Leave it to Texas...

Excuse me if this seems like prying, OMD, but I wasn't aware that you HAD a cervix...
 
Don't worry.. the lawsuits that will follow will delay this a long time..

BTW, it is 'the law' that you have vaccinations before going to school... but I know someone who refuses to have their second child immunized... their first has Autism (sp??) and they believe there is a connection... there is an exemption written into the rules somewhere so they don't go head to head about parental control of their children..
 
Caroline said:
Excuse me if this seems like prying, OMD, but I wasn't aware that you HAD a cervix...

Way more information than I need to know...

Cervical cancer kills more than a quarter of a million women per year, worldwide. This vaccination helps prevent a sexually transmitted disease that can cause the cancer.

And I thought the big hoo-hah wasnt going to be over whether this was good or not, but the denial over when teenagers start having sex. Theres a lot of folks who think the vaccine should be held off until 18 years old, because we dont ever want to do anything to encourage teenagers to have sex.

Funny, I dont remember as a teenager wanting to check anyones vaccination records before I hopped on them.
 
Theres a lot of folks who think the vaccine should be held off until 18 years old, because we dont ever want to do anything to encourage teenagers to have sex.

Well, I think you just hit the nail on the head there, CFB. That was kinda my point to OMD -- if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.
 
I can see the other end of this...a lot of people are itchy scratchy about vaccinations and there has been a persistent attempt to connect some vaccinations with some conditions. However to the best of my knowledge (and i'm not a doctor and dont play one on tv either) there is no concrete connection to anything other than the array of vaccinations available prevent many illnesses and save many lives.

But some people still fear vaccinations...there are some funny bits here and there that may indicate there might be some connection to other bad stuff happening...and some people thought the earth was flat for a long time...*shrug*.

CFB...whose little bunny got the last of his vaccinations this morning, and didnt like it one bit... :( But he got M&M's afterwards.

Speaking of cervixes, has anyone else noticed the uterus also functions as a tracking device? My wife can find anything in the house...me...nothing.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Speaking of cervixes, has anyone else noticed the uterus also functions as a tracking device? My wife can find anything in the house...me...nothing.

SEE, there I go learning something from this board again!! I wondered how Cindy did that all the time.
 
Ya, I was just reading that some "conservatives" oppose the vaccine on the grounds that it "promotes premarital sex". ::)

I can see it now: "Mom, I would like to get my Gardasil vaccination & birth control. I'm planning to have sex next week." :D
 
Caroline said:
Well, I think you just hit the nail on the head there, CFB. That was kinda my point to OMD -- if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.

Thats about the stupidest comment I have ever read on this board...you should be embarrassed

As far as I know, the governor of Texas also does no have a cervix...so why is HE signing the order to force pre-teen girls to get a vaccine that they do not need.

And BTW, while I do not have a cervix, my 3 pre-teen daughters do so that give me as much right as anyone to voice my opinion..if you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject...don't.
 
OldMcDonald said:
Thats about the stupidest comment I have ever read on this board...you should be embarrassed

As far as I know, the governor of Texas also does no have a cervix...so why is HE signing the order to force pre-teen girls to get a vaccine that they do not need.

And BTW, while I do not have a cervix, my 3 pre-teen daughters do so that give me as much right as anyone to voice my opinion..if you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject...don't.

(Reply deleted - extreme offensiveness)
 
Caroline said:
Well, I think you just hit the nail on the head there, CFB. That was kinda my point to OMD -- if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.

You seem to be saying that males should never care about any women's issues and vice versa. Is that what you really mean?
 
OldMcDonald said:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/02/D8N1PVG80.html


Unbelievable...Merck comes out with a new drug and then lobbies the government to force children to have it...and the Texas government does it bidding...anyone surprised?

Not sure I see what the problem is. :confused:

Wouldn't you want your daughters to have a vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer. :confused:
 
Heres the problem. This vaccination stops a sexually transmitted disease that shows nearly no obvious symptoms and isnt easily detected without a specific test. Hence someone can contract it and easily give it to anyone they have unprotected sex with. Left untreated, it can cause cancer. Often it goes away on its own.

About 20 million people in the US currently have the virus; more than 80% of women will be infected with it at some point in their lives by the time they're 50.

One perspective is that its a good idea to vaccinate as early as possible to make sure that when someone becomes sexually active, they wont contract the disease and its spread can be stopped and eventually eliminated.

Another perspective is that the government is forcing our young adolescent girls to be given a vaccination that might, according to some theories, cause a problem...and in the process implying that our tender young ones will be having premarital sex before they're 18 with some less than pleasant man thats a carrier of an STD.

Of course the data says that its likely that there'll be a lot of premarital sex before the age of 18, and STD's arent particular about the pleasantness of who they infect.

So intellectually its easy to see that its a good idea to do this, as the side effects are likely to be fairly minimal and the benefits large. After all, nobody wants their kids to die from cancer.

Emotionally...the government is calling their 11 year olds little ho's and then after the implication, performing medical experiments on them to limit the damage the little tramp can do.

In a different light, if there was a disease that caused one out of ten little girls' hair to fall out and a vaccination came out to prevent that, there'd be lines a mile long at every medical center in the country.

But toss in a little teenage intercourse and an STD...whole different ball of wax. Because it wouldn't be something that YOUR little girl is going to be doing.

And I should at this time point out that I do not have a cervix.
 
OldMcDonald said:
Thats about the stupidest comment I have ever read on this board...you should be embarrassed

As far as I know, the governor of Texas also does no have a cervix...so why is HE signing the order to force pre-teen girls to get a vaccine that they do not need.

And BTW, while I do not have a cervix, my 3 pre-teen daughters do so that give me as much right as anyone to voice my opinion..if you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject...don't.

Dude easy now, the religious nuts were going to make a stand and try to have the government make merck not have the vaccine available.

All the Texas gov did was make a good vaccine available to all young girls.

Your 3 girls should get the vaccine.

I have seen cervical cancer, it kills the wonderful ladies.
 
Caroline said:
if you don't HAVE the affected organ, then why on earth would you care what vaccine was being given to whom? Lots of vaccines are required -- the only reason to mention this one is if you're in line for it or if you've got another agenda.

while i understand people getting upset about this, i don't think this sentiment is completely without merit and i'm not certain the daddy card trumps it (for even if so, then the daddy card certainly would be trumped by the mommy card). i would imagine many women are tired of guys putting their laws on women's bodies. i can relate to this, being gay and having str8 people decide whether or not i should be treated as a full human being who can marry like they can. and i can imagine how it must have felt being an african american while watching uppity white americans decide whether or not blacks should be allowed to vote.

i do completely agree with the op's opinion of the inappropriateness of our government to experiment on our population at our expense and for corporate profit. it is somewhat reminiscent of the tuskegee experiment.

all of the above reminding me how little far we've come.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
. . . And I should at this time point out that I do not have a cervix.
Are you sure? Have you checked under the cushions in your couch. I find things there sometimes. :)
 
Saw the news tonight and it is like I thought....

THERE IS A PARENT OPT OUT....

So, if you don't want your baby to get it.... don't...

But, I disagree with the people/women who say the OP has not 'skin' in this game... men have a right to have a say in their wives and daughters medical decisions just like a wife has in HIS medical decisions... the final decision is the individual EXCEPT for children... then it is the parents, ONE of them is a man..

And being gay or black and all that 'stuff' is false argument IMO.. rubbish

Also, they had a 32 YO lady who has the cancer and is expected to be dead by April.. she was happy that they are making it a 'requirement'... she would have loved to have had the vaccine and be able to live... trump THAT..
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
Not sure I see what the problem is. :confused:

Wouldn't you want your daughters to have a vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer. :confused:

Yes, I probably would eventually...certainly not at 11-12 year old, and certainly do not want to be forced into that decsion by the government....and especially not by a government that has been purchased by a corporation that stands to make literally *billions* of dollars by passing laws that force children to have the vaccine which hasn't even been on the market long enough to be proven safe or effective.

I think people should educate themselves and decide for themselves what they should do for their own families based on available evidence...I know what my 11 y/o daughter is doing at any moment of any day. She does not need to be protected against STD's.

According the the American Academy of Pediatrics, they are "advocating a 'go-slow approach' that focuses on raising awareness of HPV and monitoring the safety of the vaccine. "

Or according to the "National Vaccine Information Center":


"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

Or this:
"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

or maybe Caroline would like to chime in here anytime with my "secret agenda".
 
Rich_in_Tampa said:
Anyone remember polio?

Anyone remember Vioxx?

An editorial published in the December 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that Vioxx maker Merck & Co. intentionally withheld documents showing that additional heart attacks were suffered during a clinical study of the recalled arthritis drug. According to the latest report, which was published by the journal's editor in chief, an executive editor and a third doctor, Merck hid heart attacks suffered by three patients in a 2000 report on the clinical study.

The editorial also alleges that Merck executives deleted other relevant data before publishing the article with the journal. The new findings call into question conclusions found in the 2000 report, which was co-authored by Merck's vice president for clinical research. The journal has asked Merck to submit a correction.

In August 2005, a Texas jury awarded more than $250 million to the wife of a 59-year-old marathon runner who died of a heart attack while taking Vioxx. The lawsuit was the first of many to go to trial. Over 4,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits are currently pending.

or this:

A federal jury in New Orleans on Thursday found Merck [corporate website] negligent for failing to warn doctors about the risks associated with taking the painkiller Vioxx [Merck Vioxx Information Center website; JURIST news archive] and found that Merck knowingly misrepresented the risks involved.
 
OldMcDonald said:
Yes, I probably would eventually...certainly not at 11-12 year old, and certainly do not want to be forced into that decsion by the government....and especially not by a government that has been purchased by a corporation that stands to make literally *billions* of dollars by passing laws that force children to have the vaccine which hasn't even been on the market long enough to be proven safe or effective.

I think people should educate themselves and decide for themselves what they should do for their own families based on available evidence...I know what my 11 y/o daughter is doing at any moment of any day. She does not need to be protected against STD's.

According the the American Academy of Pediatrics, they are "advocating a 'go-slow approach' that focuses on raising awareness of HPV and monitoring the safety of the vaccine. "

Or according to the "National Vaccine Information Center":


"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

Or this:
"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series. The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

or maybe Caroline would like to chime in here anytime with my "secret agenda".

The reason they give it at 11 or 12 is simply put IF yes IF your girls decide at 16 17 18 or 21 to have sex, and in your mind god forbid, they would be protected.

Look I had a daughter your kids age and we taught her all about the dangers of relationships that go too far, however she did have a boyfriend and hey things happen. well she never got pregnant, went to college, went to medical school went thru residency and is now a fellow at a large medical institution and married. We NEVER made decisions that forbid her to do things that we knew she was mature enough to handle. Teach your girls all of your values and yes have them protected by this new vaccine, even though they are young. Like I said before I have seen what cervical cancer does to women.
 
I don't disgree that ulitmately it might be the right decision..I just want it to be a decision my family makes...not one the govt and a for-profit drug company makes for me..and certainly not a drug company with a proven history of lying about the safety of its products.

I know when I make the decision it will be for the right reason...can you honestly say that Merck will make its decision based on whats best for my daughter? or will its decisions and research be decided by whats best for its shareholders and executives?
 
Back
Top Bottom