It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Requires Anti-Cancer Vaccine for Girls/Conflict of Interests?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   


By passing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.
news.aol.com


Citizens had no say in this decision. Sounds like something Bush would do.

The part that really got my attention though was the fact that the main lobbyist pushing for this is Mike Toomey, former chief of staff for Perry, is now a lobbyist in Texas for Merck & Co., which makes the drug that will be given to girls.


So, the former chief of staff for the governor gets this through his buddy which will generate billions in profits at the expense of parents everywhere. It got me thinking I wonder how far this relationship goes back and whether or not these viruses which are supposed to cause cervical cancer are a natural event or whether something else was behind it. They just happen to come up with a vacination for this virus. And the public is to trust that this vacination is harmless.




The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil - at $360 for the three-shot regimen - were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects. news.aol.com


Lots of profit to be made for some already rich buddies.

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.


[edit on 4-2-2007 by sanctum]




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
it is such a conflict of interest that it is mind-boggling!!!!!...i can't believe that stuff like this doesn't raise legal issues..that alone the anger of the public.
is the public that brain washed to not care about the obvious money conection..signing an EO to get this done??!

.but i guess it is for your own good..all in the name of safety...please stand in the left line if you have been vacinated..the right line if you have not..(and are thumbing your nose at the govt....papers please)



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
And I'm sure that these vaccines will sterilize 25% percent of the students with the mercury in them.
Google Video

At least, that's what I would do if I were in power and were just a bit more cynical. The world is overpopulated, the elite know it, and something HAS to be done or the planet will die.

Also, in Texas people are probably less likely to use birth control or abortions due to religious indoctrination.

But what do I know, I'm just a conspiracy theorist. And besides, I'm in complete agreement that something has to be done about the population, so you won't see me protesting.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Yes, I was also wondering about sterilization.

Rich people with political power playing 'God' and forcibly sterilizing thousands or millions of young people should not be acceptable.

Infertility specialists make lots of money off young people desparate to have a family.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
There are a lot of people talking about this in Texas and most are upset. The general understanding is that the virus can be carried by both sexes. Only girls are targeted, one would assume because of the cancer risk. I wonder if some of the people who have been voting for Perry since he assumed office will rethink their vote. I hope people will findly start accepting the fact that the gov is once again selling out to business.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Well it seems that the State will be getting the bill for the vaccine no the people.



Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.


So tax payers will be one that will pay for it.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well it seems that the State will be getting the bill for the vaccine no the people.



Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.


So tax payers will be one that will pay for it.


Yes, but the state gets the money from the people. So either way the company will make lots of money and either the poor will get the vaccine forced upon them paid by taxpayers or the nonpoor will have to pay for it out of their own pocket.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This is outrageous! I do hope the Texans stand against this vaccine and refuse. But I'm sure this will never happen as this is made for the "protection" of our society. I know if I had a daughter there is no way I would FORCE her to take this vaccine. I just don't see how the government (state or federal) is allowed to make these decision without the public being involved.

WE THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE...what has happened to us.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
From what I hear they will accept a signed form from the parents to exempt the requirement. It does sound a bit fishy that he's closely related to someone who may have a financial interest in this happening, but still I don't know why any parent wouldn't want this vaccine to be administered. It sounds like its benefit would far outweigh any risk.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
From what I hear they will accept a signed form from the parents to exempt the requirement. It does sound a bit fishy that he's closely related to someone who may have a financial interest in this happening, but still I don't know why any parent wouldn't want this vaccine to be administered. It sounds like its benefit would far outweigh any risk.


Unless it results in a high number of young women sterilized. I dont know about anyone else, but if I was in texas, I would be raising hell right about now.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Vaccines have never been linked to any diseases, and certainly not sterilization. Anyway, many vaccines are already required, I don't think one more would make much of a difference.

Just more scaremongering.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
When I googled the issue, I found out it is not the cure for cancer as advertised by the media. There are at least 4 strains of HPV virus that can cause cervical cancer. This supposedly takes care of only 2 of the 4 strains. This is only a preventable action. If you already have the virus, the vaccine will not work. It will only work in women under 24 years of age.

Also the tests were run on adult women in their child bearing years already able to have sexual relations. There have been no tests done on young girls. There have been no long term tests. They don't know what will happen ten or twenty years down the road. Nice, huh? We could very well have several generations of steril girls, or women baring deformed babies later on.

If the media would only tell the people the truth that it is not a cure all for cervical cancer and has not been tested long term, then the majority of the population would seriously be questioning the mandate. As of right now, they are being sheeple and believing the media lies.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Forget about the money. If it works it will keep women from having cervical cancer, and certain STV's, this far outways any money these company's make. If it works, who freaken cares, they will deserve it. As a son, a brother, and future husband, i love this drug, IF IT WORKS.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I agree if it prevents the cervical cancer then yes it should be used, but why must they FORCE the issue as they are doing? If it's a good vaccine as they say people will be lining up to get it without being forced to do so.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Folks, I'm not so sure about this one.

Hmm, cervical cancer. That's an interesting place for us to find a vaccine for cancer. What about breast cancer? Throat cancer? Don't those potentially have viruses as well? Where is that breast cancer vaccine or the throat cancer vaccine?

I've seen too much crap in this world as of late, I can't help but believe this may be a conspiracy. I have an inclination to call Bull S$#$ on this.

Why the heck should I believe Big Pharma gives a crap about us, with all the poison they promote over the airwaves? "Solutions" that cause multiple side effects.

Troy



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
Forget about the money. If it works it will keep women from having cervical cancer, and certain STV's, this far outways any money these company's make. If it works, who freaken cares, they will deserve it. As a son, a brother, and future husband, i love this drug, IF IT WORKS.


As a daughter, a sister, a future wife and future mother, I disagree with the use of this drug.


Drugs do NOT replace education and values.


Drugs are the way to circumvent people's unwillingess to take responsibility for their actions, and the consequences.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
This is UNACCEPTABLE! Cancer isn't something that is spread like Mumps (which I can understand a shot for). If I lived in Texas I'd be having a hissy-fit. I'm sure that eventually it will be mandatory all over the country. This is OUTRAGEOUS!

I predict many more people will take the path that we did - HOME SCHOOL!

I'm not happy with this at all! It's unnecessary and intrusive!!

GRRRRR!



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Ah nothing like concern and fear mongering to mask a religious agenda eh? All this and more fromt he folks that brought us the Terri Schaivo mess.

For starters


Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Conservative groups say such provisions still interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
Opt OUT


So parents do have a choice in the matter eh? So what exactly is the objection here. If you CHOOSE to leave your children at risk, then IMHO YOU not your insurance and not the state should bear the cost of treatment. Its really that simple.

The governor should recieve Kudos for looking at the greater good of the citizens of his state than bowing the dogma of his own supporters.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
So parents do have a choice in the matter ..


Oh thank goodness! I'm glad you saw that FredT. I was really steamed up!


If you CHOOSE to leave your children at risk, ...


From what I understand the shot isn't a 'for sure' against cancer. It's very new as well. At this point the long term side effects aren't known. This shot makes me VERY nervous.

I'm not a person who is shot-weary. We have given our daughter all the shots ... and a few extra that aren't required as well (we were traveling overseas).

Something about THIS shot isn't sitting well with me. I can't exactly put my finger on it. Mothers intuition perhaps ....



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Since women started swearing off hormone replacement therapy (due to cancer concerns), the drug industry needs to make it up somewhere.

This whole issue took me right back to another Texas first:

Mandatory Mental Health Screening
(google link)

First they came for the mentally ill.
Then they came for the girls...

[edit on 4-2-2007 by psyopswatcher]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join