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.
Originally posted by yanchek
did anyone noticed we now have viraly transmited cancer?
Originally posted by grover
spare us the tripe alright.
Originally posted by grover
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.
Originally posted by Ghost01
Here's another example of rediculas logic at work. I'm very conservative morally, but I see blocking medical technology that could save lives to promote someone's idea of morallity as rediculas. This time they are going too far! Who are they to deny someone the right to use preventitive medicine because they don't agree with how they choose to live?
Tim
Originally posted by zerotime
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.
Originally posted by FredT
An interesting perspective
Cancer prevention has fallen victim to the culture wars.
HPV-vaccination mandates, which are aimed more at protecting the vaccinee than at achieving herd immunity, have been attacked as an unwarranted intrusion on individual and parental rights. The constitutionality of vaccination mandates is premised on the reasonableness of the risk–benefit balance, the degree of intrusion on personal autonomy, and, most crucial, the presence of a public health necessity. On the one hand, to the extent that required HPV vaccination is an example of state paternalism rather than community protection, mandatory programs lose some of their justification. On the other hand, the parental option to refuse vaccination without interfering in the child's right to attend school alters this balance. Here the mandates act less as state imperatives and more as subtle tools to encourage vaccination. Whereas an opt-in program requires an affirmative effort by a parent, and thus misses many children whose parents forget to opt in, an opt-out approach increases vaccination rates among children whose parents have no real objection to the program while perfectly preserving parental autonomy.