Posted on 02/06/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by Froufrou
people like you?
Are we talking about the same thing?
I'm talking about virus based diseases---
Polio etc.
"Also, part of proving that preventing infection by the vaccine is effective is that they were exposed during the time of the study. (sex)"
No, proving it would involve having sex with a man infected with HPV.
Not yet. I've been looking at other vaccines and the damage they've done. Unfortunately, I have to sign off for now. But I WILL check that next time that I get online.
I don't intend to put up with it. I know many here think I'm wrong. I hope that in the spirit of pioneering this involves they don't rush on out and get theirs while the jury is still out.
With all due respect, the only ones I've seen make that assertion are the PRO vaccination crowd. And they make it repeatedly. Almost as if they had a physiological fixation on the subject.
------------
So, with that in mind, I refuse to even remotely side with the anti's.
No one is guilty by association, and being cautious does not make one "anti vaccine", and "anti vaccine" does not, by default, make someone "pro cancer".
That's one of the most ludicrous rationalizations I've ever heard.
An even better use of the taxpayer's money would be to return it to the taxpayers. Not the school kids. Not the welfare recipients. The taxpayers.
If parents have a desire to get vaccines for THEIR kids, then they can pay for them.
Catch you later.
Must people don't realize that any event that happens during a study is considered an adverse event. Car accidents, bumped toes, stab wounds. So when they see these numbers they do not understand that.
Serious adverse events would for example be a hospitalization and a car accident which caused an admission (even related to a dui) would be an example. A child who climbs out of a high chair while Mom's back is turned and breaks its neck and dies would be a death due to a serious adverse event in a vaccine study, determined not to be vaccine related by the investigator.
Sounds awful and is, but it is also nothing to do with being in a study.
I hope I explained that clearly, almost me nappy time.
You're the one who argued that a girl being raised in a stable home wasn't as at risk either.
So I up your ludicrous and raise you a clueless.
I would so love to be wrong about my reservations. Love to.
But I don't see the sudden rush. They worked on this since 1995 and GSK is within a year of completing their vaccine. Who's to say theirs wont be better and wish we'd waited?
Have we clarified the virus vaccination thing?
Well yes, but the SEX part is the part that would not something to be perceived to have been encouraged by any rational Human being in a child and would have had to have occured to get sexual exposure with HPV.
Fair enough,
While I don't get the angst about this,
You'll understand when I pitch a fit and jump into it over a "Little Miss Pageant" thread ;)
You can't know that you will have waited for nothing, either, that it will have been a failure.
Its a judgement call and someone has to be first, either now or 5 years from now. So it might be your call to go or mine to wait, either way, we agree that it should not be mandatory at this stage.
I must say, it is very nice to have an intelligent discussion with someone on this subject.
Thank you!
Not sure I understand.
Since you brought it up, "Little Miss Pageant" stuff sickens me. Human dog and pony show. Revolting.
How very kind of you! It's not easy sometimes because I do have very, very strong feelings about this mandatory business. It makes me sick that I voted for that man.
I think you would enjoy Merck's website. They've got an HIV trial and something for seniors, I forget what, maybe it's a memory drug! LOL!
All I'm saying is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being very strong feelings about,
I'd say you feel about a 10 against this.
I feel about a 7 for it with no feelings against. So you're three points ahead with the against driven.
HOWEVER, the pageant thing is a 10 for me, and I'll post.
I'm cooked. Well done.
All this criticism makes me wonder who folks expect to run the vaccine business? Politicians? They can't run the page program in the Senate and HOuse!
Outahere.
Yep.
Vaccines are the way for our life time for the prevention of virus related illness. Virus' are the frontier. AS you mentioned before the common cold has not been congered and yet folks aren't thrilled with this development. Don't get it.
I am thrilled with the Alzheimers vaccine research. There is also Parkinson's vaccine research as well as HIV. Just think, our kids may not have to face these things. There is also a vaccine for smoking!
I don't know who folks think find the cures and prevention for major diseases. They propably think its government.
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.