Posted on 02/06/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by Froufrou
This is my problem. I think there are too many mandated vaccines right now. I didn't start really researching vaccines until my daughter got brain damage at 6 weeks old, and she had already had some shots (I think for hepatitis).
I'm on the online groups for parents of special needs kids, lots of them with autism. I don't necessarily think vaccines caused autism, but reading the information about vaccines that have been posted makes you really think twice about vaccines. I definitely support more long term study of the side effects of vaccines.
I also really don't think chicken pox should be a mandated vaccine. Not many children die from chicken pox. If your child is at a high risk from dying from it, then get the vaccine. One of my daughters was high risk from dying from it, so my children all got the vaccine.
Polio and measles are different. There were real epidemics of those diseases, and they caused real problems.
If there was ever another small pox epidemic, that would be something else. My daughter is high risk for having complications from that vaccine, so we have a plan to keep her from getting it unless she is exposed.
I think it has to be a pretty serious outbreak (meaning lots of people, and very serious complications) to mandate making a vaccine mandatory.
If it saves one life, but then causes problems in numerous others then it proves we weren't idiots.
Check your facts, the clock is ticking on the lives you choose to block the benefits of this from.
"In 1995, Merck entered into a license agreement and collaboration with CSL Limited relating to technology used in GARDASIL. GARDASIL also is the subject of other third-party licensing agreements."
Here's the part that I think I unconsciously flagged. That last sentence. Who are the "other third party" agreements with? With anything ground-breaking like this, I want as much concrete and finite data as are available.
I don't know for sure that it's NOT harmless. But I'd rather be at least more sure than I am before we risk our little girls. I don't think I'm being an alarmist, but bit and pieces I read about it and the way it's being rush-forced cause me to be...more cautious than I should be?
And I respect yours. If I thought this was more about girls' health than Perry's campaign debts, I think I'd just forget about it.
Because of the sexual nature of it, there's just too many cans of worms it opens, IMHO.
I respectfully disagree with you on this subject.
I think it is great that this vaccine is available.
Heck, I'd even be okay with medical professionals going into high/middle schools and offer the vaccine (preferably for free if there is enough money for that).
However, I am not for making it mandatory for 11 year old girls. I think it should be the parent's choice.
And I respectfully hope that you are right and I am wrong. That would mean some good news for a change! LOL!
;)
"Without being offensive, I doubt that was recently."
LOL. OK, my kids call me old.
Just went to called the Fannin Elementary School. There is an affidavit available from the nurse, or you can get one by faxing or emailing your request here:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/docs/sample_letter.doc
I also learned that, until 2003, the requests were supposed to be permanent.
Just out of curiosity, do you do the same intensive research over everything that you put into your body? How many parties were involved in the creation of every previous vaccine you've received, mandatory or voluntary? Or your preferred OTC cough syrup? Or your favorite snack food?
What can it possibly matter who the other agreements are with? That has no bearing on the safety or efficacy of a treatment. For all I know or care, Merck licensed an L5 decombobulator from the Mooninites. I don't like the Mooninites, I think they're jerks, but the end result of the L5 decombobulation works, and I'm happy.
You'll also be happy to know that Merck has won several Vioxx cases, and others have been dropped or mistried, within the last month. Perhaps this medication will soon be available again.
so we eradicate the virus. Like with TB, our open borders will bring a mutated supervirus back into the country.
I don't need to burn anything into my brain. The forced inoculation activists (you included) keep claiming HPV related cervical cancer rates are 3,700 per year. Of that, pro " forced vaccination" advocates such as yourself- claim that this 'wonder drug' can prevent 70% of all HPV related cases.
A quick glance at this thread alone shows those are YOUR numbers, not mine.
A quick calculation reveals that 2,590 cases are what forced inoculations with Gardisol are claimed to be able to prevent. Now, where did you get "10,000 and 14,000 women get invasive cervical cancer every year! 50,000 cases of cervical carcinoma in situ (localized) are diagnosed." from? How many of these are HPV related? Why, that would be 3700, of which 70% are what forced inoculations of gardisol claims to be able to prevent.
NOWHERE are there claims of HPV related cervical cancer numbers in the 10,000-14,000 region. NOWHERE.
YOU are making this up as you go it appears. I'm just amazed at how many people who call themselves "republicans or conservatives are crying for big brother government to tell you, FORCE you to inoculate your children at PUBLIC EXPENCE!. You are all socialists, not conservatives!
If you want to take a pill or an injection you want to believe will cure all cancer, go ahead, do so. But I WILL NOT PAY FOR IT!! Given: HPV related cervical cancers claim 3,700/ year in America AS THE ARICLE CLAIMS. that's where that number comes from.
The claim that Gardisol can prevent 2590 of those, comes from YOU. As for those other numbers, I haven't clue where you got those from. But they are irrelevant as far as Gardisol goes, because gardisol does not claim to be a cure for anything other than 2 strains of the HPV virus, which Gardisol claims takes 3,700 lives in America per year, and which it claims can prevent 2590 of those.
How can I make it any more clear that this does NOT warrant mass inoculation at astronomical cost for minimal benefit at public expense?
Those that advocate this are not republicans, not even conservative republicans. This is pure "free healthcare" socialist idiocy. Soon as someone mentions "free healthcare" it seems they loose all ability to think clearly and rationally, and cannot see both the minimal benefit of this drug, and huge cost, not to mention trampling of civil liberties.
You'd think that even leefties, with all their claims against big drug companies ripping off the public would see the scam this is as well, but again soon as the word "free innoculation" is mentioned, all rational thought, what little they have, is lost.
Gardisol is more than "a harmless protein"- see their website for explanation. There you go making up stuff again.
Since my mother died in June from nonalcohol-related cirrhosis, and since I then learned the extent to which every medication is metabolized in the liver [quoting one of her doctors] I think you could say I'm more interested than I was before.
Too little, too late. I'm sure you didn't mean to be so snide.
Wow. I have to say that I find that statement appalling. There are two legitimate questions to be asked here:
1. Does the cost/benefit ratio of this drug warrant administering it to one's child?
2. Does the governor have the authority to declare by Executive Order that all children will receive it?
To claim that those who are raising concern over this want girls to die or have their genitals cut out is disgusting and over the top. You should be ashamed.
It’s a medical breakthrough! We now know that 99.7% of cervical cancer is caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) and we now have a vaccine that protects against HPV! The new HPV vaccine, called Gardisol, is now available and you can get it right here at our Island Sexual Health Clinic. Many doctors’ offices and medical clinics also provide this vaccine.The Gardisol vaccine is a series of 3 doses which are given at 0, 2 and 6 months and is indicated for females aged 9-26. Ideally it is given to a woman before she becomes sexually active, but it can still be given to those who are already sexually active. http://islandsexualhealth.org/blog/hpv-vaccine-is-here
And you are telling me women aren't being missinformed? HA!
"Vioxx is a drug, not a harmless foreign protein (along with yeast and aluminum and some other more-or-less inert stuff) which generates antibodies in your system and is then cleansed from your blood and passed harmlessly."
Looks like you didn't read the list of side effects found in the trials. Some of them were quite serious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.