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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:36 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.


That is the problem. It is not a cure for cervical cancer. The girls who take this vaccine can still get cervical cancer. The only thing it does is supposedly prevent 2 different types of HPV. The problem is that there are more than just 2 different types of HPV virus.

The other problem is they know it works for the short term, but have no idea about the long term. From the research I did on Google they still don't know if it will be effective for the long term.

They subject the girls now to this new vaccine, then 10 or 20 years later they are wondering why the vaccine didn't work? More than likely will say that person never got the vaccine, or come up with some bogus information to protect the vaccine.

The only response I was able to see as far as long term effects was that the Sweeds were doing long term tests on this drug. Basically keep an eye on what the Sweeds are doing. In other words it is still in the testing phase in Sweedan.

Not to mention there is a three shot regimine, and each shot by itself costs well over $300. Big money for the pharma companies. You would be paying well over $900 more closely to $1000 for a vaccine that really hasen't been tested as thoroughly as it should have been.

The FDA also recently passed it. I'm thinking of all the other drugs the FDA recently passed, and then had to retract such as Vioxx. Do we really want to risk our daughters lives with this?




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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



That will be fine as long as the State doesn't put some kind of compliance rule in place. Something like providing proof of vaccination before they'll provide your girls with a diploma.

Or issue a homeschool certificate (however they manage it).



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Thanks for posting that "mandatory mental screening" link.

Folks, I am telling you that this cancer vaccine situation appears to have a stench to it. It appears to be part of a bigger plan.

My god, all you have to do is turn on your tv and you are bombarded with penis drugs, "are you depressed" drugs, blood pressure drugs, herpes drugs, heartburn pills, the list goes on and on. Just look at the massive amounts of money needed to run these commercials. The profits must be enormous.

Then everybody and there momma wants to sell you a drug insurance plan to make sure that you are being medicated, whether or not you have the money for it or not. How very helpful of these companies. Even poor people can get their meds.

"Leave no person unmedicated" seems to be the motto.

Troy



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by psyopswatcher

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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



That will be fine as long as the State doesn't put some kind of compliance rule in place. Something like providing proof of vaccination before they'll provide your girls with a diploma.

Or issue a homeschool certificate (however they manage it).


Methinks that the state is counting on the fact that people cannot be 'financially viable' without both parents (assuming there are two) having full-time jobs.

Home-schooling is a job unto itself... And if you've got to manage a full-time job, you're not available to properly educate the child.

Home School Laws (as they stand now)



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Well it should all be personal choice.

As for those who said that it is all about sterilization, wouldn't it be easier for the 'evil ptb' to just put something in the water?

Another conundrum is that if the drug is available and if you chose not to take it, what would happen if you got the disease? Would you still feel entitled to get government sponsored medical care?

Just wondering.

Apparently the vaccine costs $350.00 - which is rather a lot of money. What if the government didn't pick up the tab - would you be outraged then also?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
cybertroy - I think there is a distinction between a vaccine which prevents cancer and drugs which help manage symptoms of other diseases.

For years and years people have said that they will never find a cure for cancer because that disease (in all its forms) generates mountains of money for big pharma.

So this is a vaccine, which presumably means no drugs later on.

At the end of the day it is all about trust. If you are mistrustful of your governments, nothing will persuade you that this could be a life saver.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
"Not to mention there is a three shot regimine, and each shot by itself costs well over $300. Big money for the pharma companies."

Is that the cost? I thought it was $350.00 for the course of the shots. Either way it is very expensive, but not as expensive as treatment for the disease itself.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
No one has to take this crap, there is no law, it's all about money and the hell with your children.
Perry is doing what he is told to do, and it's not by you, the public.


No Law To Mandate Dangerous, Untested HPV Vaccine
Media hoax fools parents into thinking Merck shots are mandatory, big pharma laughs as obscene profits roll in.

[~]
A media hoax has fooled parents in Texas and other areas of the country that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has already been linked to dangerous side-effects, is now the law and young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals are set to capitalize on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children are put at risk.
[~~]
According to the Associated Press Perry has close ties to Merck, having received money from them for his re-election campaign .
[~~~]
Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey is on the Merck payroll as a lobbyist.
[~~~]
There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the law of the land.

As in the case of all other vaccines, Perry's executive order merely states that the vaccine is "recommended," yet the mass media drumbeat constantly conditions people to believe that if they don't take their shots they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail. This trick will continue to hoodwink Americans into taking all manner of dangerous and untested vaccines, the number of which rises every year, until they realize that there is no law that forces them to take any vaccine.

www.prisonplanet.com...


[edit on 7/2/2007 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
So boys can't be vaccinated against HPV? That's what sounds hokey to me. Would some medical expert try to explain that please?

What this is saying is that boys are sluts too. But they aren't being punished with a vaccine to prevent a disease that they spread. Only the girls are. Or perhaps they figure to irradicate it by taking care of only half of the population. That would be considered financially prudent.

HPV, it's an STD, right? Takes two to do that tango.

I can't wait for the Christian fundies* to chime in on this, what it says about safe sex, promiscuity, same-sex marriage. . . Kids Gone Wild.


*fundies, nicity for extremists--said with a dogmist' sense of humor.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
No one has to take this crap, there is no law, it's all about money and the hell with your children.


There has been a fairly large amount of recent debate on this issue here in Texas.

Indeed, there is no blanket law making such a requirement of the parent for a child....

However, as in the case of all state ‘recommended’ immunizations in the State of Texas, in order for a child to attend a public school, charter school, or private school which receives funds from the state (such as G&T programs) and private schools that adhere to state guidelines to keep their insurance etc.…the child must be vaccinated according to a required immunization chart to attend the afore mentioned schools; but there are some exclusions available. These same exclusions are mentioned in the Governor’s recent order.

The obvious exceptions/exclusions are medical which must be documented and presented by a licensed medical doctor to the Department of Health and causes the parent to inherit a ridiculous amount of paperwork each and every year (this one I know personally and it was for only one semester).

The other pertains to those of conscience, including religious beliefs; which is somewhat difficult to obtain. A written request must be made by the parent to the TDH to obtain a ‘request form’ and the parent will/may receive this after TDH review. Furthermore, once/if the exemption form is received these exemptions (if granted) are only good for two years and will be in need of renewal. The process from beginning to end may take months and if not begun early enough, the child will not (in almost all cases) be able to attend school while pending.

All of this places the burden directly upon the parents to prevent, thus in a majority of cases it is a de facto state law. Albeit, there are certain ‘outs’ a determined parent may pursue.

Full text example of immunization exemption procedure and state law.
TDH faq. page on these procedural issues.
Example (pdf.) of a large Texas school district immunization schedule.
Texas Govenor's Executive Order



mg



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   


Mike Toomey, the Merck lobbyist who is Perry's former chief of staff, is not without influence.

Some suspect Perry may have a lot of Merck stock. But the public can't know for sure — and Perry isn't supposed to know because the governor's holdings are in a blind trust.
source

The small detail that Mike Toomey is in Merck's pocket shouldn't be overlooked. This drug goes for $360 a pop. If you multiplied that times the number of 6th grade girls you just hit the Vegas jackpot. Once this flies in Texas and the door is open other states will soon follow.

Here's another interesting tie-in to this whole deal.


At least two legislators have asked Attorney General Abbott to rule on the legality of the vaccine order. They contend Perry lacks the power to order the inoculations without legislative approval.

...one would think that Abbott would welcome the opportunity to weigh in on the controversy. ...Such a ruling, however, could open the door to an attack on Perry's coal regulation order, and Abbott may prefer to avoid setting a precedent.
Why?
TXU executives gave the attorney general's campaign about $12,000 during the last election cycle.


You can read more about Perry's executive order on new coal plants here. I'm not sold one way or the other on the vaccine but the silence from other political opposition is deafening. You see, all the pigs have their snouts in the trough and are afraid to squeal about others eating for fear of their own food being taken away. It looks as if those with deep pockets are pulling strings in Texas to get their way.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:39 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.


Ok how would you know any risk until 5 yrs down the road when studies link the vaccine to infertility or some other serious health factors?
Just watch T.V. and you will see plenty of lawyers commercials saying "have you taken vioxx etc etc studies show it caused this, that, and the other thing" Think about it



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Check out the latest updated article on this situation! I think you'll find it informative.

Texas Gov/Merck Donation



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by the golden ray
cybertroy - I think there is a distinction between a vaccine which prevents cancer and drugs which help manage symptoms of other diseases.

For years and years people have said that they will never find a cure for cancer because that disease (in all its forms) generates mountains of money for big pharma.

So this is a vaccine, which presumably means no drugs later on.

At the end of the day it is all about trust. If you are mistrustful of your governments, nothing will persuade you that this could be a life saver





Uhhh hello.....This vaccine prevents HPV virus in which STUDIES HAVE SHOWN to cause cancer........no guarantee that it does or that this vaccine works. 5 yrs later ..............Reports that state mandated vaccine linked to heart disease, infertility .......and the list goes on



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well it seems the drug peddlers are still pushing thier product...........

Check out this link and notice the edit at the bottom. Someone must have made a big stink about that line.

health.msn.com...

[edit on 2/23/2007 by Frank Black]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I pretty much don't trust Big Pharma, because they earned my mistrust.

When I see pills on TV that are supposed to take care of digestive problems by "cutting off" acid pumps and creating problems, they earned a check in the "mistrust" column of my evaluation sheet. I know digestive problems can often be solved by dietary change and enzyme and probiotic supplementation. Why even use the "purple pill?"

The same goes for all the other trash drugs that are peddled on TV. Side effect after side effect. These drugs earned yet more checks in the "mistrust" column of my evaluation sheet.

Am I supposed to trust the babysitter who, more often than not, is rotten and abusive toward my kids? No, of course not.

Troy



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
this whole thing is a crock

u got to choices after this statement

the wording of higher risk strains is MISLEADING (what else is new)

those with the High risk strains of hpv are much more (relativel) likely to develop the C.C THAN those with the low risk strains, YET the majority with high risk develop NOTHING NADA THEY CLEAR IT

that is according to a DOCTOR that deals with many many cases especially of people who can't afford health care

so instead of a .001 percent chance of developing C.C (which is a very very slow developing cancer by the way) with a low risk strain you have twice the odds or 200% a higher risk in developing C.C with the high risk strain which equals a MEASELY .002 percent BIG WHOOP the wording of terms in language is usually misleading to make money and market (manipulate)

these percentages are not absolute they are just to make a point how the manipulation can be legally allowed to be worded in such a misleading way

if you don't get it forget it go back to sleep



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join