Posted on 09/16/2011 5:40:16 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty
Thanks. I pasted the other Posters assertions twice about Perry signing the legislation. I should have posted the following from the article I linked:
...
But he acknowledged a veto would almost certainly be overridden and said he will allow the bill to become law without his signature.
.....
I was only trying to keep the facts accurate rather than allow a misrepresentation of the event to stand as the truth. Thanks for you posting of the actual comments by Perry.
However, efficacy is much better than placebo. Placebo effect can be as high as 10%, but for most instances, it's less than 6-7%. I don't believe it's possible for communicable diseases.
The "germ theory" is the best explanation for why people get sick with communicable disease. The "toxin" is the virus, bacteria or parasite.
The Cochrane reviews evaluate disease burden and complications over the entire population, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. The purpose of those studies is more for population health than for individuals - in other words, the bean counters.
Those who are vaccinated do have fewer hospitalizations and deaths than the vaccinated population, even in the years when new strains pop up between February and the following winter season.
The numbers and explanations below are much better, as they are from multiple reliable sources: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm#vary
"How effective is the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV)? Overalland"Overall, in years when the vaccine and circulating viruses are well-matched, influenza vaccines can be expected to reduce laboratory-confirmed influenza by approximately 70% to 90% in healthy adults <65 years of age. Several studies have also found reductions in febrile illness, influenza-related work absenteeism, antibiotic use, and doctor visits.
"In years when the vaccine strains are not well matched to circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness can be variably reduced. For example, in a study among persons 50-64 years during the 2003-04 season, when the vaccine strains were not optimally matched, inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 60% among persons without high-risk conditions, and 48% among those with high risk conditions, but it was 90% against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (Herrera, et al Vaccine 2006). A study in children during the same year found vaccine effectiveness of about 50% against medically diagnosed influenza and pneumonia without laboratory confirmation (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005). However, in some years when vaccine and circulating strains were not well-matched, no vaccine effectiveness can be demonstrated in some studies, even in healthy adults (Bridges, JAMA 2000). It is not possible in advance of the influenza season to predict how well the vaccine and circulating strains will be matched, and how that match may affect the degree of vaccine effectiveness."
""Children""A 4-year randomized, placebo-controlled trial of children aged 1-15 years found vaccine effectiveness ranging from 77% to 91%, following only one dose of vaccine given to previously unvaccinated children (Neuzil, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, 2001).
"Another 2-year study of children aged 6-24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective against laboratory-confirmed influenza in year 1 of the study. Only children who were fully vaccinated (i.e. had either 2 doses if not previously vaccinated, or 1 dose if previously vaccinated) versus unvaccinated children were included in the analysis. In the other year, few cases of influenza occurred, making it difficult to assess the vaccine’s effectiveness.
"A study of influenza vaccine effectiveness among >5,000 children aged 6-23 months found vaccine effectiveness of 49% against clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza among fully vaccinated children (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005).
"All of these studies together suggest substantial benefit from influenza vaccination of children. "
The other remarks are accurate. It's the same opt out that would be used to avoid the measles vaccine, or any other. Play this exchange, from the recent debate, with the question being about childhood vaccinations in general. Is it mandatory in Texas, to have your child vaccinated against communicable diseases?
BLITZER: Let's let Governor Perry respond. Was what you signed into law, that vaccine for 11 and 12-year-old girls, was that, as some of your critics have suggested, a mandate?PERRY: No, sir it wasn't. It was very clear. It had an opt-out. And at the end of the day, this was about trying to stop a cancer and giving the parental option to opt out of that.
Those are the facts. It isn't contradictory to say that many people can have something, but only a few suffer serious consequences from having it.
Estimates are that at any given moment, between 10% and 50% of the population is carrying the virus. Infection lasts years, from what I gather (unlike influenza and cold, which most people "cure" in days or weeks). Those who promote the vaccine also note that about 80% of the population will carry HPV at some point in their lives.
The rate of cervical cancer is not 10-50% per year, nor does cervical caner appear in 80% of women at some point during their lives.
For most people, carrying HPV is inconsequential.
Perry wins - trhe only “glitch” was his methodology (executive order), all the other crap has been proven to lies - he didn’t edict that all had to get it, all he did was make it more avaiable and affordable for those that wanted it.
This vaccine protects you against the top 7, but you can still get cancer from the remaining top 3.
If you engage in behavior that brings you into regular contact with the top 3 you may end up with cervical cancer anyway.
The idea is the vaccine PLUS abandonment of risky behavior might avoid cervical cancer.
HPV can cause penile cancer ~ and other cancers. We can only imagine Rick’s shock when he was presented with that fact!
Prolly Mittens....he is sitting back laughing out not so loud!
Put a fork in it..cronyism rules the day.
That’s right, it’s inconsequential because HPV almost never turns into cancer.
But it’s not right that 80% have it “sometime in their lives”. HPV is a virus, oh I guess you could say sort of like Herpes, it’s forever. Once you contract it, it is always in your system. You don’t “catch it” and recover from it.
Thanks, I’m afraid at 1 am last night my explanations were not as clear as they could have been. Your analogy here is good, except it’s more like this:
There are say about 30 strains of HPV.
The “BIG 10” are called “virulent” and are more likely to lead to cancer, although they do not necessarily result in cancer.
BUT...Gardisil does NOT protect you against the “TOP 7” - more like the TOP 2 or 3. Only a few of the virulent strains.
Technically Merck is correct that “Gardisil prevents cancer” but that statement comes very close to being a gross exaggeration.
Really? The National Cervical Cancer Coalition reports that there are 473,000 cases of cervical cancer reported worldwide every year. Of those, 253,500 result in death. The National Cancer Institute reports that just 2 strains of HPV (both of which are prevented by Gardasil) are responsible for over 70% of all cases of cervical cancer. They also report that HPV is responsible for 5% of ALL cancers worldwide.
So if we take that 70% figure, then HPV is responsible for 331,000 cases of cervical cancer each year worldwide, and almost 178,000 deaths from cervical cancer. And that does not include incidents of penile cancer, throat cancer, anal cancer, etc.
That does not seem inconsequential to me.
The WHO report on a worldwide study was enlightening. Cervical cancer is much more destructive in the third-world than here. I have no idea if Merck can make a profit on it in the West, but down stream ~ 20 years or so ~ even the most primitive societies in the world will benefit from it to the degree it can be benefited from.
So it's not a bad idea ~ but it's also not a cure!
You know it's only been a few years since medical researchers caught on to the fact this batch of viruses cause cancer. For many years that sort of idea was almost denounced by the "old guard" who believed all cancers (except a few in dogs) were caused by mutations in human cells, or, the slightly "newer guard" of environmental whacko medical researchers who wanted us to believe that modern chemistry was killing us all with cancer (and the anti-tobacco lobby wanted us to believe it was cigarettes).
The majority of HPV infections clear within one-to-two years, although infections caused by oncogenic HPV can persist and lead to cervical cancer. ...www.nocervicalcancer.org/hpv_cc_faqs.html* For every one million women who are infected with oncogenic HPV:
- ~= 100,000 will develop precancerous cervical cell changes
- ~= 8,000 will develop early cancer confined to the outer layers of the cervical cells
- ~= 1,600 will develop invasive cervical cancer
Here's another source, but you have to "do the math" ...
At any one time, an estimated 20 million people in the United States have genital HPV infections that can be transmitted to others, and every year, about 5.5 million people become infected.www.nccc-online.org/patient_info/hpv_test/cdc_issues.htmlAs expected, prevalence of HPV-16 among study participants increased with the number of lifetime sex partners. Seven percent of people with one lifetime sex partner had the infection compared to 20.1 percent of people with 50 or more lifetime sex partners.
Overall, thirteen percent of the study population carried HPV-16 antibodies. However, the figure does not represent all people in the study with the infection because not all people who have been infected develop detectable antibodies.
And from the CDC ...
Most people with HPV do not develop symptoms or health problems from it. In 90% of cases, the body's immune system clears HPV naturally within two years. ...www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htmApproximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. Another 6 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives.
Yes, but they are from the “scientists” that you would vilify and say are like “Wakefield” and proposed fraudulent biased “science” as if all the “science” funded by governments in collusion with Big Pharma are never biased and are absolutely the “truth”. (Global Warming Lancet articles come to mind!)
I go with common sense-—against the Neo-Darwinist school which says that the origin of the universe can come from “nothing”. The “cause and effect” in nature doesn’t allow for such a bizarre conclusion in my world.
This irrationality of all Postmodernism and this claim to know as a fact—something that they take on faith—that there is no God, proves to me that they believe anything, no matter how irrational or how biased.
There are many scientists who question the wisdom of giving Hep B shots to healthy infants. Why inject known toxins (which all vaccines have) into infants who are least able to remove toxins from their bodies and who have no natural defense, yet, to block toxins from entering their brain and affecting its function.
I understand the need of “doctors” to corral and use children like guinea pigs because governments have adopted Lenin’s daycare system to remove children from the healthy environment of home where they would be least exposed to all this onslaught of viruses, that are so detrimental to their health in day cares. But with the feminist movement they are too concerned with that agenda to inform women that for the optimal, healthy formative years and to create moral, emotionally sound children with no attachment issues or exposure to abuse, they should keep the kids home for the formative years of life and stay at home or have a close relative care and love the child. The instituionalization of children is inhumane and destructive not only to moral formation but to IQ development. All science has stated that IQ is directly related to the ratio of adult to child. Of course, the dumbing down and making children dependent on government is documented by many with Ph.D’s but then they are ignored also because of the lies of the feminist movement that has destroyed millions of children. No word about Freud and Erikson, and Piaget...none from the “scientific” community. Why? Because of dialectic materialism.
I also understand the need of the homosexual community to prepare little children for their use so that they are not exposed to some diseases so prevalent because of their lifestyle. The APA’s constant reference to the removal of Man/Boy sex as a disorder-—like they removed homosexuality—with no science—is very troubling—because it means that the medical community does not care about “truth” and the real “health” of society-—they have an agenda—and atheism/collectivism to destroy the natural familiy and biological connections. This same scientific community is trying to remove the limitations on homosexuals from donating blood. They also allow abortion and claim that killing a baby coming out of the womb is moral. ????? The irrational concept of abortion is mind boggling. Any “science” that can deny scientific proof of the life inside the womb is extremely bizarre science and those people who advocate abortion are the same ones who say vaccines are “good”.
The “doctors” who would disagree with you on that are legion—type it into google...but then—it is like Global Warming and Homosexuality-—the facts and proof mean nothing because it is the agenda of Gates and the moneyed class to eliminate 3 billion people off of their playground.
Most doctors are ignorant about the medication they dispense—they just take the word of the Big Pharma drug pushers who are only out to make money. (I know—I have asked my doctor about drugs and we ask all the time about the “shots” intended for my grandchildren) The doctors are ignorant on vaccines, and put all their faith in Big Pharma as if they are God. (Extremely dangerous to put faith in bureaucracies—read Machiavelli and John Stuart Mill).
I understand doctors have no time to research them but some actually do—and they are demonized with the backing of government and Big Pharma. This to me is proof of evil intent-—Science (until Postmodernism) has alway understood that freedom of debate is essential to discovering the truth. Now, government discourages and is hostile to debate on God, ID, homosexuality, feminism, daycare, vaccines, Keynesian economics—all things which question the Neo-Darwinism and dialectical materialism of Marx. There is so much proof about the destruction of Keynesian economics yet it is the one advocated in all the “elite” universities which produce our “doctors”. Such nonsense brainwashes the “intellectual” elites into this nihilism that is irrational and destructive to society.
Are you trying to tell me that all doctors care about the “health” of our babies over politically correct cultural Marxism? Those same doctors that say it is alright to kill in the womb—just a blob of cells! The lack of rational thought is staggering.
Your Rousselian belief in the “good” of mankind-—is really naive when you have all of history to examine which proves the opposite of human nature—
Since the advent of atheism with Voltaire and the rationalism of the “Enlightenment” we have seen the most vile inhumane treatment of human beings (other than by Mayans and Aztecs)-—even the treatment of beheaded, naked corpses in the French Revolution rivals anything that Hitler did, with the French element of homoeroticism.
Do I trust vaccines? No. I have never ever had the “flu” vaccination and never will. Do I trust what the Pharmaceutical Co. say—no, because they cover up all the harmful effects and have not been honest about the deaths and deformations and cover up findings such as cancer caused by a monkey virus in vaccinations, etc. Even with the Gulf War Syndrome....it was constant denial by the vaccine companies for years, until bloodstream proof identified the vaccines perservatives as the cause. Our military is used as guinea pigs, just like parents are allowing with their babies now with no questions asked. It is insane.
Some shots might be necessary....but there are “scientifically” educated doctors who would disagree—even about the whooping cough shot. I say—have the open debate with NO vilification and silencing and name calling. All evidence should be given openess and it should be illegal to hide “bad” effects which is the MO of vaccine companies. That is a problem.
The other problem is the government involvement in University research—which only creates the possibility of only government approved results. Government (Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled) has a history of destroying those scientists who come up with the “wrong” evidence or results.
We see this in government schools and BK Eakman has written extensively (as other Ph.D’s) about the evil methodologies based on BF Skinner that create little atheist Marxists after 12 years of indoctrination and brainwashing. This is intentionally done by intellectuals like Bill Ayers who monopolize our University system—the same schools and people that teach our doctors and scientists “ethics”. So, do I trust atheist Marxists? Never.
What I “know” is that the Lord is not the Father of lies. He has set up a universe which we can study and about which we *can* “know” things.
Jesus was trained as a carpenter. Do you think He and Joseph used miracles to build and hold their structures together or did He use saws and hammers and count on physics?
Most Family docs are believers, and most of us look at what we’re doing. You just need to find a member of the Christian Medical and Dental Association!
I told a woman who was worried that she should pray for healing that I think medicine is one of the gifts He gives us.
The Legislature passed a special law concerning Gardasil and only Gardasil.
I am under the impression that reversing Perry's EO only involved Gardasil. Is that the special law you are referring to?
If not, I'm interested in a cite to the special law you refer to, and if you don't mind, a brief explanation of how it plays.
In his response during the CNN debate, Perry said the opt-out was available for a long list of vaccines.
And I happen to think that what we were trying to do was to clearly send a message that we're going to give moms and dads the opportunity to make that decision with parental opt-out. Parental rights are very important in state of Texas. We do it on a long list of vaccines that are made, but on that particular issue, I will tell you that I made a mistake by not going to the legislature first.
This is the law introduced and passed in reaction to Perry's EO.
Texas Legislature Online - 80(R) History for HB 1098 [March-April 2007]
Texas Legislature Online - 80(R) Text for HB 1098 [Enrolled]
H.B. No. 1098AN ACT relating to immunization against human papillomavirus.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 38.001, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsection (b) and adding Subsection (b-1) to read as follows:
(b) Subject to Subsections (b-1) and
Subsection(c), the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Board of Healthmay modify or delete any of the immunizations in Subsection (a) or may require immunizations against additional diseases as a requirement for admission to any elementary or secondary school.
(b-1) Immunization against human papillomavirus is not required for a person's admission to any elementary or secondary school; however, by using existing resources, the Health and Human Services Commission shall provide educational material about the human papillomavirus vaccine that is unbiased, medically and scientifically accurate, and peer reviewed, available to parents or legal guardians at the appropriate time in the immunization schedule by the appropriate school. This subsection preempts any contrary executive order issued by the governor. This subsection expires January 11, 2011.SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
The site I've been using to find HPV related legislation is HPV Vaccine: State Legislation and Statutes, by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
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.