US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls

There comes a point where individual rights don't just segue with the needs of society but give way to them. The virulent diseases of the past are one example... if a viable vaccine or cure for AIDS came along, that would be another. I really don't give a damn who anybody boinks or how often they do it just so long as they don't keep me up at night without an invitation so that argument is a bunch of meddlesome bull hooey by a bunch of severely repressed anally retentive types. The question should be is how safe and viable this vaccine is and does the good it does, outweigh the negatives. If there is some concern over one company is making all the profits from it... have the government make it themselves.

I say, end the controversy by doing as New Hampshire did: make it voluntary. That way, everybody gets what they want.

Originally posted by grover
If there is some concern over one company is making all the profits from it... have the government make it themselves.

Sorry Grover, but you don't seem to be the type to trust the government so completely.

What's up with that???

While we are at it, let's let government take over Exxon, Wal-Mart...how about all Fortune 500 companies that make a profit?

Wasn't the USSR based on a concept like that? Where are they now?



[edit on 14-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by Kacen
I guess I don't really think that people should be forced to take vaccines.

But the reasoning for blocking this is utterly stupid. "Promotes promiscuity." Who are they to decide whether we should be promiscuous or not? I'm not interested in sex, but its not the government's business what people do.

I know, when two horny teenagers get together, she wont think "oh good, I can have have sex now Ive have my cancer vaccine" or "oh no, I better hold out because I havent had my vaccine"

When two kids get together, they are going to have sex if they want to (as proved by the teenage pregnancy rate", condoms or not, vaccine or not, every adult should want them to be as safe as possible but the religious nuts are too stupid to see this.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I say, end the controversy by doing as New Hampshire did: make it voluntary. That way, everybody gets what they want.

Hopefully that will become the rule.

Absolutely no shot or medication should ever be mandatory.

I was vaccinated against hepatitis when I was 13, and it was entirely voluntary (by my parents). I think all it did in my mind was place a hepatitis sticky note in a file labeled "vaccinations I can actually remember".

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by grover
If there is some concern over one company is making all the profits from it... have the government make it themselves.

Sorry Grover, but you don't seem to be the type to trust the government so completely.

What's up with that???

While we are at it, let's let government take over Exxon, Wal-Mart...how about all Fortune 500 companies that make a profit?

Wasn't the USSR based on a concept like that? Where are they now?



[edit on 14-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Sloppy logic rr very sloppy logic. I wasn't advocating socialism I was responding to concerns about Merck being the sole maker of it... personally however there are certain things, such as a cure for AIDS for example that should be free and available to all of humanity and not a cash cow for some company or bunch of stock holders.

My daughter and I researched this vaccine and decided against it. There isn't enough information on possible long term effects. Also with her life style she is in no danger of contracting the viruses it would protect against so why take the risk? The choice should be the parents and the girls. The government needs to stay out of it. Make the vaccine available to all who want it and allow freedom of choice.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]

Only Backward-Thinking Conservatives Oppose Mandatory Vaccination

At least, that's the implication.

The way the article focuses attention on the opposition of some conservative groups while giving scant mention to the many other legitimate reasons to oppose legally mandating this new vaccine smacks of a straw man argument.

I have a hard time believing Mr. Giles is unaware of this fact, which in turn leads me to wonder what motivated him to write the article that way.

Combined with the barrage of attempts to force this vaccine on people through intense lobbying efforts, I'm also left to wonder who's in Merck's pocket and who isn't.

Though I'm hardly oblivious to the benefits of reducing the incidence of cervical cancer and applaud efforts to do so, I don't think allowing a pharmaceutical company to bribe politicians (and apparently some journalists) to mandate their product by law is the way to go.

The fact that this campaign has already been so successful points to much more disturbing problems than even cervical cancer.

That sort of abuse of government power needs to be exposed and stopped.

Originally posted by Majic
Only Backward-Thinking Conservatives Oppose Mandatory Vaccination
The way the article focuses attention on the opposition of some conservative groups while giving scant mention to the many other legitimate reasons to oppose legally mandating this new vaccine smacks of a straw man argument.

Not sure I agree. Conservative right wing groups religious or otherwise has made an issue of this vaccine giving young women basicaly a License to Fornicate (LTF) and is a direct responce to those groups. In fact if anthing these groups opposing the vaccine have offered any real data but rely on the tried but true fally of logic the Appeal to Fear

Merck stands to make a profit on the drug no doubt, but hey thats what they are in the business for lest anyone forget.

The evidence is pretty supportive of the importance of the vaccine (In peer reviewed journals like NJM) and much like other vaccinations, its use should be part of routine reccomendations. Parents in those states that require the vaccine can opt out. Its not as if they are being tied down and injected :shk:

FredT,

From my experience once a vaccine becomes mandatory within no time all must get it or there is things you cannot do.

Example, try and send your kid to kindergarten without all the vaccines up to date. They won’t allow your child in the school.

Always, in the beginning something is optional then its mandatory. Then there’s either you do it or you wont be able to do this.

We see it everyday. In the 70’s insurance was an option. Insurance was not expensive because it wasn’t mandatory. Today, it’s mandatory and now the insurance runs you. No insurance no car. No insurance no home. Etc….

Same with vaccines. No vaccine your kid is not allowed in school. So though it may be optional right now it will not always be that way.

I do not see this as a license for a girl to have sex. I do see it as a problem because you don’t know the outcome of what it will do.

It’s like celebrex and viox and all other drugs they give it to millions of people then tell us later its bad for your heart.

Their not always honest with what a drug can do to you.

I do not want my girls to be forced to get this vaccine. Everyday I feel my rights being taken away.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Shar]

Originally posted by Shar
T0by,

Try this site for one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Vaccines are not always the best thing. Like I said how do we know it won’t make are girls sterile?


We don’t have enough information about this.

I don’t think it’s a religious thing like people are trying to make it.

Rather it’s the right of the people. Forcing us to always do what they say. Whether we want to or not.

Exactly..
I dont know where to begin really, and I can't be bothered typing much about it since it's not really a topic i'm that passionate about proving anything.
But I'll say there have been things in history we look back on, and think wow... i cant believe we did that. Kids being allowed to smoke before we understood its long term effects is one example.

Immunisations have been strongly linked to autism and other things, in fact some say it has been proven.
Theres hard scientific evidence showing this but it's ignored because a) Can you imagine how angry people would be and B) theres money involved.

Twenty or thirty years from now, we will look back at Immunisations, Fluoride, amalgum in fillings, and a few other things, and think 'wow' too.

My personal experiences with these things: ( But is not the cause of my beliefs )

Immunisations - I was never immunised and neither was my sister. Mum would hide this fact from the schools, as if people found out they would often strongly criticise her, and look at us like we had the plague. This shows how strong the grasp is of these things on peoples minds. It's just one of those things, I don't know why.
I was hardly sick, and watched in wonder as all of the other kids around me often had sick days off as they were off from school from the very things they were immunised against.

Fluoride - I was never given fluoride when I was young. I had fluoride free toothpaste, and always drank bottled water ( Tap water contains fluoride )
When we went to the dentist, he would say 'Wow your kids have the best teeth i've seen in years' Then he would go on about how good fluoride is.

Oops i guess i did type quite abit..

Well what do you expect when most of our laws and bills are dictated by corporate America.

They rule the nation under the umbrella of our elected corrupted politicians.

Originally posted by FredT
Parents in those states that require the vaccine can opt out. Its not as if they are being tied down and injected :shk:

Problem is opt-out systems are tried and true designed to maximize enrollment with minimal awareness.

It should be opt-in.

Yeah the vaccine was developed in Australia, and the federal government subsidises it. It's administered to 12-13 year old girls so I doubt there's much chance of them developing autism, that theory only applies to vaccines administered before the age of 5 at the latest. Thousands of women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the US. I guess they will have to decide whether it's worth the risk.

Originally posted by FredT
The evidence is pretty supportive of the importance of the vaccine (In peer reviewed journals like NJM) and much like other vaccinations, its use should be part of routine reccomendations. Parents in those states that require the vaccine can opt out. Its not as if they are being tied down and injected :shk:

Can you site this evidence? According to the information that I can find there was very little testing done on the drug Gardasi in young females.

Merck & Co. conducted a Phase III study named FUTURE II. This clinical trial was a randomized double-blind study with one controlled placebo group and one vaccination group. Over 12,000 women aged 16-26 from thirteen countries participated in the study. Each woman was injected with either Gardasil or a placebo on Day 1, Month 2, and Month 6. In total, 6,082 women were given Gardasil and 6,075 received the placebo.

Merck has tested the vaccine in only a few hundred 11- and 12-year-old girls.

en.wikipedia.org...

The states that are trying to implement this drug want girls to take it as young as 11-12 even though the drug has barely been tested for that age group.

The person who drafted the Texas executive order on February 2, 2007 mandating the vaccine be given to all school girls entering sixth grade, beginning September 2008 was Texas Governor Rick Perry. Governor Perry received $6000 in campaign contributions from Merck in his last campaign. Since Gardasil is patented, Merck is the sole producer. The drug will cost $360 for 3 shots.

The only studies that have been completed were done by Merck & Co. who have been guilty of lying about other studies for drugs which have killed people.

No one knows the long term effects of the vaccine. Since the studies have been of short duration, it is unknown whether the vaccines will last just a few years or for much longer. Further study over time is required to answer this question.

The only reason this made headlines is because the story could be spun to disparage conservatives. If the liberals/democrats would have blocked the vaccine the headline would have been:

"Democrats Prevent Bush Administration From Implementing Mandatory Drug Injections"

Originally posted by grover
The question should be is how safe and viable this vaccine is and does the good it does, outweigh the negatives.

Exactly. And the answer is -

This vaccine has NOT been tested enough to be proven that it is safe.
(Not to mention the extra unnecessary mercury that vaccines pump into children nowadays - does this vaccine have mercury like the rest of them do?)

Merc murdred tens of thousands with VIOXX. They have to get their money back so they are pushing through a vaccine that they have only been testing for three years. They are pushing it on the ENTIRE young female population of this country. They are using the entire young US female populaton as test subjects. They are also getting the state governments to make it mandatory in order for Merc to make a fortune.

All this .. and the vaccine isn't even really necessary. It only SOMETIMES takes care of one of the THREE virus' that cause cervical cancer. And as one poster already pointed out ... if the girls aren't sleeping around then they won't be catching the virus anyways so why make it mandatory for all girls? This is insane.

Originally posted by Majic
that sort of abuse of government power needs to be exposed and stopped.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

As I said before - I don't care what excuse people use to get this stopped. If some on the religious right want to protest it from their perspective .. that's fine with me. If those in the middle or on the left want to protest it because it's INSANE to force this .... that's great too. This should NOT be mandatory at all.

The connection between Merc and politicians in the states where this is becoming mandatory HAS TO be investigated. I REALLy wish a good investigative reporter would go after it.

edited to add -

Originally posted by nick7261
The only reason this made headlines is because the story could be spun to disparage conservatives. If the liberals/democrats would have blocked the vaccine the headline would have been: "Democrats Prevent Bush Administration From Implementing Mandatory Drug Injections"

THAT I also fully agree with.

[edit on 5/15/2007 by FlyersFan]

The FDA says there were close to 28,000 deaths from VIOXX. I'm sure the number of actuall deaths is much higher. It always is. MERC has to get their $$$ back somehow. Their next target - young girls.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that Merc lost due to VIOXX.

PLEASE READ THIS

Merc stands to make at least 2 BILLION dollars with this.

The vaccine hasn't been fully tested.

Merck is covered under a federally funded vaccine liability program. If Gardasil turns out to have deadly consequences, Merck isn't liable.

Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum.

[edit on 5/15/2007 by FlyersFan]

Plans to vaccinate young girls against the sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer have been blocked in several US states by conservative groups, who say that doing so would encourage promiscuity.

It's maybe a little off topic, but did anyone noticed we now have viraly transmited cancer?

That's a new one for me.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by yanchek]

Originally posted by nick7261
The only reason this made headlines is because the story could be spun to disparage conservatives. If the liberals/democrats would have blocked the vaccine the headline would have been:

"Democrats Prevent Bush Administration From Implementing Mandatory Drug Injections"

spare us the tripe alright.