Posted on 02/06/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by Froufrou
There were also a few cases of 'bronchospasm' and asthma attributed to the series of 3 shots given over a 6-month period of time.
Someone here posted on my other thread yesterday that they have a nephew who had a terrible reaction to a vaccine. This is serious business, not a miracle drug.
I'll take your word on it for now. The actual transference and infection of the unrelated sickness you described remains suspect to me however.
Some people are happy to 'no big deal' their way through life.
And some prefer to study more than surface aspects of a situation before imparting judgment, eh Nathan?
Why? This "vaccine" does not prevent either of those. And, of the 4 strains (3 cancer, 2 warts) it does have effect on, it also MAY not work. The companies own literature says this.
Peopel who work for the company who makes this are big Gov Goodhair contributors.
It is about 70% effective, roughly the same as flu shots.
Everyone I've talked to has a problem with the "brotherinlaw deal" part of this as well as the "bypassing legislative process and discussing costs, budgeting, etc." part of it moreso than the issue of whether the idea of the vaccine itself is good or bad.
Thanks for the link.
Women Misinformed About HPV-Cancer Link
Media Coverage of HPV Testing Blurs Cervical Cancer Link
SNIP
Stressing the Truths About HPV
In an editorial that accompanies the studies, Bradley J. Monk, MD, of the University of California at Irvine, and colleagues say these studies highlight the public's misconceptions about the association between HPV and cervical cancer.
"Their findings suggest that it is little wonder that the public is informed so inadequately about the virus, the consequences of infection, and the natural history of cervical [cancer]," they write.
The editorialists say that the first step in improving the public's knowledge of HPV is to clearly state the truths about HPV infection, stressing six basic points:
They most likely are. The female vaccine is available now.
Stick that profile out a little further, boy.
I want it smacked HARD!
-----
Parents will be able to opt their 11- and 12-year-old daughters out of the program, as they can for other required vaccines.
As posted earlier, this is a lie;
Texas Education Code
CHAPTER 38. HEALTH AND SAFETY
§ 38.001. IMMUNIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; EXCEPTIONS.
SUBCHAPTER B. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS § 38.053. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIRED.
(a) A school-based health center may provide services to a student only if the district or the provider with whom the district contracts obtains the written consent of the student's parent or guardian or another person having legal control of the student on a consent form developed by the district or provider.
The State has to GET consent, it can't ASSUME consent and make the parent prove differently.
This edict is illegal on a lot of levels. Just sent 2 detailed letters to Reps via email.
-----
Parental duty calls, I'll check back later.
Thanks for the ping!
No, ma'am. You are wrong. Only 6th-grade girls are mandated for the vaccine.
They could in a sense.
Women would think they are immune and continue spreading it around, thinking they were 'vaccinated'. Memember the old song'
"kissing causes germs;
germs are hated;
but kiss me baby;
I'm vaccinated!
look haw many actually believe this vaccine will cure HPV already, when in fact it MAY only prevent TWO cancer causing strains. A regular check up and pap smear can prevent all of them.
I don't answer to ma'am, and your point is irrelevant with regard to this disease.
The program allows parents to opt out.
"It may also give uniformed women a false sense of security, and they would forgo regular pap smears. This 'vaccine' may end up causing more cancer than it saves."
Ludicrous. You have probably gotten at least 6 different vaccines in your life, more if you are much of an international traveler. Have you ever thought to yourself, "Well I got that yellow fever shot last year when I went to South Africa, surely I can skip my yearly check-up with my family doctor."
It depends. If you know your child is not sexually active, then why give them a vaccine.
If the risks for the vaccine is high, and the benefits low then why give a child the vaccine.
If the vaccine has not been tested much on children, then why give them the vaccine.
Also, I absolutely would not make it mandatory because HIV is not an airborne disease. I can go into a room with a person with HIV and not catch it. Other illnesses like measle, you only have to be in the room with someone to catch it.
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.