It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NOw your 11 and 12 year old daughter can be STD free. :-o

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 05:37 AM

The drug prostitution firms of the State have found a new way to make some money. In Texas they just announced that they will be making it mandatory for 11 and 12 year old girls to get a 3 part shot that will prevent them from getting the human papillomavirus. (Human Pap is a sexually transmitted disease)

Though this virus can be a health threat to woman who have sex and it can lead to cervical cancer, it should be up to the parents or the girls themselves to choose to get this shot, they should not be forced under state laws to do so. There are a high percentage of sexually active adults who have human papillomavirus. It's primarily harmless to men, but can be cause devastating cervical cancer for woman.

I think it's great that the drug companies have found a way to make money and possibly save lives, provided that we don't find out in 10 years this drug is responsible for other complications, just like thalidomide was. The State however in no way shape or form should be stepping in and telling parents that they have to get their 11 and 12 year old daughters inoculated with this 3 part STD shot. (The drug is approved for girls as young as 9 years old.)

When will the state stop superseding the rights of parents and telling them what to do with their children? I find it outrageous that they want to force school age girls to get these STD shots. I think parents should object on the grounds that it's sexually discriminatory and when they come out with a shot for boys then we can talk, although I would still object to having this fostered on school age children without choice. Personally I don't think the state should be telling parents what to do with their children at 11 and 12 regarding possible future sexually transmitted diseases.

I think the shots are a great idea, but just like the choice of going on the pill or other contraceptives it should not be a forced choice. The government is trying to draw comparisons of this 3 part shot for STD to just like getting your kids inoculated for polio. Polio is communicable via everyday contact which can often not be controlled or prevented. Catching Human Pap is another story. I guarantee you if your 11 or 12 year has human pap is will not be because someone sneezed on them.

I don't see these preventative measure as necessary, I do think that the drug should be available on demand, and when women go in for birth control the suggestion should be made to them, or girls could be taught about this as part of their sex ed classes and then make the choice about what they want to do with their bodies, but to be forced to have this shot is outrageous, and I would hope if any parents were forced to have their daughters get this shot, they would protest that it was discriminatory and unnecessary until at least a later date and time.

The only thing I see the government trying to do in this case is proactively line their pockets, and ensure that their friends in the drug industry have a future supply of customers. Much like any other pill pusher or dealer, they seem to lack any moral or ethical considerations, and they don't care that the young and vulnerable might be affected in an adverse way because of this.

How many young girls might think because they have this shot for one STD, that they are protected from other STD's? How many might think this is a substitute for the pill and go and get pregnant? How many might feel compelled to have sex after getting this shot because the state has told them that they will someday be sexually active, and therefore they must take this STD shot at ages 11 and 12. What does getting a pre-emptive shot for an STD do psychologically and emotionally to a girl that age? How does it affect her future decisions about sex? Sex education is difficult enough for children that age, much less the government setting in and forcing their views and values on these children and their parents.

The other thing about the vaccine not be reported is the fact that it does not protect against all forms of human pap virus. So your young daughter(s) could be forced to go through this for nothing, they could walk away thinking that they are protected against all forms of the human pap virus and this is simply not the case.

Woman over 18 are not being forced to take the vaccine? Maybe because woman over 18 can not be forced to have others agenda's foisted on them the same way a young girl can be.

I think if you live in Texas, it might be a good idea to write to your local constituents and ask them what they are thinking. In fact wherever you live, it might no be a bad idea to preemptive write to your local member of wherever and tell them what you think of this new initiative that might be coming to a town, city, country near you and your prepubescent daughter(s).

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:38 PM
I think you raise some valid points as to how girls will interpret the shots.

Yet I disagree.

When I heard this was being developed, I said to myself, THANK GOD.

Time to share some way too personal information, but whatever. When I was about 13 I was taken advantage of by an older man. I was considered smart in general terms... always on the honor roll and all that jazz, but I still didn't understand all the risks involved. Conclusion that story in a bit..

When it comes to HPV, I don't think many adults even understand all the risks involved.

You can contract it and it may take 3 years to fully develop... when it does, you might not even notice... that's when cervical cancer is a concern.

To conclude the story: I found out later that the older man had been messing around with other girls during the time we were fooling around.

Then I found out one of those girls had HPV. The doctor told me that I showed no signs, but that since it hadn't been 3 years since our involvement took place, the HPV could still develop in the future from that past contact.

It was a nightmare.

As it is for hundreds of other people, a lot of whom still don't know the risks of HPV. If a shot prevents it so easily, it will protect these girls, not just for when they're underage, but for when they're actually sexually active. That applies to women who save it for marriage too. Especially since a guy can have it and pass it, and never know.

Maybe they shouldn't make it a requirement, but I do think the requirement saves a lot of girls from their parents saying "oh, my daughter is different" and thus subjecting her to a possible lot of pain due to their ignorance.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Lilin]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Lilin]

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:34 PM
HI Lilin.

You make some really valid points, and I thank you for sharing your personal story about this.

I agree that many women, men do not even know the risks of HPV and never will. Men are lucky enough to get the virus, but to not be affected the same way that it affects woman. They are saying that this is affecting over 20 million people. I personally think the figures have been inflated by the drug pimps, so they can have their way, but that's just my opinion.

I remember that at one point, the figures were something like 1 in 5 had this, then 1 in 4 now the figures are off the chart, and I don't trust the accuracy.

However whatever the figures are here are some facts.

We do have a chance to prevent some forms of human pap, the problem is there are so many strains out there that this shot will not protect girls from all forms and the problem is you will undoubtedly have girls, and woman thinking that they are protected from all forms of human pap and not going for an annual pap test. When this happens we could well see skyrocketing rates of the human pap virus.

We also don't know how often woman will have to be revaccinated. Eg. Right now they say it lasts up to 5 years, but they don't know beyond that and these are things that society needs to know, no point giving this to a 11 year old girl, who then at 16 when she might be ready for sex, then find the vaccine to be useless anyways.

The other problem is when you are in grade 5, 6, 7 there is a lot of misinformation out there, about sex, drug, whatever. What if these girls think that because they are protected from one STD they are protected from others? Older women have been known to make silly assumptions like this, never mind young girls who's bodies are just changing and they are just discovering things about life.

Also we truly do not know how safe this drug is, it's been widely tested, it shown to be effective, but it was just approved 9 months ago, it in my mind in not long enough to play around with the health and safety of young girls, older woman can choose this for themselves, but to force it on young girls in not acceptable. I just keep thinking about thalidomide, approved, said to be safe, but look at all the birth defects. What if this somehow down the line left them infertile, or worst, caused other problems?

Then there is the psycho-social aspect that no one is looking into which is unforgivable. Boys already try everything in the book to pressure girls into having sex, they can usually fire back with, I 'am not on the pill, waiting, not ready, etc. With the STD shot you will have more pressure. Boys going, come on you had that STD shot, you are good to go. This puts them into an unwritten sexual arena, that needs to be acknowledged. (It might not be perceived this way by adults, but I think for kids just learning about sex, it will make it's way into the mythology.)

How will girls perceive themselves, knowing that they have been given a shot for STD, will this change how they view themselves, and will it change the choices that they make about sex? Remember this shot is not like a polio shot, this is more akin to mom and dad putting you on the pill at 11, 12. I think this will be more the perception in that age group, almost like a signal that they are ready to be active.

Also you mentioned an older man taking advantage of you, what lies will these older men tell these girls now? Come on the State would not give you an STD shot if they did not think that you were ready for sex, or that you were going to have sex. They will use it to their advantage, and don't think that they won't.

Until the social and psychological aspects of this can be examined they should not be thinking about giving this to girls in that age group, without them having a choice and a say in the matter.

I really think they should teach this as part of sex ed, then have a clinic after and the girls that want the shot can take the shot, the onces that don't can simply opt out, but this is not the case, they are forcing them to have this shot, and even discussing, not letting them go to school if they are not given this STD shot.

With the Polio shot, measles, etc. Parents know that if another kid sneezes they could get these diseases, with an STD, you are not as concerned and it's not as much of a concern that they will get this via sneezing or coughing and so therefore it should be a choice for parents and girls, girls should be able to get this at their own discretion, but it should be their choices, since this could affect how they view themselves after and the choices they make because of this.

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:44 PM
I'm totally against this. This violate a lot of legislatives things, opposition was silenced. Rick Perry is on the Merck bankroll. Vaccines are tied to autism and many other disease that weren't there 20 years ago. One of my cousin developped autism not long after his 18 month old vaccines, 20 years ago, the autism rate was 1 in 20.000 or even more, and now it's 1 in 65 or so. There has been an increase in vaccines and in mercury in the vaccines.

On Fox News they say that mercury is good for children brains, what a joke.

This law is criminal. I hope there's massive resistance to that. HPV isn't dangerous, cancer related to HPV is very rare, it's hype to make money. If you don't want to be infected, protect yourself and stop the BS about the pope condamned contraception. Be responsable, don't take vaccines and you'll not end with any diseases.

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:01 PM
The parents of the child can opt out of the shots on religious or philosophical grounds. They are not being forced to take it against their will.

Had this shot been around when my two daughters were in their early teens I would have let them take the shots. In three simple shots they would have eliminated the chance of getting a deadly virus. That's a good thing.


posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:07 PM
HI Vitchilo.

I am also against this and hope there will be some protest. I am against this because it's being forced. I am also against this, because the long term psychological and social apsects and the impact it will have on these girls, society and their families has not been examined and I would like it to be.

If they want to make this part of sex ed, and then give girls and their parents a choice in the matter great, but to stop someone from potentially going to school because they have not had their STD shot, for a disease that is primarily sexually transmited in grade 5, 6, 7, is rediculous and needs to be looked into further.

HI mrwupy.

I am not sure if in Texas they will be able to opt out, and they are also discussing making this mandatory in the future so that the girls will not be able to go to school.

Again with proper choice and consent I don't have a problem, it should be the choice of the girls, and also their parents, it's a matter of choice and consent being taken away by the state. The same as the state forcing kids to take ritalin.

I don't like that forced ocnsent issue at all.

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:24 PM
Thanks Harassment101, you do make some excellent points.

Though I think our society needs a makeover when it comes to thinking about the sexual health of ourselves and our children, I think you're right. There are so many risks involved... how the girls are going to perceive this shot, how others are going to use it to take advantage of them, and so on.

I'm very glad you're thinking about all the angles of what is truly good for these people.

Vaccines have always been scary, and as was mentioned, often cause terrible harm instead of good.

Whether you oppose the shots or not.. it probably is way too soon to even consider making them required. I won't even try new and innovative contact lenses before they've been on the market for a long while and seem somewhat safe. I'm sure there are a ton more kinks to be worked out.

But at the very least, the controversy is getting this news, this debate, out there. It's a different world, we can't assume our little girls are innocent... we need to be understanding and protective of them in the way of healing, not hating. I saw in the news a while back some study that preteens and teens consider oral sex as no big deal, the equivalent of making out. Sex is everywhere, it cannot be censored. We need to teach and evolve.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:00 AM

Vaccines have always been scary, and as was mentioned, often cause terrible harm instead of good.

It's not scary, it's bad for the health. The vaccines contains mercury and some other stuff bad for the health. Research it, you'll see why I don't take any shot and i'm totally against it for now because the medical corporations have no morals, they only want profits.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:23 AM
I love the commercials that run for this stuff. They show all these happy HPV free people and some women claiming to be making some grand stand against cancer then the disclaimers run: Will not prevent all types of HPV, Only certain types of HPV have shown to possibly contribute to cervical cancer.

So the whole vaccine, if it works, might work and might not. HPV might have a link to cervical cancer, might not. This is hardly the stuff laws are passed for.

The whole thing reeks of a scam.

Either the companies who produce this vaccine are buying out politicians or they plan to use this "popular" cause to pass laws enforcing complete vaccinations for every child across the board.

Total globalist crap.

Make money off of us. If we cant pay we'll beg the government for more control over us (socialist medicine) or we all grow brain dead and autistic from the mercury. For our sake I hope the mercury turns us all into screaming, raging, half-tards. Have fun trying to control that, government!
One big short-bus nation.

Oh wait, theyll just round us all up and gas us. Oh well.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:08 AM
It is the wrong answer to force a girl to get innoculated against such, however it is a step in the right direction. For too long has the government stated Abstence. Now with this action, even though they are not stating it, the Gov, even Texas is finally admitting, kids have sex and it is time to protect them from their actions to include the actions they may take.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:43 PM

Harper is a professor and director at the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth, and told the publication that there "is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

Harper, who has spent much of the last 20 years studying dozens of strains of HPV, said all of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25, and personally she believes the new vaccine could offer help to women ages 18 and up.

Not enough evidence to say that safety is not an issue.

This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls," Harper said. "It's not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don't get cervical cancer – they won't know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer."

She said the vaccine is not a cancer vaccine or cure – it just prevents development of a virus that could lead to cancer.

"For the U.S. what that means is the vaccine will prevent about half of high-grade precursors of cancer but half will still occur, so hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated with Gardasil and get yearly Pap testing will still get a high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormality)," she said.

Harper also reported that the drug company "bridged" the studies to apply to young girls. That means that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger girls.

And she warned more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome – an immune disorder that results in tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles – have been reported in girls who got the HPV vaccine in combination with a meningitis vaccine.

So not necessarily proven effictive in younger girls. Younger girls might I add who are being forced to get this shot.

Oh and also 40 cases of some syndrome which can lead to an immune disorder. Oh why are parents running out and putting their children at risk like this?

She said the vaccine's purpose has been misinterpreted and mis-marketed so that too many may believe if they've had the vaccine they are immune to cancer – when they are not.

Only for people and parents who did not do the research, which I guess is what they count on.

While calling the vaccine "good" Harper said it is important to realize that if women get the vaccine, but not an routine Pap smear, "what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job."

I think I remember saying something like that also. 20 years from now, we could have more cancer than we do now, if woman think they can stop pap tests because of this.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry in February issued an executive order requiring those vaccinations, but the state House of Representatives in Texas has approved by a 6-1 margin a plan to rescind that.

I really hope that they do resind the mandatory requirments. Next time the drug pimps want to play with someone, maybe the parents of America will stand up and say, not with our children.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The whole thing reeks of a scam.

Didn't Merck make Vioxx? Aren't they still hurting from that?

(All those dead people! :shk: )

Merck has to make up for all that lost money somehow. Making something
that the state governments are making mandatory seems like a veeeeery quick way to make a bunch of money.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:13 PM
here we are at the cusp of erradicating a disease that renders women infertile and/or kills them and people are talking about CHOICE

people didn't tell me it was my choice to have any of my other vaccinations.

i really think the problem is that some people can't imagine the fact that one day their little girls will engage in sexual activity.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:43 PM
Hi FlyersFan.

Yes they do make Vioxx. This is a way to make back some money. The drug pimps apparently put large amounts of money into some people's campaigns, Eg. Texas politician who made drug mandatory.

A very quick way to make money on the future of young innocent girls.

Hi madnessinmysoul.

here we are at the cusp of erradicating a disease that renders women infertile and/or kills them and people are talking about CHOICE

people didn't tell me it was my choice to have any of my other vaccinations.

i really think the problem is that some people can't imagine the fact that one day their little girls will engage in sexual activity.

Ok first of all. This is in no way shape or form a cancer drug. No. It's a drug for an STD. An STD that has how many strains? Literally dozens. There are about 10 that will cause cervical cancer. This kills about 4 strains, means yearly trips for the pap smear anyways.

This is in no way shape or form on the cusp of illuminating anything except the possible future of some young girls, that according to the latest article by the person who worked on the drug, has not been really tested on or proven to be effective on.

people didn't tell me it was my choice to have any of my other vaccinations.

It's more of an STD shot, because the transmission is sexually transmitted.

i really think the problem is that some people can't imagine the fact that one day their little girls will engage in sexual activity.

No I think the problem is that this is forced, and will not have the benefits that society is being brainwashed into thinking it will. If you had read the article you might have realised that.

If not the article, then just the choice clippings above.

The drug is not going to stop or cure cancer. If you thought so you have been grossly misinformed.

The choice we are talking about here is these young girls and thier rights to not be guinea pigs for some drug company.

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
here we are at the cusp of erradicating a disease

No. the claim is that it can help kill SOME forms of virus that cause cervical cancer. It doesn't say that it absolutely will and it doesn't kill all the virus' that cause the cancer.

people didn't tell me it was my choice to have any of my other vaccinations.

The other vaccinations are for things that are communicable. This is not.

i really think the problem is that some people can't imagine the fact that one day their little girls will engage in sexual activity.

No. Not at all.

The problem is that this vaccination has only been tested for 3.9 years. The tests were done on a small scale. There is no information on long term side affects. The fact is that almost nothing is known about this vaccination except that merck came out with it rather quickly and it is being pushed heavily, which is odd since the vaccination is for something that is not communicable.

Considering the $$$ problems merck is having due to their mass murdering people through vioxx ... there is every reason to be extra cautious. It has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with the health of our children.

new topics

top topics


log in