big-government issues and issues relating to talking to your kids abour sex makes me wish that thier kids do contract cervical cancer to prevent them from breeding another generation of retards. And the fact that you would risk your kid's health to spite big brother makes me want to spit in your fucking face.

underdog

03-01-2007, 02:55 PM

angrymissy wrote: My question would be, are they going to administer these IN SCHOOL? Like at the nurses office? Because I seriously doubt they could do that without informing the parents first. To take any kind of medication you need a waiver signed by the parents. Or, are they going to ask that you get the vaccine at your doctors office and bring back paperwork from the doctor? From what I've read, the child will need the shot before she is able to enter a certain grade. I don't think it will be given in school; they will actually need proof they have received the shot to continue in the school.

torker

03-01-2007, 03:01 PM

I scored a 1600 on the HPVs. 

angrymissy

03-01-2007, 03:26 PM

underdog423 wrote: angrymissy wrote: My question would be, are they going to administer these IN SCHOOL? Like at the nurses office? Because I seriously doubt they could do that without informing the parents first. To take any kind of medication you need a waiver signed by the parents. Or, are they going to ask that you get the vaccine at your doctors office and bring back paperwork from the doctor? From what I've read, the child will need the shot before she is able to enter a certain grade. I don't think it will be given in school; they will actually need proof they have received the shot to continue in the school. Ok, then the press really blew this out of proportion.  If someone is so adamant that their child not receive the shot, they should be riled up enough to fucking research the options and find out they can decline the shot legally.

Bulldogcakes

03-01-2007, 03:58 PM

torker wrote: I scored a 1600 on the HPVs.  I'd get the vaccine if I were you.

Bulldogcakes

03-01-2007, 04:05 PM

Discussion of the vaccine from WNYCDoesn't get into the politics, or whether or not it should be mandatory. Talks about the vaccine, how it works and who its recommended for. Has a pediatrician as the guest. Very enlightening. Click here to <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram?file=/bl/bl030107dpod.mp3" onclick="return embedAudioPlayer('/stream/ram?file=/bl/bl030107dpod.mp3', '/stream/xspf/74452', 'flashcontent74452', 74452);">Listen</a>

Basedow

03-01-2007, 04:34 PM

scottinnj wrote: Thanks Snacks. scott, every time i see your posts i get hynotized by your avatar. if you dont change it i will have to quit my job to stare at it full time. .... im sure there is a post coming about how i better quit my job

This message was edited by Basedow on 3-1-07 @ 8:35 PM

BLZBUBBA

03-01-2007, 05:03 PM

I'd be skeptical about any state-run drug program.  Let's not forget the lobbying the drug companies do.  Some mandatory drug program is going to mean big $ to the drug companies.  HUGE $$$. If they want to provide the drugs out of the goodness of their hearts HAH...for a break-even price that's one thing.  I want to see the bottom line on the deal.I read an article about kids that get put into mental instutitions down here (In Texas) and the amount of drugs they're force-feeding them.  One girl in particular supposedly had been forced to take just about every mental health med  known to man. Turns out the drugs were the problem.  And the drug companies were lobbying for their use...BIGTIME! I believe the article was in MOTHER JONES a couple years ago.

Bulldogcakes

03-01-2007, 05:35 PM

BLZBUBBA wrote: I'd be skeptical about any state-run drug program. Let's not forget the lobbying the drug companies do. Some mandatory drug program is going to mean big $ to the drug companies. HUGE $$$. If they want to provide the drugs out of the goodness of their hearts HAH...for a break-even price that's one thing. I want to see the bottom line on the deal.I read an article about kids that get put into mental instutitions down here (In Texas) and the amount of drugs they're force-feeding them. One girl in particular supposedly had been forced to take just about every mental health med known to man. Turns out the drugs were the problem. And the drug companies were lobbying for their use...BIGTIME! I believe the article was in MOTHER JONES a couple years ago.  And I get killed for MY sources around here. Funny though, you wont hear those folks complaining about that rag, however. You act as if there is no such thing as the FDA, which tests drugs for safety and effectiveness. Or a AMA, which also gives recommedations on use. I'm sure they're all crooks, too. Right?  You also act as if a company making money from a product they developed is a bad thing. Do you realize how many new drugs fail to work for every one that succeeds? Do you know how expensive it is to develop new medicines? Truly innovative drugs like this one dont come around that often, I hope they make bucketloads for their shareholders and help lots of people in the process. Everybody wins, yet you act like the pharmaceuticals are screwing the public.

Friday

03-02-2007, 10:17 AM

The procedures to fully diagnose and remove HPV are no joke.  Painful, mildly traumatic, inconvenient, messy... and sometimes risky.  I would not want my child to have to go through them at any age.  The possibilities if you do not get regular checks and go undiagnosed..... even scarier.  I think it's fine to have a waiver option... but I think that in the long run, isn't it smarter to vaccinate against a cancer-causing condition AND teach our kids to communicate with us, try to be sexually responsible, and to instill decent moral values in them?   Don't forget... sometimes the action of having sex, for far too many young women, is unfortunately not always voluntary.  And even if it is... why not protect them in advance?  If there was an AIDS vaccine, I would be the first one in line to get my kids injected.  Not because I am encouraging them to have sex, but because I am more concerned that they have one less life threatening disease to worry about. Just my $.02   :)

Yerdaddy

04-26-2007, 05:14 AM

Texas Legislators Block Shots for Girls Against Cancer Virus (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/us/26texas.html)

HOUSTON, April 25 — A revolt by lawmakers has blocked Gov. Rick Perry’s effort to make Texas the first state to require sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

In a 135-to-2 vote that appeared veto-proof, the Texas House gave final passage on Wednesday to a Senate bill that bars the state from ordering the shots until at least 2011. Even many supporters of the governor resented Mr. Perry’s proposal as an abuse of executive authority.

“There was no public testimony — why we were jumping so fast into a vaccine that was not for a true communicable disease,” said Senator Glenn Hegar Jr., a Republican representing a district just west of Houston who sponsored the Senate bill to overturn the governor’s order. It passed 30 to 1 on Monday.

But Senator Leticia van de Putte, a Democrat from San Antonio who is a pharmacist and was the lone Senate vote for the vaccination program, said that with 400 deaths in Texas from cervical cancer each year, “I’m thinking of the women that will die because we didn’t act.”

The vaccine, Gardasil, is manufactured by Merck, which was represented in Austin by the lobbyist Mike Toomey, who was chief of staff for Mr. Perry from 2002 to 2004.

The governor’s office denied any connection between the governor’s proposal and Mr. Toomey. A Merck spokesman declined to comment on the company’s lobbying.

But Merck, which had begun a campaign for Gardasil in legislatures around the country, reacted to growing opposition to proposed vaccine mandates by announcing in late February that it was dropping its legislative campaign.

While some health authorities and public advocates in Texas praised the governor’s order, many reacted angrily. Legislators argued that their authority had been usurped by the executive branch, which the state’s founding fathers intended as a weak branch of government.

On March 14, the Texas House voted 118 to 23 to prevent the health commission from issuing any vaccination mandate. But a Senate version of the bill, which prevailed Wednesday, provided that the ban would expire in four years, allowing lawmakers to revisit the issue. The next Legislature meets in 2009 and could vote to take up the issue then.

“We did not want to be the first in offering young girls for the experiment to see if this vaccine is effective or not,” said Representative Dennis H. Bonnen, a Republican from Angleton, who sponsored the ban in the House.
I figured this would happen - or the Texas courts would do it. I can't think of a reason the governor would be so gung ho about this except that he was in bed with Merck. He is. The real shame would be if the vaccine proves to be safe and effective and is implimented through a democratic process but the dictatorial and possibly corrupt methods of the gov actually set the thing back a few years. Right or wrong, this gov is a moron.

So, Aggie, it looks like you won't have to worry about the mandatory shot at shool anytime soon - especially since the legislature doesn't meet again until 2009???!!! There's a sweet job!

Just be sure and let your doctor advise you on how to keep the Lil' Aggies safe.