Posted on 09/20/2007 4:02:03 PM PDT by wagglebee
And as for those who talk about other vaccines (polio, mumps, measles, etc.) these are for diseases that spread through everyday interaction. This drug DOES NOT protect against cancer, it protects against SOME STRAINS of ONE SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE.
No one should be surprised by this. Thank you (plural, please ping your known accomplices) for the many early warnings. I wonder how many girls and young women were spared because of your concern.
Oh my, big pharma strikes again. They develop drugs that cause a person to become a homicidal manic...and kills their whole family. They’re not held accountable [they settle with families in secret for multi-million dollars and the deaths just keep marching on.]
Of course, a proper PPP would probably be Merck providing the 300 million dollars and then getting their money back through vaccination fees or regular payments from the government. But I think the actual arrangement still qualifies.
There is no comparison, IMO, with this vaccine and the others you mention.
If someone wants there daughter to get the vaccine, fine with me and such a vaccine should be available...........my major objection is so many states seeking to make it mandatory.
That said, without knowing the nature of the adverse events and patient histories, the suggestion that the vaccine is dangerous is inappropriate.
True.. but that disease.. once through to be rather innocuous turns out to be a major CAUSE of the cancer.
Which drug is that?
I appreciate your kind words, but my concerns were not totally altruistic — I have a 9 year old daughter.
I do not object to the vaccine per se, Merck pushing to get government to mandate it for girls as young as 9, without enough research, has been my major gripe about this all along.
The lobbyists need to be put in their place. I’m not a “there oughta be a law” kind of person, but it seriously should be illegal for corporations to mandate their products through government.
“Well over 70% of males carry the HPV virus, so it is a huge risk.”
Then why wasn’t a vaccine developed for boys who are spreading the disease?
But, I think you’re missing the entire point. The point was that many states were MANDATING this vaccine...and taking kickbacks from Merck to boot!
If a PARENT wants to give this to their child, it should be THEIR choice. Schools and states were MANDATING that young girls have this shot prior to being allowed to go to school. No shots for the boys, though.
It’s a Nanny State issue, not so much whether the vaccine is useful or not.
I agree totally.
Funny how they’re considered women when we talk about their sexual activity, but when we talk about their right to know what the vaccine is they’re children.
If the children receiving the vaccine don’t have a right to know what it is, why bother telling the parents? Especially if it’s mandatory anyway. It’s not like knowing would do them any good.
STDs are NOT spread through ordinary contact. If parents want to get there daughters this shot that’s fine, but Merck (which is no doubt eager for a “home run” after the Vioxx fiasco) is trying to make this mandatory and that I have a problem with.
Great points!
Thanks for the ping.
People should refuse this. At least until further testing.
My mother was offered Thalidomide when she was pregnant with me.
She refused.
Mine too.
You got unbelievably lucky!
I’m not letting my 12 year old get it. I will chat with the Dr. next month just to see what she says.
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.