Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paved Paradise

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.


66 posted on 02/09/2007 2:33:41 PM PST by Nevernow (No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Nevernow

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.


71 posted on 02/09/2007 2:43:12 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson