|
05 Feb 07 - 10:45 PM (#1958586) Subject: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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. |
|
05 Feb 07 - 11:14 PM (#1958602) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Rapparee 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. |
|
05 Feb 07 - 11:15 PM (#1958603) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Rapparee Oh, I'm not going to post to this thread again. I think you're trolling. |
|
05 Feb 07 - 11:46 PM (#1958617) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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. |
|
05 Feb 07 - 11:49 PM (#1958619) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 03:59 AM (#1958707) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:20 AM (#1958825) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 08:02 AM (#1958863) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Jeri 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? |
|
06 Feb 07 - 08:25 AM (#1958893) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jacqui.c 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 09:11 AM (#1958940) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 09:29 AM (#1958958) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee-dubya-ell 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM (#1958974) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jacqui.c Totally agree BWL. It will save money and lives down the line. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 09:47 AM (#1958988) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 10:15 AM (#1959020) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace The FDA does shill for the drug companies, but on occasion they get something right, usually by accident. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:02 PM (#1959171) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain 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? |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:24 PM (#1959198) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Little Hawk Ho, ho, ho. No comment. This is one tar pit I am not going to leap into. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM (#1959223) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:57 PM (#1959239) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace It would make more sense to research prostate cancer and find preventions for that. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 01:07 PM (#1959249) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM (#1959253) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 01:14 PM (#1959257) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Scoville 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:14 PM (#1959325) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace I didn't suggest it WAS a zero-sum game. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:16 PM (#1959327) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp You certainly implied that it was an either-or proposition. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:28 PM (#1959341) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee prostate cancer survival Peace, more than 80% 10+ years survival with treatment, seems some research got done. Though that isn't prevention. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM (#1959350) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace I am not suggesting that any cancer research be cut back in favour of other cancer research. Never have, never will. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM (#1959352) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Prevention is a lot easier when a single cause can be isolated. That is why the HPV-cervical cancer link is so important. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM (#1959722) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:21 PM (#1959728) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Richard Bridge Anything that makes sex safer is a good thing. Sex is a good thing too. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM (#1959729) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Grab 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:35 PM (#1959742) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,petr 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 07:53 PM (#1959762) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 08:17 PM (#1959782) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 08:40 PM (#1959796) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 09:20 PM (#1959822) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 10:02 PM (#1959845) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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 |
|
06 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM (#1959886) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Texas Guest 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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 12:32 AM (#1959913) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 12:36 AM (#1959916) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg 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 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM (#1960047) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee 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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM (#1960071) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: mg 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 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 12:08 PM (#1960090) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain 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? |
|
07 Feb 07 - 12:19 PM (#1960096) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 12:46 PM (#1960126) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage 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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 01:18 PM (#1960147) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM (#1960195) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee 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? |
|
07 Feb 07 - 02:11 PM (#1960215) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Local Yokel goes to such esteemed sites as "Angelfire" for his citations. You'd better ask for "credible" citations. SRS |
|
07 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM (#1960222) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Donuel We were required to give our 5 year old hep C venereal disease vaccines in Maryland. I could understand it if we were Catholic. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 02:30 PM (#1960234) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee-dubya-ell Looks like Florida may be the second state to require HPV vaccine. CLICK |
|
07 Feb 07 - 07:12 PM (#1960546) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: pdq 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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 07:27 PM (#1960564) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace '"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. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 07:32 PM (#1960570) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Read it then tell me about our Governments and the shit they 'wouldn't do'. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 07:47 PM (#1960583) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Read about the incident at Skull Valley in 1968. OOPS. "An open-air test of VX nerve agent at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah in 1968 goes awry, killing 6,000 sheep and dealing a major blow to the U.S. chemical weapons program." When that was first released by the underground press, it was called 'tinfoil hattery' and mocked. Hell, OUR government would NEVer do something like that. Oh yeah? I'll see if I can find you some pictures fer krissake. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:03 PM (#1960600) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace Thank you. This rant was brought to you by someone who agrees with Local Yokel and who is fed up to his arse with the "we can't beat them with facts so we'll mock them" school of thought. Here's a bit more for y'all to chew on. '"Of Microbes and Mock Attacks: Years Ago, The Military Sprayed Germs on U.S. Cities Jim Carlton / Wall Street Journal 22oct01 SAN FRANCISCO -- Fifty-one years ago, Edward J. Nevin checked into a San Francisco hospital, complaining of chills, fever and general malaise. Three weeks later, the 75-year-old retired pipe fitter was dead, the victim of what doctors said was an infection of the bacterium Serratia marcescens. Decades later, Mr. Nevin's family learned what they believe was the cause of the infection, linked at the time to the hospitalizations of 10 other patients. In Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the U.S. Army revealed that weeks before Mr. Nevin sickened and died, the Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, secretly spraying the city with Serratia and other agents thought to be harmless.' Read all about it. HERE. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM (#1960601) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace I'm still pissed off, so here's more: "But the radiation experiments did not end there, nor even with the end of World War II. The malignant flowering of curiosity about the effects of radiation on humans continued for three more decades. Until the 1970s, government scientists and physicians made use of unwitting Americans in order to discover the effects of exposure. Scientists already knew that radiation was dangerous." From here. From the work of a Pulitzer Prize winner--for this work! |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM (#1960602) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace '"It was in the 1950s and America was in the height of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a deadly race to produce the most powerful nuclear bombs. A cartoon turtle taught the children what to do in case the Soviets attacked. Air raid drills were staged in every classroom and city across America. Little did Americans know they were already under attack -- by America. "The human populations didn't know, the local governments didn't know, this was a secret army project that went on for 20 years," said author Leonard Cole. The U.S. government was preparing for germ warfare by secretly spraying biological agents on its own citizens. The tests were conducted in 239 cities, including one of Oklahoma's most prominent communities. "Among the hundreds and hundreds of tests that the army did, Stillwater, Oklahoma was targeted," said Cole, an expert on the Army's development of biological weapons. In some cities reports indicate Americans actually died because of the testing. Government records show florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide were released in Stillwater in 1962. "Cadmium itself is known to be one of the most highly toxic materials in small amounts that a human can be exposed to," Cole said.' From http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?s=1250476 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:14 PM (#1960605) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace 'A snippet from the study... "Conclusion. This study provides strong epidemiological evidence for a link between increasing mercury from thimerosal- containing childhood vaccines and neurodevelopment disorders and heart disease. In light of voluminous literature supporting the biologic mechanisms for mercury-induced adverse reactions, the presence of amounts of mercury in thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines exceeding Federal Safety Guidelines for the oral ingestion of mercury, and previous epidemiological studies showing adverse reactions from such vaccines, a causal relationship between thimerosal- containing childhood vaccines and neurodevelopment disorders and heart disease appears to be confirmed.' But, WTF, huh? No one is interested because our governments would never allow this shit to happen. It's too bad so many good people have given up on the kids of this world by blindly trusting governments who have and do trample their citizens into the bloody dirt. But WTF, huh? |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:17 PM (#1960607) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace BTW, Local Yokel, what size tinfoil hat do YOU wear? Please make mine a 7 3/4, OK? We'll stand out in the crowd. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:21 PM (#1960610) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0002387/42/ First link that popped up on Yahoo to a story about the spray-on virus for lunchmeats. Looks like a govt pep-piece, but that's a place to start if you want to investigate. Do a google or yahoo search for more and you'll find that only ONE test was done for this stuff. And, these things haven't been studied that long. Bacteria is necessary in the gut. They (FDA) admit they don't know what this will do to beneficial bacteria. AND, they issued the permission to use the stuff to one company, BUT THEY WON'T ANNOUNCE WHICH ONE. In addition to being potentially deadly, and a betrayal of what the agency is supposed to do, this is government-sponsored terrorism. I'd have to see to believe on the shots in Maryland. Sounds like a Color of Law violation. Another thing, folks, you don't even have to sign the waivers to get your kids to pass on vaccinations. YOU CAN'T BE FORCED TO SIGN ANYTHING IN AMERICA (It's called the Fifth Amendment). All you need to do is appear at your kid's school and TELL them you don't want the garbage in your kid, and if they vaccinate, you will sue the school district and the individuals who ignored your demands. Might be a good idea to tape yourself telling the school officials, though, so you can provide proof in a court case. Americans have been bluffed and bullied into accepting a lot, but injecting stuff like this into your kids...that's too much. Talk about environmentalism, where does it begin if not here? Keep the people with needles away from your kids if you have doubts. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:34 PM (#1960618) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Excellent article on Velma Orlikow, Peace. Thanks for posting that. And the one about govt experimentation books. Yeah, tinfoil hats. I've come to the conclusion people want to be ignorant. Willful ignorance. A self-induced blind spot. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 08:38 PM (#1960624) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: bobad All medical interventions are evaluated by calculating their risks versus their benefits. If you Google "vaccines risk vs. benefits" the overwhelming opinions seem to favour vaccination - FWIW. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 09:41 PM (#1960666) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Peace "PRESS RELEASE October 17, 2001 Press release re internal CDC report on thimerosal and autism An announcement was made today by the law firm of Waters & Kraus, the firm that filed the first known lawsuit alleging that a mercury preservative in children's vaccines caused neurological damage to an infant ultimately diagnosed with autism. Waters & Kraus is leading a consortium of ten firms in as many states that are actively prosecuting cases of this nature (firms listed below). Andy Waters, the lead attorney in the cases, announced that his firm is now in possession of a previously unreleased confidential report authored by Centers for Disease Control scientists which studied autism as a potential neurological injury caused by mercury in children's vaccines. A different version of the report was made public and has been cited by the recent Institute of Medicine study as inconclusive on the issue of whether the mercury-based vaccine preservative known as thimerosal has contributed to cause a nationwide epidemic of regressive autism and other neurological disorders in small children. The confidential version of the study, however, clearly demonstrated that an exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury within the first three months of life significantly increased a child's risk of developing autism. Specifically, the study found a 2.48 times increased risk of autism - that is to say, children with the exposure were more than twice as likely to develop autism as children not exposed. In the United States, courts of law have generally held that a relative increased risk of 2.0 or higher is sufficient to substantiate that a given exposure causes disease. As but one example, in the case of Cook v. United States, 545 F.Supp. 306, at 308 (Northern District - California 1982) the Court stated that, "in a vaccine case, a relative risk greater than 2.0 establishes that there is a greater than 50% chance that the injury was caused by the vaccine." from http://www.geocities.com/arnfl/stats.html?20077 |
|
07 Feb 07 - 11:38 PM (#1960727) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel 1977: Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis. 1977: Ray Ravenhott, director of the population program of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), publicly announced the agency's goal to sterilize one quarter of the world's women. In reports by the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Ravenhott in essence cited the reasoning for this being U.S. corporate interests in avoiding the threat of revolutions which might be spawned by chronic unemployment. Since then, allegations have surfaced that free vaccinations being given by the World Health Organization include a "pregnancy anti-body" which fools a woman's body into treating a pregnancy as an infection. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/biowar.html "This is not the first time the WHO (World Health Organization) has been called on the carpet to explain their surreptitious use of antifertility vaccines. Millions of female Mexicans, Nicaraguans and Filipinos were duped into taking tetanus vaccines, some of which were laced with a female hormone that could cause miscarriage and sterilization. In 1995 a Catholic organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting this Canadian-made tetanus vaccine covertly laced with a pregnancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the peculiar dose of five multiple injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of child-bearing age. When an unusual number of women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a hormone additive was uncovered as the cause." http://www.rense.com/general54/Cancer-causing_vaccinesR.htm (Oh, this is good. The spray-on listeria killer for meat isn't allowed in the U.S. for antibiotic treatment, but it's allowed as a pesticide. So, they're spraying pesticide on your meat): "This is the first time FDA has regulated the use of a phage preparation as a food additive. However, phages are currently approved in the U.S. for pesticide applications, including uses on crops. Although not currently permitted in the U.S., phages are used in other countries in antibiotic therapy." http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opabacqa.html |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:41 AM (#1960780) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan How can they make this mandatory unless its free? It would be better to educate about safe sex and provide free condoms. I think its a bad idea to vaccinate because then girls will think they are protected and not worry about STDs. In other words, I think it may actually encourage unprotected sex. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 03:10 AM (#1960803) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage They're not free, and they are added to the growing list of things like MMR, (measles, mumps, rubella), DPT (whooping cough), tetanus, chicken pox. . .they're all required. Parents get their children well-child checkups and shots are part of it (there's a copay) or they go to the county for discounted shots. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 09:10 AM (#1961087) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bee Dianavan: "I think its a bad idea to vaccinate because then girls will think they are protected and not worry about STDs. In other words, I think it may actually encourage unprotected sex. " This implies that girls would think, or be taught, that there is only one kind of STD, and even the most rudimentary STD education will mention that there are *many* STDs, and that safe sex is either no sex OR sex with a condom. It's like saying "I think it's a bad idea to tell people to use seatbelts because then they'll think they're protected and not worry about car crashes". Most kids are not that stupid. And some kids will always do a few reckless things in their lives, not thinking of consequences, like having unprotected sex in the heat of the moment, or while high on something, or they get date raped. Wouldn't it make sense to give them at least protection from one killing disease? Bit late when they've already *had* unprotected intercourse. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 10:28 AM (#1961164) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage I'll say it again--this isn't about sex. It's simply one way to prevent cancer. Stop worrying about how other people raise their children and start thinking about a global way to help your community stay healthier by eliminating a major health hazard for grown women who are experiencing cervical cancer. SRS |
|
08 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM (#1961180) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan I was musing. Its might be a good idea and I would ask my daughter to consider it but I don't think it should be mandatory and if it is, it should be paid for by the govt. As Wesley said, "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." Thats a red flag. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 10:51 AM (#1961186) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage No, that's a red herring. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 11:11 AM (#1961204) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S Why would you call it a red herring when the Governor has just handed over a huge windfall to a friend of his? Do you really think that he was motived to do the right thing? |
|
08 Feb 07 - 11:21 AM (#1961215) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Since vaccination is a good thing to do, it's probably best not to throw around accusations unless you have some evidence. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing? |
|
08 Feb 07 - 11:43 AM (#1961237) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S From the local Ft Worth paper: "The order, made public in a news release late Friday, was met with criticism from conservative organizations and some Republican lawmakers who have suggested that the Republican governor is taking away the prerogative of Texas parents and perhaps allowing his decisions to be influenced by the lobbying efforts of Merck & Co., the sole manufacturer of the vaccine to prevent the spread of the human papillomavirus. "What kind of deal was made?" said state Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, who joined Nelson at the news conference. Aides to the governor dismissed as "absurd" any suggestion that the move was influenced by outside forces or by the fact that Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is a Merck lobbyist. In a statement, Perry said he stood behind his decision because the vaccine will protect women's health." |
|
08 Feb 07 - 11:58 AM (#1961261) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss For an example of what spreading unfounded scares and rumours about vaccination can do, look at what has happened in Nigeria with regards to the polio vaccine. Rumours were spread around the country that the vaccine was contaminated with HIV or that it made you infertile. As a result vaccination levels plummeted, resulting a very high rate of polio in the country, at a time when it was looking possible that the disease could be totally eradicated. Similarly, in the 70's in the uk, there was a scare story that the whooping cough vaccine could cause brain damage. Take up of the vaccine fell to below 50% and cases of whooping cough rose, and people died as a direct result of the media whipping up this scare story. Luckily, despite the persistence of the idea that MMR causes autism, vaccination levels have fallen, but not so low as to cause major outbreaks. For anyone (yokel) that doubts whether levels of illnesses have fallen as a direct result of vaccination, I will look out some graphs that show it conclusively and post them later. The lies that are spread by the anti vaccination lobby are criminal in my opinion. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 12:23 PM (#1961286) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss Here are relevant reports from the Uk showing the drop of the relevant diseases within a year or two of a vaccine being introduced. Scroll down a couple of pages to see the graphs. Measles Haemophilus (HiB) Diphtheria Meningococcal type C See pertussis , and how it flared up in the late 70s after the vaccine rate dropped: Polio |
|
08 Feb 07 - 12:35 PM (#1961298) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp So, you have no evidence, just speculation. Other peoples' speculation is not evidence, just as your own speculation is not evidence. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 12:36 PM (#1961301) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S Define what is acceptable to you as evidence. And please don't speculate. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 12:46 PM (#1961310) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Somebody being present at a meeting. A paper trail. Not somebody saying, "I wonder what kind of deal was made?" The kind of thing you can take into court. At the moment, there isn't even probable cause. Just a bunch of questions. No answers. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM (#1961333) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S Has he broken the law? Probably not. I'm not trying to take the man to court. I'm expressing displeasure at the way this governor makes deals. It's typical. I mean - why should I care - right? I have a 6 year old son - not a daughter. I'm not against vaccines even though I have a right to be suspicious of them. What I object to is the way this particular politician goes about doing business. I've lived in Texas for 27 years. We know what manure smells like.How familar are you with this man? |
|
08 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM (#1961336) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Not at all familiar. He's a politician, so he's probably at least a bit scummy. I just don't like to see accusations without evidence. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 01:33 PM (#1961358) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss Thimerosal and autism: From a Danish study: "There was no trend toward an increase in the incidence of autism during that period when thimerosal was used in Denmark, up through 1990. From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal. " From wikipedia: 2001- The Institute of Medicine, citing insufficient evidence, is unable to prove or disprove any link between thiomersal and autism. However, they conclude that a causal connection between thiomersal and autism is "biologically plausible". 2004- The Institute of Medicine, based on new information from epidemiological studies undertaken since its 2001 report, rejects the hypothetical causative link between thiomersal and autism. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM (#1961385) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan Here's a good article. Among other things, it says, "Long-term side effects of the vaccine are unknown." It also says, " Mandatory vaccinations in this country so far have been to protect public school students from diseases that are commonly transmitted in classrooms." http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/+/2007020824/Health-agency-opposes-vaccine-bill/ Pap smears are a very effective way of spotting cervical cancer. Maybe its pap smears that should be mandated. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:00 PM (#1961399) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Give me control of the books, graphs and figures and I'll make a case for anything you want. The govt can't be trusted to tell the truth. It is not in its interest to tell the truth. The listeria spray was begun because 500 a year die from eating bologna sandwiches they left out in the sun all day. The govt told us it was time to put a stop to the "epidemic," and their fix was to start tainting meat with a different kind of poison. 3000 a year die from a highly-treatable form of cancer, so they told us it was imperative that schoolgirls be given an experimental vaccine. Here's an excerpt from a column about listeria by Molly Ivins: "since Bush took office, "there has been a message from USDA that they would give the benefit of the doubt to the industry... Bush administration officials at USDA have consistently made clear they do not believe meat processors must be held accountable for the safety of meat coming off the end of the line. Since November 2001, the undersecretary for food safety has denigrated pathogen testing and zero tolerance. Both the industry and government have put profit ahead of public health." http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=13933&CFID=3165269&CFTOKEN=76863937 So, the federal govt created a problem...higher level of listeria. Then they came along with the solution...dangerous spray-on bacteriophages for meats. This is an age-old method that some people call the Hegelian dialectic, some call the Marxist dialectic. Thesis/Antithesis/synthesis. Problem/Reaction/Solution. With the listeria, federal cleanliness standards were allowed to fall so a problem could develop. People reacted by wanting protection. The solution was to poison the meat of the people wanting protection. And the ultimate power govt can control over you is to kill you, which is where (in my studied opinion) the vaccination programs come in. If you took the polio vaccine between 1962-1999, it contained the carcinogen SV-40. Death by cancer. Anthrax shots during the Iraq war? Death by no-one-knows-what-yet. Injected with Rick Perry's Gardasil? Another unknown, because the stuff hasn't been tested adequately. You can only be so safe in this life, folks, and the LAST people you want sticking you or your kids with needles are the Anglo-American eugenicists. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:00 PM (#1961400) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Detection is not the same as prevention. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:05 PM (#1961412) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Grab 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. Nope. Either you've failed to read any new information on this subject for the last 3-4 years, or you've only read information from people who've deliberately not told you any new information for the last 3-4 years. Or possibly you're lying, although I'll be charitable and forget that option for now. The link between autism and vaccines has been 100% debunked. The scientist who proposed it *NEVER* said that there was a link, merely that it was worth further research after one study found the possibility of a link was within the statistical significance of the study. Further studies (including a nation-wide "study" in Japan, courtesy of an accident of fate) found categorically that there was no link. This all came out 2-3 years ago. For those who haven't kept up with the news, a good summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy. If we're talking about "beating them with facts", it'd be nice if folks actually *used* facts, instead of quoting discredited hypotheses as facts. It'd also be nice if people stayed on topic - as far as I can see, all the posts from Peace and Yokel recently are saying "people lied several decades ago, so they might be lying now". Sure they might be. But suppose you had something wrong with you. Would you rather rely on a whole stack of studies by people with medical training that have been peer-reviewed and replicated in other studies by other people with medical training, or would you rather try random Angelfire pages written by people with little or no medical training? If you prefer the latter, I've got a lovely bridge you can buy... Graham. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:07 PM (#1961415) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S What's your solution Jeff? |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM (#1961426) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan jeffp - You're partly right. Detection is not prevention. Pap smears can and do alert you to pre-cancerous cells. In the case of pap smears, detection can alert you and surgery can prevent cancer from developing. In most cases, surgery is a cone biopsy performed as a day surgery. It can actually be done in a doctors office without hospitalization. This surgery does not cause infertility. It seems to me that people are rushing into this without considering the long term effects and the precedent that might be set. Why the rush? You'd think this was a pandemic or something. In fact, the cases of cervical cancer are declining, thanks to the pap smear. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:47 PM (#1961477) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp To what? The lack of evidence? Watch and wait. If there's something there, it will probably come out. If there's nothing there, there's nothing to solve. All you have is speculation. You don't like the governor, he has a friend in the drug industry, he made an order that will likely benefit his friend, there is medical basis for the order. Does this add up to anything? Maybe. Maybe not. There is really nothing you can do at this point. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Hollering that the governor is corrupt is not warranted by this. It may be by other things, I don't know. I keep an eye on my own governor. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:56 PM (#1961486) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp Pap smears are also not perfect. They can and do miss precancerous cells and also cancerous ones. To get a positive Pap, the pathologist (a human, and therefore fallible) must examine the precise location where the cancer cells are. The surgery must then be complete, leaving exactly zero cancer cells behind. One cancer cell left in the body can lead to a recurrence, and, eventually, death. Believe me. I know from personal experience. Another issue, since so many of you are hollering about cost, is how much does a Pap smear cost? According to a site I saw, pap tests should begin at age 21 or after 3 years of sexual activity. Beginning at age 12 would add a fair bit of cost as well as possibly straining resources, risking a higher rate of false positives and false negatives. It's the false negatives that worry me the most. Easy to happen when a tech is rushed. I prefer to see prevention. Cancer treatment is expensive, debilitating and worrisome. Once you receive that diagnosis, everything is changed, for you and everyone who loves you. Eliminating (for the most part) one source of that heartbreak is a good thing. If a sufficient percentage of the population is vaccinated, HPV and the associated cervical cancers could go the way of smallpox and polio. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 04:46 PM (#1961626) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage
It seems to me that people are rushing into this without considering the long term effects and the precedent that might be set. Why the rush? You'd think this was a pandemic or something. In fact, the cases of cervical cancer are declining, thanks to the pap smear. Give me a break! You'd keep going along, hoping that women get pap smears, and if they show signs, let them be subject to surgery that will reduce the strength of the cervix and can compromise healthy pregnancies because of what? Resistance to three shots that can prevent several (by no means all, but the four most dangerous) forms of viral infection that lead to cancer? Accurate and timely detection (sometimes a challenge, depending on the lab) are critical but not always performed. And surgery has far more risks than immunization shots. Surgery that misses getting everything can add insult and complications to the injury. And the women who didn't get the pap smears and who end up with cancer, well, too bad. Those pesky shots were too big a nuisance to have mandated, is that going to be your story? Critical thinking is necessary to puzzle this out, and the excuses for not putting this into effect are a sorry bunch of old rumors that have long since been debunked. Only one company makes the vaccine. So it's not like there was no competition for any reason other than only one company offers it. And Wesley, I'm disappointed--you need to think outside that XY box. Just because you don't need it at this particular time, you would dismiss making it uniformly available (meaning the schools are going to be the gatekeepers for this cancer prevention initiative because what schools want, schools get regarding immunizations for school). There are a lot of "what ifs" that can be tacked onto this to provide good personal incentive to view the vaccine differently. Basically, think of any young woman in your life now and in the future. SRS |
|
08 Feb 07 - 04:54 PM (#1961640) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Wesley S "And Wesley, I'm disappointed--you need to think outside that XY box. Just because you don't need it at this particular time, you would dismiss making it uniformly available " Stilly - c'mon - that was sarcasm. Of course I care. That was a reaction to some of Jeff's comments that pissed me off. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 05:19 PM (#1961660) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Okay--I was surprised at what seemed an odd sentiment for you. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 07:06 PM (#1961760) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp New article on autism here. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM (#1961782) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain The article below lays out one of the problems in this area. What is autism? As definitions of what is autism, what is an autistic spectrum disorder, and what is just kids being kids vary between country, as well as detection rates, it become possible to make any case you like by picking figures that support it, and ignoring the rest. It's one of the most common and one of the most grevious scientific frauds going. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 08:27 PM (#1961816) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Wikipedia's a disinformation site. Contributed to by the public and selectively edited. I've made my points on this issue. The U.S. govt has a history of killing and experimenting on citizens and non-citizens. The governor of Texas bypassed the legislative process to bully an unproven vaccine onto children. Vaccines are full of preservatives, dead virus, live virus, recombined virus, carcinogens, "mistakes" put in by the govt-supported manufacturers, etc., etc. If you don't question what strangers are injecting into your kids, then why'd you have them? Decide which vaccines you think your kids should have, then monitor the administration of the shots. Adios. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 09:14 PM (#1961839) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: ragdall Only one company makes the vaccine. So it's not like there was no competition for any reason other than only one company offers it. For how long? I think you'll find, if you check, that other companies will soon release vaccines for the same purpose. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 10:43 PM (#1961886) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage If Merck licenses it others would produce it, but this is a brand new big cash cow. Chances are good they'll want to keep all of that cash to themselves. SRS |
|
09 Feb 07 - 01:59 AM (#1961957) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan "...and the excuses for not putting this into effect are a sorry bunch of old rumors that have long since been debunked" SRS Show me the long term studies of this vaccine. As linked above, "What if there is a segment of the population where the treatment is worse than the cure?" asked Smith. If you want to offer your daughter on the sacrificial alter of science, thats your choice. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. My daughter is old enough to make her own decisions and so am I. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 04:52 AM (#1962038) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss I agree that it probaby shouldn't be mandatory until the long term safety studies are done. There are some underway at the moment. I am not sure that making things like this mandatory is helpful anyway as it just seems to get some people's hackles up. Vaccines are not mandatory in the UK, but most people get the recommended ones done anyway - at least until the media whips up a scare story out of nothing. Re autism levels rising. Although autism diagnosis levels are rising, there is some evidence that most if not all of this is down to better detection and changing diagnostic criteria. I recently read a study which looked at a random sample of kids and screened them for autism. They repeated this several years later using the exact same diagnostic criteria as the first time, and found no increase. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 05:12 AM (#1962053) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain Vaccines are full of preservatives, dead virus, live virus, recombined virus, carcinogens, "mistakes" put in by the govt-supported manufacturers, etc., etc. preservatives: preservatives are evil, right? Even the common ones like Vitamin C? The oranges are part of the conspiricy too it seems.... dead/live/recombined virus: It's called the active ingredient. carcinogens: Real ones? Just about anything is at a high enough dose "mistakes" If the |
|
09 Feb 07 - 05:19 AM (#1962058) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Crystal If I was in the age range for getting the vaccine I would be straight down to the doctors to get it done! My friend has just lost her mother to cancer so anything to cut deaths is good in my book, although I have to wonder about the "encouraging promiscuity" arguement, after all it only protects you against ONE STI, there are plenty of much nastier ones out there which WILL kill, rather than MIGHT kill! Not honestly sure about mandatory vaccinations, and surely the kids involved should get some say too, after all they are the ones most deeply involved in this. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 06:13 AM (#1962089) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bagpuss 100 |
|
09 Feb 07 - 10:16 AM (#1962257) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage This link goes to the January 16, 2007 Think talkshow, a daily public affairs discussion on KERA-FM in Dallas. The guest was Dr. Dawn Johnson of the U.T. Southwestern Medical Center. Description According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HPV - the Human papillomavirus - currently infects approximately 20 million adults in the United States. HPV, a sexually-transmitted disease, has also been related to cervical cancer. The FDA has licensed a vaccine for use in girls/women between the ages of 9-26. We'll discuss the vaccine and the challenge it poses for parents and doctors this hour with Dr. Dawn Johnson of U.T. Southwestern Medical Center. I thought this went to a recorded version of the program, but I can't find that link. Maybe it will turn up elsewhere on the site, but I'll send this for now. Also, here is the link to the Center for Disease Control page about the HPV. SRS |
|
14 Feb 07 - 10:29 PM (#1968140) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Here's a clip that was shown on television locally. This is cookie-cutter reportage, so maybe you saw a similar piece in your local market. The govt sends out the text, the local talking heads read from the script while the canned footage rolls across the screen. http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/230904mercurygood.htm "Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids according to two new studies in the Journal of Pediatrics..." All this in Sept of 2004, just before they start running the scare pieces about school vaccinations and showing images of dying Africans. Such terrorism. |
|
15 Feb 07 - 09:48 AM (#1968564) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain You want a scare story, Local Yokel? Try this. In 1900, infant mortality (0-1 years) in US cities was commonly 30%. Smallpox, typhoid, diphtheria, scarlet fever, polio, whooping cough and others were commonplace. The really scary part for you is that when the vaccines were developed, people welcomed them for saving their children's lives. Also hat grade tin-foil was yet to be invented. |
|
15 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM (#1968789) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local That news clip got to you, didn't it? That piece went out nationwide. "Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids according to two new studies in the Journal of Pediatrics..." Tell me again that the govts who lie like that can be trusted with ANYTHING, much less the safety of children. "Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids according to two new studies in the Journal of Pediatrics..." |
|
15 Feb 07 - 10:22 PM (#1969304) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Glad I dug this up. Need to post it elsewhere. The full quote from the piece: "Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids according to two new studies in the Journal of Pediatrics. There have been widespread concerns that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines might impair the neurological development of children. These new studies suggest that the opposite, that the preservatives may actually be associated with improved behavior and mental performance." |
|
16 Feb 07 - 12:51 AM (#1969364) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan Hey Local - There is no link between mercury and autism. That has been disproven. Correlation is not causation. It seems that Canada, too, is urging parents to vaccinate their daughters. It is not yet mandatory and the parents must pay for the vaccine. I don't see how it can be made mandatory unless it is covered universally. As someone pointed out earlier, if parents have to pay for the vaccine, it amounts to discrimination of the parents with girls. Perhaps while the government is chewing on the question, we will have the results of the long term effects - That is if we have any studies going on presently. I would be wary of using my daughter for experimental purposes. Basically, the jury is still out and Texas may be jumping the gun to give the drug company a bit of publicity especially if its a case of 'I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine.' Don't forget that when pharmaceutical companies develop vaccines and drugs they start by identifying a target group and proceed accordingly. First it was working mothers (valium), then it was the sons of working mothers (ritalin) and now its all female children. There is alot of money to be made from a vaccine that has not been thoroughly tested. Proceed with caution. |
|
16 Feb 07 - 01:00 AM (#1969368) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan Here are a couple of drugs manufactured by Merck that are now in question. Fosamax: Fosamax is manufactured by Merck & Co. and was prescribed to increase bone density. Since 2001, more than 2,400 patients taking this type of medication have report cases of osteonecrosis (deterioration of the jaw bone causing severe infection, swelling and loss of teeth). If you or a family member have suffered an injury after using Fosamax you may call Arnold Pizzo McKiggan toll free at 1-877-423-2050 or click here here for a free consultation. Vioxx: Vioxx is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) developed by Merck & Co. which was used to treat symptoms of osteoarthritis and chronic pain. Two prominent medical journals have published articles which link Vioxx use to a significantly heightened risk of heart attack and stroke. In September 2004, Merck recalled Vioxx following test results which indicated that Vioxx users were twice as likely to suffer heart attacks or strokes as compared to patients receiving a placebo. If you or a member of your family has suffered an injury which you believe is related to Vioxx use, you may call Arnold Pizzo McKiggan toll free at 1-877-423-2050 or click here here for a free consultation. http://www.apmlawyers.com/pharm.htm |
|
16 Feb 07 - 01:16 AM (#1969372) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: dianavan Better yet, google: Merck FDA rotavirus What is really interesting is the hand and glove relationship of Merck and the FDA. Read and make up your own mind. |
|
16 Feb 07 - 04:39 AM (#1969457) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bunnahabhain I'm fairly sure the actual quote had some more commas in it. Punctuation is there to make things easier to read and understand. |
|
20 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM (#1974507) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Listening to Cathy Adams, President of Texas Eagle Forum being interviewed. Says they're using fear to market this brand new, unproven vaccine. Says Cervical cancer is down 74% (don't know what time frame she's using), so it's nuts to vaccinate against something that is being so drastically reduced. Also, this is a LIVE, genetically-altered virus. So they're injecting little girls with live cancer virus. That's nice. Let's see...she said this vaccine protects against only 4 of the 100+ strains of the disease. Therefore, kids will have a false sense of security after the injections. Makes sense. The governor's current and former personnel have lobby interests in this, and the true cost for the 3-shot regimen is closer to a thousand bucks per kid. This thing just gets uglier and uglier. Then there's this story: Furor on Rush to Require Cervical Cancer Vaccine Racing to embrace a new vaccine, at least 20 states are considering mandatory inoculation of young girls against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer. But a roaring backlash has some health experts worried that the proponents, including the vaccine's maker, Merck, have pushed too far too fast, potentially undermining eventual prospects for the broadest possible immunization.... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/health/17vaccine.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1171936758-9a0mOhAKpAQDnaFly7+WBA Do you really think this is about "protecting" the children? |
|
21 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM (#1975145) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Alright! Merck to Halt Lobbying for Vaccine for Girls Reacting to a furor from some parents, advocacy groups and public health experts, Merck said yesterday that it would stop lobbying state legislatures to require the use of its new cervical cancer vaccine.... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21merck.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1172015658-ZnY/5A3YiREYGi26iRi1Tw& Now we'll get Governor Rick to rescind his "mandate" and that'll be that. Don't let these hogs tell you that speaking out doesn't make a difference. |
|
23 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM (#1976701) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Local Yokel, Are you still flogging this? You don't get it. Too bad you don't like Merck or that only one company sells the stuff. You've apparently never had to deal with a woman in your life with a cancer related to this virus. Get a life and move on. My daughter gets her second shot tomorrow. Thank goodness it's available at this point in her lifetime. SRS (who has had most of those female parts removed due to cancer) |
|
23 Feb 07 - 01:27 AM (#1976727) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Sorry to hear that SRS. Glad you survived it. Hope the stuff does your daughter some good, but who knows? That's the problem...who knows? The stuff was rushed to market and a governor used scare tactics on his constituents to make them think it's "the law" that kids have to take it. Shameless. Probably criminal. I hope he's sued. On the up side, the CEO of Merck just quit. They're saying "early retirement" and all that, but this was a BIG blunder. Americans will now be more aware of the poisons that the govt is trying to inject into kids. On the down side, Perry is sticking to his "mandate." And by doing that, even if all the other states back off putting the vaccine on their lists of shots, Merck will now protected against lawsuit in the U.S. Only one state need approve it, and then Merck will never have to pay out a penny in liability if this stuff misfires. That seems to have been the larger agenda behind this all along. Create the hysteria and the demand, then milk that 7-year patent. Texas has been used. Children will be harmed. I'll move along now. Got a life around here somewhere. |
|
27 May 07 - 01:26 PM (#2061887) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel ...Of the 1637 negative reactions contained in the May 11th report, 371 were serious reactions. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), out of 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 of them – a shocking 42% - experienced serious side effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormalities. Patients are warned of side effects such as pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching by the drug manufacturer, Merck & Co. These typical side effects account for 77% of the 1637 adverse reactions to Gardasil. But more serious side effects including paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, seizures, and blood clots are not mentioned, and account for the remaining instances of negative reactions to the drug.... http://www.vaccinerx.com/news/cervical-cancer/gardasil-has-dangerous-side-effects-says-public-interest-group-20070525-293-26.htm |
|
27 May 07 - 03:31 PM (#2061940) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Only a complete IDIOT would get an immunization like that when they're pregnant. I suspect this information is bogus--but your link doesn't work, so I can't evaluate your source. |
|
27 May 07 - 03:59 PM (#2061946) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Big Mick Why is it that people choose ignorance over the best information possible? Why is that the nuts who see conspiracy behind every rock alway show up vocal? Why is it that the idiots that so fear "Big Brother" that they will ignore good advice? And finally, why is it always some ignorant man trying to tell women what is good or bad for them? The simple fact is that this series of immunizations, when administered before any presence of the virus, is completely safe. Any person that would let their child go without it is, IMO, not a very good parent. The data is out there, and the vaccine is safe when administered properly, and that includes knowing the history of the young woman. I am a Father of three daughters. My child will be getting this in the very near future. Mick |
|
28 May 07 - 12:11 AM (#2062192) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: fumblefingers This is a reasonable thing the Governor has instituted. I'm all for it. I won't be voting for him again but not for this. He added a dollar (more) tax to a pack of fags and claimed it was to get people to quit smoking. Three months later he boasted of the extra $168 million he squeezed out of nicotine addicts. |
|
28 May 07 - 01:13 AM (#2062211) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel http://www.vaccinerx.com/news/cervical-cancer/gardasil-has-dangerous-side-effects-says-public-interest-group-20070525-293-26.html http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6299.shtml Two links above to the Gardasil story. Copy and paste. Now that the results are starting to come in on human testing of Gardasil, it's beginning to look suspiciously like another tetanus-hCG anti-fertility innoculation. http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm |
|
28 May 07 - 11:44 AM (#2062408) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Some weeks back the Stupid Legislature overrode the governor's order, so now girls don't have to get this shot that (shudder) suggests they might have sex in their lives. Don't want to go giving them any vaccination that gives them permission to go have sex. Not in Texas, they won't. First decent thing this Good Hair governor has done, and the Leg undid it. It's times like this that I am so sad Molly Ivins is gone. SRS |
|
28 May 07 - 01:37 PM (#2062485) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Perry pushed the vaccine so the company that produces it could get legal immunity. Now, because at least one state has "mandated" it, Merck will never have to pay a cent in liability. All repercussions that can be traced back to the use of the drug will be payed for with tax money, if the injured party sues and wins. The vaccine protects against just 4 of over a hundred strains of the cancer, thus giving those vaccinated a false sense of security. They will still run the risk of contracting the other forms of cervical cancer. And now it appears that it is being given to sterilize, but we'll not find out for years because the stuff was rushed to market. |
|
28 May 07 - 02:04 PM (#2062499) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage You're off your meds again. You're delusional. Nothing in your last remark makes sense--it's psychotic. |
|
28 May 07 - 04:53 PM (#2062596) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Nothing delusional about it. The only part that's debatable is the last statement, about it possibly being a sterilization program. And there is ample precedent in previous vaccination programs to support even that statement. The Texas legislature overturned Perry's action because the people of Texas want to protect their children from being injected with poisons. A matter of religion to some, a matter of common sense to others. And hey, doesn't bleach kill germs? Maybe injections of bleach should be mandated. Governments are inherently evil. They have to be guarded against constantly. |
|
01 Jul 07 - 06:59 PM (#2091900) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST Hi, I am very baffled that a vaccine is necsary since Penn State University, Main Campus, State College, PA has in 2005 found treatment for HPV using the AAV2 aden virus. It also kills HPV and most types of cancer in six days. This does not harm healthy cells. The only thing is that drug companies cannot get rich off of it. Penn State Hershey Medical Center was refused the 4 million dollars to do clinical trials. Figure that one out. Insurance companies that spend trillions to treat cancer and HPV would not go bank rupt and this would also help rising insurance costs so many more could afford it. Hospitols could do a better job treating all diseases and the money spent to usher our loved ones into eternity could be used on numerous programs in America. I do not agree in vaccinating for this especially since there is already a cure. Mother, Grandmother, and Great Grandmother. |
|
01 Jul 07 - 07:10 PM (#2091908) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Nonsense from a nameless guest. Perhaps a clone will nuke that entry? There has already been enough nonsense from guests who sign their names. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 01:42 PM (#2126183) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Just a reminder. No law has ever been passed in the U.S. mandating the forced vaccination of people. Kids are about to start back to school, so when you hear the news channels in your area telling you that your kid can't go to school without vaccines, that's a lie. It's also a crime. "Color of Law." Look it up. When the news media tells you that your kid has to have a shot to go to school, that's a Color of Law violation. A federal crime. Call the station and threaten a lawsuit NOW, before they run the ads that will lead to the poisoning of thousands of kids. Most parents don't even know that the shots are voluntary, so educate yourself. Don't let your kids be poisoned. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 02:10 PM (#2126212) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Becca72 May not be a Federal law, but this is the info for Maine: PART 3. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION CHAPTER 223. HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SAFETY SUBCHAPTER II. IMMUNIZATION 20-A M.R.S. § 6354 (2003) § 6354. Immunization 1. IMMUNIZATION REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided under this subchapter, every parent shall cause to be administered to his child an adequate dosage of an immunizing agent against each disease. 2. IMMUNIZING AGENT TO MEET STANDARDS. Any such immunizing agent shall meet standards for such biological products, approved by the United States Public Health Service and the dosage requirement specified by the Department of Human Services. 20-A M.R.S. § 6355 (2001) § 6355. Enrollment in school A superintendent may not permit any child to be enrolled in or to attend school without a certificate of immunization for each disease or other acceptable evidence of required immunization or immunity against the disease, except as follows. 1. WRITTEN ASSURANCE. The parent provides a written assurance the child will be immunized within 90 days by private effort or provides, where applicable, a written consent to the child's immunization by a health officer, physician, nurse or other authorized person in public or private employ. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 02:21 PM (#2126231) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel That's gibberish. Too many qualifiers and opt-outs. Might be a color of law violation in itself. You are the child's guardian, not the state. You have say over whether a needle is inserted into your child's body. Schools act in loco parentis...in the parents' place during school hours. If you have not specifically STATED you don't want your kid immunized, the school will interpret that as tacit approval to immunize and administer the shots. You have to be active in the matter, not passive. You have to go in to the school and inform them that you don't want your kid injected. They may ask you to sign a waiver, but even that is illegal, because you can't be made to sign anything against your will. Your verbal request should be enough. Mainly, the kids need to be educated on the dangers of letting strangers stick needles into them. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 02:44 PM (#2126260) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Becca72 Local..get a life, buddy. It's not gibberish, it's Maine State Law. Schools are NOT immunizing children. Doctors are. You have every right not to immunize your child, but you do not then have the right to send them into public school to infect other children. If you don't want your child immunized, home school them. There is a reason why kids don't die from whooping cough anymore (or at least rarely do). By the way, I agree with you on the cervical cancer vaccine..simply because it hasn't been around long enough to prove itself and was also pushed through the system too quickly so it could start making money right away. I do not, however, agree with you on all immunizations. The ones that have been around and are proven effective are there to help us...and our children. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 04:10 PM (#2126332) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Local Yokel has been blowing smoke about this for months now. He's entitled to his opinion but his reasoning, if you could call it that, is deeply flawed. My daughter has had her third gardasil shot and we are extremely glad it became available at the time it did. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM (#2126430) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel Couldn't be the law, Becca. It would've been struck down immediately. No one can force you to inject your kid with foreign substances. Post a link to the entire law. I'm interested now in those subsections. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 06:41 PM (#2126440) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Becca72 Look it up for yourself, Local. I provided the filing information. And now, I'm done with this discussion because it's like banging your head against a brick wall. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 07:11 PM (#2126459) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Grab A quick search on Google (how keen *were* you, Local - it took me all of about 30s) found a useful website with a searchable database of Maine state laws. Becca's second reference is to this one:- http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/20-a/title20-asec6355.html First off, it's not gibberish. Don't be quoting "color of law", "in loco parentis" and other stuff, and then blanch at a perfectly clear bit of text. And it really *is* clear. I'm sorry, but if you can't follow that text then you're in trouble. Second off, Becca did *not* give a full quote - she missed exemptions 2 and 3. Exemption 2 allows for a doctor to say that it's not "medically advisable". Note that *your* opinion doesn't matter a damn, you need a doctor to state their opinion as a medical expert. If you can find one, you're OK. If not, exemption 3 allows for Jehovah's Witnesses or others who have a deeply-held religious/philosophical belief relating to medical matters. Now you might be able to get away with this one, depending on how you approach it. I suspect "Ain't no Yankee pencilneck gonna tell me what to do" would be insufficient here. ;-) So here's where you hit the trouble I mentioned - if you can't read this text and figure out how you're going to work your objection, you're screwed before you start. Unless you fancy getting a lawyer on board to do it for you, of course, in which case you'd better check how deep you think your pockets are. Third off, "They may ask you to sign a waiver, but even that is illegal, because you can't be made to sign anything against your will. Your verbal request should be enough." Now this one I really don't get - do you really know nothing of how organisations with public contact work? The #1 rule for any public-facing organisation is CYA. Let's suppose that morally-deficient weasels exist and that one of them has a daughter. He tells the school verbally not to vaccinate her, so they don't. Five years on, she gets cancer. MDW sues the school for not vaccinating her. "What do you mean, I told you not to? Why would I do that? You're obviously lying to save your job. What proof do you have that I told you?" Hence written waivers. If you've never met this situation before, you must have led a seriously sheltered life. Graham. |
|
16 Aug 07 - 08:44 AM (#2126931) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Bonzo3legs If they do it under the X in Texas it must be OK. Great pity the South didn't win! |
|
16 Aug 07 - 09:34 AM (#2126980) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel exemption 3 allows for Jehovah's Witnesses or others who have a deeply-held religious/philosophical belief relating to medical matters Becca presented an incomplete quote. I wanted HER to complete the quote, and she wouldn't. If your "philosophy" is that you shouldn't poison your children, you don't have to. Even in Maine. Every state has that provision. As far as you being responsible for your kids getting cancer 'five years on,' why inject them with cancer virus NOW? And that's what Gardasil is. That's how vaccines work. Inject a bit of the agent you want to protect against, to build up immunity. Gardasil works against 4 of the 100 strains of the cancer. Not worth the risk. Call your local TV stations now, folks, and threaten to sue if they run pieces saying you have to inject children with cocktails of viruses. You'll be saving lives.
-Joe Offer-
|
|
16 Aug 07 - 09:36 AM (#2126982) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Why is ANYONE arguing with this yahoo "Local Yokel" any more? This is a Johnny One-Note or whatever that term is. This is an outsider who has visited Mudcat to set up a soapbox for ONE REASON AND ONE TOPIC ONLY--the gardasil topic. He wants to rant where no one seems to notice that he's a flake, an outsider, and has no other possible reason to be interested in Mudcat except that he found an open relatively unmoderated forum for spouting off. Click on the name for this guest and you'll see for yourself. It is time for Joe Offer to close this thread. SRS |
|
16 Aug 07 - 12:49 PM (#2127158) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,dianavan If the vaccine is available, it should be a choice. If you believe it is "for the best", you accept the possible long term effects but don't make it law and force your beliefs on others. btw - Can you provide any long-term studies on Gardasil? Probably not. Have you ever considered that the long term effects might even skip a generation? |
|
16 Aug 07 - 03:10 PM (#2127297) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage If the vaccine is available, it should be a choice. If you believe it is "for the best", you accept the possible long term effects but don't make it law and force your beliefs on others. What sheer idiocy. Let's see you say that about Polio. Mumps. Measles. Smallpox. Rubella. "Don't force your beliefs on others" and watch them infect the rest of the population. Like I said, I still think this thread needs to go away, but I understand Joe's reasoning. SRS |
|
16 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM (#2127501) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: sneeble I wish this was available to us, a couple of years ago Meningitis B (MeNZB) became available, It is available free from newborn through to 19. A huge outcry came about from the anti vaccination crowd, everything was bandied about from mercury poisoning to the vaccine not being tested properly and how the children were guinea pigs to the actual vaccine causing meningitis and the favourite flavour the vaccine causes autism. All of the scaremongering has been debunked, not one child got meningitis from the vaccine, nor did autism occur in any child specifically after vaccination. Meningitis B is an insidious disease with kills and maims permanently if they are lucky enough to survive, since the vaccination program the infection rate has dramatically plummeted 75%. There are still people who say this is incorrect and there always will be but the statistics speak for themselves. Yes there were some temporary side effects, mass hysterical vomiting and headaches was common during the initial immunisation programs at schools, which was immediately used in the anti-immunisation propaganda machine as a dangerous reaction to the vaccine. We all like to give our kids the best chance in life. A life without rubella, polio, ppv, rheumatic fever and the multitude of other diseases we can immunise against is a good foundation. If we can give them anything at least it can be their health and a quality of life that they themselves can build on. Postscipt: 100% of people who drink water die, some children who are vaccinated at 6 weeks may be diagnosed with autism at 4. Does anyone see the coincidence in these statements? http://www.immunise.moh.govt.nz/menzb.html |
|
17 Aug 07 - 02:34 AM (#2127656) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,dianavan Unlike polio, mumps, measles, smallpox and rubella; hpv is spread through genital contact. I am not against vaccines, in general. I am against mandatory hpv vaccine until someone can show me a study of the long-term effects. Besides that, making a vaccination mandatory for a disease that is preventable and treatable makes me think its fear mongering for profit. |
|
17 Aug 07 - 02:42 PM (#2128096) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage And if it is spread through SEX--ah, that makes it special? Different? Nasty? Get at life! People have sex. People have more than one partner. Who would you wish this disease on? Someone who isn't chaste until marriage? It doesn't matter how the f**king thing is spread. The point is it does spread and it is deadly. |
|
17 Aug 07 - 03:18 PM (#2128124) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: jeffp According to the Centers for Disease Control, there is no cure for HPV, although it may go away on its own. |
|
17 Aug 07 - 11:55 PM (#2128360) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,dianavan So you think that we should be vaccinated for every disease that is communicable? Thats outlandish and extreme. Your response is borderline hysterical. Why should your beliefs be forced on others? Why not make it a choice? Quite frankly, I don't think you should get to choose what my daughter does with her body. jeffp - Education, the use of condoms, and regular pap smears is the best prevention we have at present. There may be no cure for hpv but cerivical cancer can be detected by pap smears. To prevent the cancer from spreading, a cone biopsy or partial hysterectomy is performed to save the ovaries. |
|
18 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM (#2128517) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,Local Yokel There's a good chance your kid might stub his toe, so why not just sever the spinal cord in the in the neck area, remove the possibility of that toe stub? You can only provide so much 'protection' for children. When vaccines get down to the point of things like this Gardasil program, every parent should know something is very, very wrong. Time-tested vaccines against widespread contagions are one thing, but Gardasil is snake oil. So are lots of others out there. Parents should pick and choose what they allow strangers to inject into their kids' bloodstreams, but parents are so woefully uninformed that they still think it's the LAW that you have to let your kids get injected. I was only kidding about turning your kid into a quadraplegic to prevent toe stubs, by the way. If Gardasil caught on, maybe the spinal cord idea will. |
|
18 Aug 07 - 01:29 PM (#2128651) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Stilly River Sage Quite frankly, I don't think you should get to choose what my daughter does with her body. Okay, I won't tell your daughter what to do. And you don't tell her anything, either, and she might turn out okay. Because you're an idiot. |
|
18 Aug 07 - 03:43 PM (#2128738) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: SINSULL Cervical Cancer found early is curable. Why not make annual PAP tests for anyone over the age of 16 mandatory? |
|
18 Aug 07 - 08:48 PM (#2128894) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: Barry Finn On more reason to ship Texas but to Mexico. Give 'em Bush & DeLay not one moment vaccinating them both. See how fast this gets dropped. Barry |
|
19 Aug 07 - 03:11 AM (#2128986) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,dianavan SRS - I'm glad you won't be telling my daughter what to do with her body. What makes you think I don't discuss STD's with my daughter? I have openly discussed 'safe sex' with her since she was 14 or so. She is now 30. She knows more than I do. No need to call me an idiot. It just emphasizes your arrogance. |
|
22 Aug 07 - 11:51 PM (#2131698) Subject: RE: BS: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls From: GUEST,dianavan although I am citing a blog, there is alot of information regarding Gardasil that should be known. "According to the American Cancer Society, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent." This is largely due to pap smears and other health services. The incidence in developing countries, however, is higher. http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/gardasil.html "This is a complicated issue but it also comes down to a personal choice, and everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves or for their children with as much research and information and as little guilt and manipulation as possible." http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com/2007/05/gardasil-2.html |