|
Subject: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 05 Feb 07 - 10:45 PM The type of thing I post to the local sites. Do you think this shot is a good or bad idea?: Feb 02 3:31 PM US/Eastern AUSTIN (AP) -- Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots. The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.... One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his (Perry's) former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government. Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons.... There has never been a law passed in the United States mandating vaccinations. Some regulations for jobs and services require vaccines, but even those rules have been successfully challenged in court. Texas public schools now require about 40 shots (many of them multiple, like the MMR), but you, as a parent, can "opt out" of those injections. All the forms you need are at the link below. Fill out the forms before your kid starts to school, so you will not be targeted and harrassed. Schools are paid a per-head amount for vaccinating children, and if you cut into that revenue, you need to have the paperwork in order. Also, if the school system or Child Protective Services tries to bully you into injecting your kid with no-telling-what, you can file a "Color of Law" suit against them. If they pretend they have the authority to inject your kid, they've broken the law. From the FBI's website: "...That's why it's a federal crime for anyone acting under "color of law" willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. "Color of law" simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency." This new move by Rick Perry is bad for a hundred reasons, two of the worst of which are: 1) This drug is not proven. No long-term tests have been done, but the drug companies' rubber-stamp FDA is trying to mislead the public into thinking it is safe. Many doctors believe it is a sterilizing agent, among other things. 2) Rick Perry issued this ruling as an Executive Order. The legislature would never pass it, so Perry paid back his drug company backers by asserting a dictatorial-like power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Rapparee Date: 05 Feb 07 - 11:14 PM The state has an interest in public health. George Washington, for example, mandated that all members of the Colonial Army be vaccinated against smallpox. The demand by the state that school children be vaccinated is reasonable in that such vaccination does prevent outbreaks of diseases that in the past were not only literally sickening, but sometimes lethal. If you as a parent elect to opt out of vaccinating your child and your child falls ill (from, say, whooping cough) you should bear the COMPLETE cost of your child's medical care -- no insurance payments, since you did not take reasonable measures to prevent the disease. I have no opinion about the actions of the Governor of Texas. I do not think that a vaccine which prevents cervical cancer will cause any more "promiscuity" than already exists -- "if they're gonna, they're gonna." What I find distressing is that no one seems to be addressing the males, who spread the virus -- therefore, you could be as pure as the Blessed Virgin when you wed and STILL be infected by your new husband. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Rapparee Date: 05 Feb 07 - 11:15 PM Oh, I'm not going to post to this thread again. I think you're trolling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 05 Feb 07 - 11:46 PM Not trolling, just making people aware. This is a hot topic in Texas. And it will be nationwide if a fuss isn't made. THEY WANT TO INJECT YOUR DAUGHTERS WITH THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT. The FDA is shilling for the drug companies again. This will add up to over 200 million dollars just in Texas. Perry was re-elected with 39% of the vote and now he's "mandating" for the drug companies. Actually, I need to go over his public statements and see if he said it's "the law." If he did, he's guilty of a Color of Law violation. Doubt he did that, though. Parents need to be made aware that the federal govt is injecting their kids with mercury, carcinogenic DNA remnants, live virus, and other types of crap. Most parents think it's "the law," so a couple times a year I address vaccines. And as for the cost argument...what about bearing the cost for autism? Since there's a link between mercury and autism, and the vaccines are high in mercury, and the parents allowed the vaccines, well....shouldn't the parents have to pay? Your reasoning on who should bear the cost is woefully flawed. Anyway, if any of you live in Texas and have daughters in the school system, check out the waiver link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 05 Feb 07 - 11:49 PM Oh, and military rules regarding vaccines differ from civilian rules. When you join the military, you become chattel. The property of the military. You've signed away control of your body. Not so with citizens who've retained their constitutional rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss Date: 06 Feb 07 - 03:59 AM Obviously the vaccine is a good thing - if used universally it will cut cervical cancer rates by 70%. And the thing about vaccines is that once you reach a certain level in the population, you get herd immunity, and therefore anyone who for whatever reason cannot be vaccinated, still gets a high level of protection. So it is a good idea to use strategies that maintain a high level of vaccination in the general population. Whether making any vaccines *mandatory* is a good idea is a whole discussion on its own - then you are getting into the area of civil liberties and the right to refuse treatment etc, versus risks to public health. Regarding the objections by some christian groups that it will encourage promiscuity and earlier sex... How many teenage girls do you know who even take the risk of cervical cancer into consideration when deciding whether to have sex? So there is your answer right there |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:20 AM The much passed around notion that vaccines cause autism has been proven repeatedly to be utter bunk. Go to your local cemetery, Yokel, and read the pre-vaccine era tombstones, especially all those little tiny stones, which are the grave markers of countless children dead of diseases vaccines prevent today. Read some genealogies, note when diptheria passed through a community, taking three and four children from a single family. People who don't get their children vaccinated are misguided, IMO, or they are paranoid fools, caring more about their conspiracy theories than their own children. Your daughters won't thank you when at 25 or 35 they find they have cervical cancer, because YOU were wearing a tinfoil hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Jeri Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:02 AM I've worked in public health, so of course I think it's a good idea. At some point, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and when all that the harm something might do is to offend someone's sensibilities, I don't think that should even be taken into consideration. When hepatitis B vaccinations became mandatory in schools where I was living, a woman I worked with refused to have her daughter vaccinated. She claimed that her daughter would never, at any time in her life, be at risk for sexual transmission because of their religion. Right. Let all the other kids get the vaccination and her daughter will be safe anyway. I think public schools ought to make proof of vaccines against communicable diseases required, with no exceptions other than medical ones. People who don't want their children to be vaccinated and protected against the diseases maybe should send their kids to private schools. I even have a problem with that, though, since I think allowing your child to remain vulnerable to a preventable disease might just constitute neglect. Let them get by with waivers. Then the only girls to get papilloma virus that develops into cervical cancer will be your daughters. But your 'rights' are more important than your children, aren't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jacqui.c Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:25 AM If the very well publicised risk of HIV does not deter teens from having sex why would a fear of cervical cancer? I can't see that this inoculation is going to lead to a more cavalier attitude to sex than already exists. Seems to me that that thought is born from ignorance and that ignorance will impact on the child, not the parent. I'm a bit ambivalent about mandatory inoculation but do think that, if anyone opts out, they should bear the resultant cost of any illness that might result. Hopefully, children whose parents opt them out may decide, as they get older, that they don't want to take that risk and have the inoculation themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:11 AM I'd like to point out that a former member of the governors staff is now a lobbiest for the drug company that makes the vaccine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:29 AM The vaccine is a good thing, but if its going to be mandatory it should be free. The HPV vaccine is administered in three doses at a cost of $120.00 per dose. Add on three office visit charges for each shot and Mom and Dad will have paid over $500.00 to vaccinate one daughter. So, a family with three daughters is expected to pay over $1,500.00 to be in compliance with a governmentally mandated program, while a family with three sons pays nothing. Sure, some people's insurance plans will cover most of the expense, but not everyone's. It amounts to penalizing parents for having girls instead of boys. If it's a public health issue, then the whole public needs to pay for it, not just the parents of girls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jacqui.c Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM Totally agree BWL. It will save money and lives down the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:47 AM Local Yokel, you need to take a flying leap. I am repulsed by Perry, Gov. Good Hair is a jerk. So he accidentally got something right. Mistakes happen. I researched this vaccine as soon as I heard about it and had my daughter, then 18, down to the doctor as soon as I could manage it to get her the first shot in the series. I even paid for it out of my own pocket--$175. Hoping they'd put it in the pharmacy list the insurance company covers before the next shot, which it did. There was an excellent discussion of this vaccine with a Dallas doctor on one of the local noon talk shows. They offer those as podcasts, if I get a chance to look for it later I'll post a link. Probably at least 2 months ago now, on KERA-FM. "Think" is the program's name now. Bottom line: That vaccine protects against four different strains of the virus. Even if you've been exposed to one or two its a good idea to get the shots because it will protect a woman from the strains she hasn't been exposed to. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:15 AM The FDA does shill for the drug companies, but on occasion they get something right, usually by accident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:02 PM How very sensible of Texas then. I hope the UK catches up soon, the authorities are still sitting on the fence here. The rough figures from the CDC are as follows. 8 diagnoses of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, per year, with a mortality rate of about 33% For reference, the fatalies from road accidents are about 15/100,00/year. Now doesn't that make even a quite expensive vaccine seem like a sensible way of protecting someone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:24 PM Ho, ho, ho. No comment. This is one tar pit I am not going to leap into. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM Men don't show symptoms, but it would make sense to give it to boys as well. They haven't done the research yet, though, to authorise that move. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Date: 06 Feb 07 - 12:57 PM It would make more sense to research prostate cancer and find preventions for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:07 PM What makes you think that research into prostate cancer is not getting done? It's not a zero-sum game. Research into many types of cancer is going on. In my opinion, there should be more research into gall bladder cancer. Of course, I'm biased on that score. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM What a person puts in his/her body is a personal choice. That includes needles and vaccine. This law is unconstitutional and will be taken to the US Supreme Court and thrown out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Scoville Date: 06 Feb 07 - 01:14 PM I'm just in shock that our Republican governor in a state with a dismal public health record and a long history of keeping its legislators hog-tied has yet to back down on this. Not that I'm complaining. While I'm not exactly thrilled about the government telling us we HAVE to have our daughters vaccinated I'm certainly going to ask about it for myself, and if I did have a daughter, you can bet she'd be getting it. And I'm with Bee-dubya-ell, that it should be subsidized to make sure people are able to comply. And the idea that it will promote promiscuity is utter crap. Nobody thinks about that when they have sex, especially not teenagers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:14 PM I didn't suggest it WAS a zero-sum game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:16 PM You certainly implied that it was an either-or proposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:28 PM prostate cancer survival Peace, more than 80% 10+ years survival with treatment, seems some research got done. Though that isn't prevention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM I am not suggesting that any cancer research be cut back in favour of other cancer research. Never have, never will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Date: 06 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM Prevention is a lot easier when a single cause can be isolated. That is why the HPV-cervical cancer link is so important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM Simple-minded Lou Dobbs polled on this question this evening. 62% voted against, which proves that 62% of the listeners are ignorant or mentally substandard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:21 PM Anything that makes sex safer is a good thing. Sex is a good thing too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Grab Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM Hmm, previous post seems to have vanished. Ho hum. What a person puts in his/her body is a personal choice. When they're making a choice for themselves, fine. When they're making a choice for world+dog, nope. In this case, the main reason for not doing it is financial - it's bloody expensive. Most state medical services can't afford that, so until it comes down in price then it's likely to be an optional thing, unless some state cares enough to pony up the cash. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,petr Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:35 PM absolutely it should be done. its a nobrainer, heres a vaccine where you can say that it will save x amount of lives per year. hey pdf - regarding personal choice and what a person puts into their body> how many guys are doing jail time because they got caught with a doobie? Ihavent seen anyone fight that at the Supreme Court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq Date: 06 Feb 07 - 07:53 PM dear GUEST, ptrf: Telling people what they cannot do, as in thought shalt not kill is a normal function of the government of a civilized society. The equvalent would having the government send people to inject THC into your body. That is unconstitutional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:17 PM The school children of Texas are now expected to recieve over 40 shots. Each one contains mercury. Most autism shows up after the third round of MMR shots. That's when the mercury overdose occurs, and either your body can handle it, or it can't. The link between autism and mercury is established. In the U.S. and abroad. There's widespread opposition to it in the U.K. One of the ministers even refused to have his kids innoculated. As far as this vaccine, there is already a version ready to go for males. But if you gave it to males (who spread the disease) there would then be no reason to vaccinate females. That's why this particular vaccine is so insidiously evil. They could spare the girls this trauma, but they have to get that extra little dose of mercury into their systems, along with the rest of the garbage described in the literature. Look it up. This is a nasty cocktail. Vaccines against some of the more common problems are one thing, but kids now get too many shots. Parents need to pick and choose what their kids are given. This one is too much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg Date: 06 Feb 07 - 08:40 PM I can't say for sure it is good or bad...anything new makes me nervous...but it is tragic that the reason I guess they are giving it to 12 year olds is that is the latest they can expect them to be virgins and the vaccine has to be given before for some reason supposedly..I haven't really followed it. Yikes. That says so much about us as a country that we can't or won't both protect our girls and protect society from their behavior and enforce what should be some basic rules of behavior, which means chaperoning them and the boys every minute just about at least in mixed company at least till they are 16 or so...there just should not be opportunities for children to get pregnant or the social enabling of it and that is what we do. I am not talking about 17 year-olds hear, or 16...but 11, 12, 13, 14..what the hell is going on and why aren't people more upset? You must chaperone young teens period. There is nothing else that works other than separating them or bringing back the nuns...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Feb 07 - 09:20 PM The adolescent HPV vaccine is free of thimerosal, a vaccine preservative containing mercury. Mercury has been phased out of most, if not all, vaccines given to children. See mayoclinic.com articles on autism. Extensive studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism. www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism/DS00348 Autism |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 06 Feb 07 - 10:02 PM No. You have to request thimerosal-free vaccine. It hasn't been phased out. Perhaps the first round of Gardasil will be free of mercury, but once it has go go onto the shelf with the other "required" vaccines, they'll give it as long a shelf-life as possible. From The National Autism Association: 11. The actions taken by the HHS to remove thimerosal from vaccines in 1999 were not sufficiently aggressive. As a result, thimerosal remained in some vaccines for an additional two years. Thimerosal remains in several vaccines and with the addition of the influenza vaccine now being recommended for infants, children are exposed to more thimerosal today than ever before. http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php That's another thing, folks...you need to look at the bottle the shot is drawn from and make sure the stuff doesn't contain thimrosal. Read the label. Don't let them walk into the room with a pre-filled hypodermic on a tray and inject your kid. Anyway, cervical cancer is highly treatable and ranks down on the lists of sexually transmitted diseases and cancers. Shooting up kids with untested serum for the condition shouldn't even be open to discussion, much less open to this kind of abuse. Do any of you know about the threat of leprosy in the U.S.? They're trying to poison your daughters, meanwhile the borders are wide open and we have this: "Americans should be told that diseases long eradicated in this country – tuberculosis, leprosy, polio, for example – and other extremely contagious diseases have been linked directly to illegals," Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., told the Business Journal of Phoenix. "For example, in 40 years, only 900 persons were afflicted by leprosy in the U.S.; in the past three years, more than 7,000 cases have been presented." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44394 There are much more serious health issues to be concerned with. But this cervical cancer vaccine "mandate" has created a very good backlash. Texas legislators are now discussing the entire vaccine situation, not just this one vaccine. VACCINATION MYTH #3: "Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today..." or are they? According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. http://www.angelfire.com/biz/froghollerfilas/VaccMyths.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Texas Guest Date: 06 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM Well, let's see here - just a short time back (ten days or so) our multi-talented Gov'nor made the front page of the "Startle-Gram" by coming out publicly with two of his cohorts proclaiming that global warming is not the fault of man, and besides, it's not happening anyway. I thought at the time that we should thank our heavenly stars down here for having elected officials who just so happened to be scientists, too! What luck, huh? Just in time, too, before we do something really drastic like cleaning up our foul air down here and penalizing corporate violators. We couldn't do that down here in good ole Texas - might just cause a decline in pediatric (and adult, for that matter) asthma, and where would that leave the drug companies? Now it seems we're twice-blessed - Ol Gov Perry's a doctor, too. From our house the issue is not whether he is right or wrong, rather, that he is out of line. My wife has been a pediatric nurse for twenty-five years and we don't go to the governor's office for medical advice and we don't go to her doctor group for political opinions (besides, her group of twelve pedi-docs are all republicans anyway, except for the one she works with). Rick Bush,...er...Perry doesn't give a rat's ass about clean air, state-wide healthcare, our bleeding border, or any other issue that doesn't resolve in a good healthy profit for those businesses that are supporting his party and their ilk. By the way, my wife's pediatric group has decided NOT to vaccinate - they are not even going to order the drug. Hey, Molly - send us down a write on this one, darling. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:32 AM Texas Guest, that's a rather exclusive argument and in fact a nonsensical argument. As if there is no cross-pollination of ideas in everyday life, that one must go exclusively to one venue for a particular expertise or set of ideas. That group of pediatricians sounds like they've made a very silly move, to base a medical decision on political reasons. And don't kid yourself into thinking that was a medical decision. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:36 AM I just think, even for older girls than 12 which horrifies me, that for something brand new, with drug companies lobbying like crazy, that it is a bit hasty to have mandatory vaccinations before some voluntary ones have been tried. If this was something like diptheria that people were dropping dead of on the streets, I'd still be cautious but say go ahead...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee Date: 07 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM CDC The link to the CDC above contains everything you need to know about mercury in some vaccines, and refutes just about everything Local Yokel has posted regarding vaccine safety. mg, a percentage of our children have always been sexually active by 12, 13, 14. Pregnancies, when that was the result (and it isn't always, obviously) were hidden, frequently the grandmother claimed the child as her own. Sexual exploration is a natural consequence of our physical nature, the age at which our bodies mature, and until recently, speaking historically, 13 or 14 was not an unusual age to marry. We artificially prevent reproduction, not just with contraception, but with culture. Cultural pressure is bound to fail a percentage of the time, and teens having sex is one result. The best we can do is try to persuade children to consider consequences, and failing that, teach them how to protect themselves. A vaccine that helps them live in spite of early misadventures is a good thing. But the vaccine should be free or cheap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg Date: 07 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM No, the best for children and very young teens is to make it physically impossible for them to do this exploration and to be in unchaparoned company of the opposite sex. Are we goingt o let 5 year olds who want to play in the street explore their biological desire to do so? No. Making good decisions is a job for the older teens and of course they must be taught to do so. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:08 PM As far as this vaccine, there is already a version ready to go for males. But if you gave it to males (who spread the disease) there would then be no reason to vaccinate females. That's why this particular vaccine is so insidiously evil. They could spare the girls this trauma... Surely this would also be equally valid: there is a version ready to go for females. But if you give it to females (who are in danger from the disease), there would be no need to vaccinate males. That's why this vaccine is so insidiously evil. They could spare the boys this trauma... It's not complicated. You protect the people directly at risk. Besides, a teenage boy would claim the sky is green if he though it would help him get laid. You really think they wouldn't lie about a vaccination? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:19 PM Why is it so difficult for people to set aside the sex component and simply look at the cancer component? The question is very easy: Do you want to prevent cancer in your children in the future, yes or no? You can't control when other people's children start having sex, you may have some influence with your own. Do you think other people's children deserve to get cancer because they become sexually active very young? That's as stupid a binary as I can up with in the face of this bickering to make the point. Stop the idiotic hand wringing and finger pointing about when kids start experimenting with sex or what does and doesn't give them "permission." Do you want to prevent a form of cancer that kills women? This vaccine is how to do it. Period. Questions? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 07 - 12:46 PM BTW--That wasn't aimed at anyone, but when I reread it I realized it might appear so. A rhetorical shotgun approach to the question tends to hit everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Date: 07 Feb 07 - 01:18 PM The CDC is an arm of the federal government. This is the federal government that told you cell phones were okay when they knew beforehand that they would cause cancer. When cell phones hit the market, medical schools adjusted their programs to begin churning out more brain surgeons, because of the anticipated rise in brain tumors. The govt knew the technology was dangerous, yet it was approved. And then just this year it's "discovered" cell phones cause cancer. This is the govt that in the past year announced it would allow meat sellers to spray meat with newly-discovered live viruses to help combat bacterial growth. I believe it was 600 people a year die because they eat spoiled lunch meats in the U.S., so the FDA granted permission to spray ALL lunchmeats with an untested cocktail of viruses. If you eat lunchmeats, you're eating newly-discovered viruses, courtesy of the FDA. This govt gave black men syphillis to track the consequences. It gave smallpox-infected blankets to the American Indians. It tested radioactive fallout on American troops. Etc., etc., etc. Don't be fooled for a moment that any govt regulatory agency has your well-being in mind. They are bureaucracies intent on creating more duties for themselves because that insures job security. Your safety is secondary. Govt needs to stay OUT of individuals' lives. Make the vaccines available, educate parents, then let the parents decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee Date: 07 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM Yokel, I think you give 'The Government' more credit for diabolical planning than its due. Elected governments are too messy and slow-moving to be involved in such intricate minutiae. Mistakes get made, bad drugs get released, bad wars are entered into, bad environmental decisions are made, wealthy cronies get their way on some laws - but to think some upperlevel bureaucrat says, "Aha! Let's kill a few thousand citizens on purpose!" is tinfoilhattery. Can we have a cite for the lunchmeat viruses, please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 07 - 02:11 PM Local Yokel goes to such esteemed sites as "Angelfire" for his citations. You'd better ask for "credible" citations. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Donuel Date: 07 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM We were required to give our 5 year old hep C venereal disease vaccines in Maryland. I could understand it if we were Catholic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 07 Feb 07 - 02:30 PM Looks like Florida may be the second state to require HPV vaccine. CLICK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq Date: 07 Feb 07 - 07:12 PM GUEST,Local Yokel says: Govt needs to stay OUT of individuals' lives. Make the vaccines available, educate parents, then let the parents decide. Second that motion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Date: 07 Feb 07 - 07:27 PM '"Aha! Let's kill a few thousand citizens on purpose!" is tinfoilhattery.' I am gonna wade in on Local Yokel's side. If you think Governments are above or beyond any of this shit, maybe try taking a good look at stuff done by the CIA in MONTREAL. READ THE DAMNED NYT ARTICLE. Then stop mocking a man who seems to know more than many of you. You buy this FDA crap. Bastards are in bed with the damned drug companies. |
