but hey, anything to get some money."
"Long term testing for children? Who the heck cares?
Our stock in Merck MUST GO UP.
Simply put, the children are too young to resist and will take our investment, I mean, vaccine."
Posted on 02/09/2007 11:44:19 AM PST by Froufrou
Children of God for Life is urging West Virginia lawmakers to scrap HB 2835 mandating Merck's new Gardasil HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine.
Following last week' hotly debated Executive Order by Governor Perry to mandate Gardasil in Texas, West Virginia is the latest of at least two dozen states proposing to add the controversial vaccine as a requirement for school attendance. However, unlike Texas and 48 other states including DC, which have laws allowing parents to opt-out, WVA and Mississippi are the only two States that do not provide religious or philosophical exemptions for vaccines.
"It is utterly disgraceful that WVA would force this vaccine on families, especially when their State law provides no relief to those who object to other vaccines," stated Children of God for Life Executive Director, Debi Vinnedge. "Even if they include an opt-out for Gardasil, such a move would be unconstitutional for parents who have religious objections to other vaccines, such as those using aborted fetal cell lines."
While Gardasil does not utilize aborted fetal cell lines – a primary focus of Children of God for Life, the group noted it raises other moral concerns. And they are not alone. Since Perry's actions last week, numerous family and medical groups agree that this is a family decision for the parents – not the State.
In a statement released Jan 22, the American College of Pediatrics noted that mandating Gardasil for school attendance "is a serious, precedent-setting action" replacing parental medical decision making with government regulations.
Likewise, Focus on the Family warned last year, that state officials, not parents, would become the primary sexual-health decision makers for America's children.
Vinnedge noted, "Mandating Gardasil is like the State mandating condoms for children. And neither one is effective at preventing cervical cancer. The HPV virus's incubation period is 20 years, yet this vaccine was tested for only 4 years. No one knows whether this will prevent cervical cancer at all."
Last year the Associated Press reported the FDA warning that, "any advantage the vaccine provides in protecting against the four virus types could be offset by infection by any of the multiple [over 100] other types of HPV that the vaccine does not cover." The FDA further noted that "the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients already infected by any of the four virus types at the time they receive the vaccine, and whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies."
"West Virginia is already a quagmire of contention in their antiquated State regulations on vaccines," noted Vinnedge. "If they intend to mandate Gardasil, they must provide an opt-out clause and add religious exemptions for other vaccines as well. Anything less would be a gross infringement on parental rights."
It's specifically against an STD at a time when girls aren't even having sex. It's being marketed as an anti-cancer vaccine, but it's actually an anti-STD vaccine. The STD can cause the cancer, but it'd be like labeling the flu vaccine an anti-pneumonia vaccine. While preventing the flu can prevent pneumonia, it's not what the vaccine is actually against.
It doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer, so even telling girls, "This will keep you safe from cervical cancer," is dangerous because it gives people a false sense of security.
There are other reasons for opposing it, but it is a sexual issue.
It's specifically against an STD at a time when girls aren't even having sex. It's being marketed as an anti-cancer vaccine, but it's actually an anti-STD vaccine. The STD can cause the cancer, but it'd be like labeling the flu vaccine an anti-pneumonia vaccine. While preventing the flu can prevent pneumonia, it's not what the vaccine is actually against.
It doesn't even protect against all cervical cancer, so even telling girls, "This will keep you safe from cervical cancer," is dangerous because it gives people a false sense of security.
There are other reasons for opposing it, but it is a sexual issue.
Because, unlike you, they are for limited government, and parents making decisions for their children?
Not only that but I'm still a little skeptical about this "vaccine" (admittedly I have not done any research on this at all). I find it hard to belief that a vaccine prevents cancer. It appears to me that the vaccine prevents the sexually transmitted virus which, in turn, prevents the cancer from developing, so it's not really the same as a CANCER VACCINE, which is what everyone is calling it.
If I had a daughter I honestly don't know what I'd do. I'd want to believe she would not become sexually active outside of a marital relationship, but I also live in the real world and the culture has just brainwashed our girls (and boys) to the point that it makes me sad.
Did you read "Porn Generation" by any chance? That book was written by a young man and it was really depressing.
Thank you for posting this. This is what I was saying. They are not really representing this thing correctly.
Exactly. Also, the vaccine only takes care of 70% of cervical cancer caused by HPV. The company is calling it anti-cancer though, not anti-std. Maybe they're hoping to avoid the objections that came with the Hepatitis B vaccine?
My objections are based more on health issues. It's like that with any vaccine. I'm currently ridden with lyme disease and have been for years, but I still oppose the lyme vaccine because it's been proven to cause more lyme than prevent it. Any vaccine that hasn't been tested extensively should be treated delicately, I think, and not mandated unless there's an epidemic.
It's not a sexual issue. I believe this is only effective when given to girls between 9 and 11, and that's the reason why they are so young.
It's effective with women up until their 20s.
The reason it's being ordered so young is that they're assuming these girls haven't had sex yet. You'd think they'd wait until it was tested on that age group before ordering it, but hey, anything to get some money.
Which is another thing that worries me, since if you've already got one of the strains the vaccine protects against, it can make it worse, and when you're 9-11, do you tell your parents if you've had sex? And yes, a few girls that young are having sex, unless things have changed since I was in sixth grade. I doubt they're going to say, "Now have you had sex?" to preteens before administering the vaccine, and if they do, it is definitely a sexual issue. An anti-STD vaccine is a sexual issue, no matter how a company tries to spin it.
"Long term testing for children? Who the heck cares?
Our stock in Merck MUST GO UP.
Simply put, the children are too young to resist and will take our investment, I mean, vaccine."
I didn't even hear the 70 percent part of the story. That's what galls me about all of this. I just can't help forget the whole Thalidomide fiasco or the drug the mothers took for morning sickness I think and their daughters were later at risk for cancer.
We ARE both the doctor and the monster.
Those who got invasive clear cell carcinoma of the vagina had
vaginectomy, and removal of their bladders and rectum.
Hence, the importance of TESTING BEFORE GIVING anything to everyone.
Hey, we know you hate Perry, one post is enough to get the message across.
But that'd cost money! Lives are nothing more than dollar signs.
And a lot of people don't know the 70% thing, but that's why the vaccine insert says that you still need to get tested for cervical cancer regularly after you've had the vaccine.
If I had a daughter now, Maryland is trying to pass this, I swear I would homeschool her just because of this. Something that is not 100% effective against the thing it's supposed to protect against, hasn't been tested extensively, and can be caught with a simple pap smear? If I ever have children, I refuse to allow Merck to turn them into labrats by order of the government.
Apparently you do not care about that important issue.
I already said that's why they're doing it, but there are fifth and sixth graders that have sex.
Once more. It's against an STD. A SEXually transmitted disease.
It's got sex in the word.
How is something against a sexually transmitted disease not sexual?
60% of boys have it too, so why aren't boys being vaccinated? They spread it. They can get hurt by it.
I don't think a 9 year old is going to say that. I think 13+ girls are going to say, well I had this vaccine so I'm safe.
If it's against an STD, it's a sexual issue.
I'm not sure your screen name suits you if it is short for Limited Government.
Read the info from the CDC. This virus is discovered in a routine visit to a girl or woman's ob/gyn. Most cases of the cervical cancer occur in women who have not had regular gyn exams or pap smears. Pap smears are covered by all insurance and since it is preventive it is covered usually at 100%. Why do you feel the government should be able to trump a parent, daughter, pediatrician and/or ob/gyn's decision. Did I wake up in Amerikastan today?
You are clueless.
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.