DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Texas requires schoolgirls to get vaccinated.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/02/2007 05:15:00 PM · #1
Or should I say, Merck wins big.

Having a girl, I'm off tomorrow to Texas Department of Health offices to ask for the exception paperwork, for the reason of conscience.

I would urge all people with their own brain that have kids to do the same. Mark my words: my girl will get that vaccine only over my dead body.

The rest of you, who think differently, should at least ask for some money from Merck to participate in this state-wide guinea pig experiment.

This is bizarre, from as many angles as you can imagine.

//www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/020207kvueHPVorder-cb.449557f1.html

I'll talk to you in a couple of years when class action lawsuits against Merck start popping up because of this "medicine".

Sheesh!

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 17:21:02.
02/02/2007 05:20:08 PM · #2
I don't have any girls, but this just seems wrong.
02/02/2007 05:23:09 PM · #3
While I don't agree that it should be a "required" vaccination, HPV is something not to be messed with. And for the sake of the health of all young girls out there the vaccine and the virus should definitely be something to look into and research.
02/02/2007 05:34:17 PM · #4
Do you have an objection to vaccines, or only mandatory vaccination policies?

HPV is considered the primary cause of cervical cancer; if the vaccine would prevent your child from facing a hysterectomy (or death) in 20 or 30 years, wouldn't you want her to have it?
02/02/2007 05:37:32 PM · #5
So.... I'm confused (it's Friday so there should be no big surprise here!)

Do you object with being told you have to have her vaccinated? A point I would whole heartedly agree with. Or do you object to the drug it's self?

I've been talking to our doctor about having my 11 year old be given the vaccine. Our conversations have not lead me to believe there would be any reason not to. He's a friend and neighbor so I feel confidant he'd tell me if there was any reason not to go ahead with the vaccine. I just can't imagine not giving her the vaccine if it would save her from HPV - even if the government was telling me I had to.
02/02/2007 05:44:09 PM · #6
I am not against vaccines, I just haven't kept up with this particular one. I do worry about having too many different vaccines causing immune problems, or jumping on a bandwagon too soon and finding out there are negative results 10 years later. Knowing my sons, they would not have needed this vaccine at 11 or 12 or even now (youngest is 15), and no, my head is not in the sand. Maybe strongly recommend the vaccine by age 20?
02/02/2007 05:44:13 PM · #7
Do you also object to normally required vaccinations that most school districts require for them to attend school? I gladly give my son any vaccine that he needs to keep him as healthy as possible. Imagine how you would feel if you kept her from getting the vaccine only to have something happen that could have been prevented.

<rant> People with healthy kids should take a long hard look in the mirror at the blessings that they have, not look at every decision made by someone thats trying to help is meant to take away your rights. Sometimes they are made to save you the grief of watching your child suffer.</rant>

MattO
02/02/2007 06:02:44 PM · #8
The medical questions come down to probabilities: what are the risks of getting the vaccine vs. what are the risks of not getting it. The political/moral/philosophical questions are quite a bit more complicated.

I'm a big supporter of vaccines in general because I'm pretty well read in basic science. Eg., the equations balance Waaaaaaaay in favor of getting vaccinated.
02/02/2007 06:07:35 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do you have an objection to vaccines, or only mandatory vaccination policies?

HPV is considered the primary cause of cervical cancer; if the vaccine would prevent your child from facing a hysterectomy (or death) in 20 or 30 years, wouldn't you want her to have it?


Thank you very much for your concern. Are you suggesting that if not vaccinated, all girls will get cancer? And that there are no other preventive methods?

And, this vaccine, can you point me to studys (FDA web site, or anywhere else) that show the efficiency of the vaccine and the rate of success in prevention of the disease? Any side-effects? What were those? How long has the vaccination been around?

To answer your question: no, I do not have general objections to anything. I refuse to be put in the same basket with democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, atheists, christians, muslims, or whatnot, just so that simpleminded people can more easily define their views towards me and dismiss my arguments as coming from "that" group of people.

Not saying that you are such, GeneralE, but it seems that people often reduce themselves to that way of arguing an issue.

I think that this particular case is immoral, and that the reasons (both stated and unstated) should concern us as something more than a livestock.

Stated reason:
Originally posted by KVUE quoting gov. Perry:


But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different than the one that protects children against polio.

"If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available," he said.


Unstated reason:
quote
02/02/2007 06:12:50 PM · #10
Not taking any sides, but here's some more info for the interested:

Centers for Disease Control Site

Wikipedia entry
02/02/2007 06:14:55 PM · #11
Originally posted by srdanz:

Are you suggesting that if not vaccinated, all girls will get cancer? And that there are no other preventive methods?

Did he say that? No.

It's about the probabilities. Vaccines significantly reduce the risk that a vaccinated person will contract the disease. It's not a guarantee, and it's not saying that everyone will contract the disease if not vaccinated.
02/02/2007 06:15:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by chaimelle:

I am not against vaccines, I just haven't kept up with this particular one. I do worry about having too many different vaccines causing immune problems, or jumping on a bandwagon too soon and finding out there are negative results 10 years later. Knowing my sons, they would not have needed this vaccine at 11 or 12 or even now (youngest is 15), and no, my head is not in the sand. Maybe strongly recommend the vaccine by age 20?


Well, it's not for boys anyway - they don't have cervixes. Given that kids are having sex (and sometimes with multiple partners) by 12 or 13, I don't think that it's such a bad thing.
02/02/2007 06:16:15 PM · #13
While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.
02/02/2007 06:19:07 PM · #14
been there...done that...had to have a complete hysterectomy in my early 30's. trust me...let her get the vaccine. the possible alternative is not pleasant to deal with.
02/02/2007 06:20:13 PM · #15
Originally posted by scarbrd:

While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.


My understanding is that it's recommended for young girls because that's the optimum age for lifelong effectiveness, not because young girls are having sex.
02/02/2007 06:22:23 PM · #16
As a nurse and a paramedic for 15 years, it only makes sense. Whether Merck wins or not, we all benefit from killing cancer. Think through all the arguments and try to leave religion and conspiracy theories out of it. It just makes sense.
02/02/2007 06:26:09 PM · #17
Originally posted by srdanz:



And, this vaccine, can you point me to studys (FDA web site, or anywhere else) that show the efficiency of the vaccine and the rate of success in prevention of the disease? Any side-effects? What were those? How long has the vaccination been around?


Sure, here you go:
From FDA's website:
//www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01385.html

And this page from the CDC would be a good place to answer a lot of your questions on efficacy and side effects:
//www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

You do know that just about all vaccinations that are recommended generally get added to the list of state requirements, right? Are you also against the state requiring vaccines for measles, polio, and tetanus?

02/02/2007 06:30:06 PM · #18
Originally posted by scarbrd:


If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.


Well he does have great hair.
02/02/2007 06:45:30 PM · #19
The core controversy isn't whether or not the vaccine is effective, it is really how our girls GET Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) in the first place, which is the cause of 99% of cervical cancer. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. So it boils down to the kind of moral argument that people have over whether condoms should be available to kids in the same middle school/junior high age range. Is it a public endorsement that "It's OK to have sex, as long as you are vaccinated." Since men don't have a cervix, it is almost impossible to detect in men.

I am a second-year Physician Assistant student, and our program actively participates in pubertal development/STD education in the public schools in our area. I was also chosen to represent our school at a national STD conference in Chicago last summer, the highlight of which was discussion from one of the doctors that lead the clinical trials of Gardasil for Merck.

The other problem, besides the abstinence debate, is that HPV is not just one bug. There are dozens of strains that have already been identified. Gardasil vaccinates against only FOUR of them. Granted, they are the four worst, the two strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer, and the two strains that cause 80% of genital warts. BUT, that's the false hope, you notice the 70% number, we have nothing for the strains that cause the other 30% of cervical cancer, or nearly 1 out of 3 cases.
02/02/2007 07:36:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by Zal:


You do know that just about all vaccinations that are recommended generally get added to the list of state requirements, right? Are you also against the state requiring vaccines for measles, polio, and tetanus?


Originally posted by srdanz:

no, I do not have general objections to anything. I refuse to be put in the same basket with democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, atheists, christians, muslims, or whatnot, just so that simpleminded people can more easily define their views towards me and dismiss my arguments as coming from "that" group of people.


But, if you are interested, polio definitively. Rubella, for example, I would prefer that my child has the disease than to get vaccinated only to have a chance of getting a mild form of it in pregnancy when it can be fatal to the fetus. So, no general opinion on vaccinations here. Sorry, you can't apply generic argument on me. Try elaborating. Or don't. Suit yourself.
02/02/2007 07:42:07 PM · #21
Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.


My understanding is that it's recommended for young girls because that's the optimum age for lifelong effectiveness, not because young girls are having sex.


That is probably true. My point is, and don't get me wrong, I do not prescribe to the Rick Perry philosophy on much of anything, abstinence is still the only way to truly prevent STDs. That is the religeous right philosopy that Rick Perry says he supports. I am merely pointing out his hypocrisy on the issue.

I support eduction, vaccination, condoms, etc. as a means of stoppping the spread of STDs. Abstinence has a 95% failure rate. They are correct when they say the abstinence is 100% effective, but I am a realist.

No disrespect intended for anyone, except for possibly Rick Perry.
02/02/2007 07:53:53 PM · #22
Abstinence does work to prevent STD's. But, let's all be realistic, who here (as teens) had sex without their parents knowing it? *raises hand*

Who here has had a smallpox vaccines? *raises hand*

Now, what's the issue? Vaccines have been required for decades. Is it because it protects against and STD? "Oh, no way my kids are going to get an STD."

Be real, most of us (as teens) have had sex without our parents knowing it. Now a vaccine can stop them from getting a potentially deadly virus.

Yes, education and parental guidance are still necessary, as are condoms. But, now HPV can be one less thing to worry about. If the vaccine were for HIV, we could all sigh a collective sigh of relief.

Edit: That wasn't aimed at the OP, but more a less a general rant.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 20:05:32.
02/02/2007 08:14:00 PM · #23
Having seen my wife go through the ordeal of cervical cancer, I am certainly all for the vaccine. Our daughter will never have a brother or sister thanks to this disease. We are very thankful that it was caught early and she's now cancer-free, but I can assure you we wish such a vaccine had been available years earlier.

Sorry... but I can't go along with your logic of not having your daughter get the vaccine.
02/02/2007 08:14:44 PM · #24
My daughter is 13. As far as I know here ( Western australia) they are talking about offering the vaccine to girls over 10. I'm pretty sure it will be offered not mandatory. I intend to give my daughter some imput into wether or not she has the vaccine yet. I know she's not sexualy active yet ( boys are still yuk) and my hope would be that she wait untill she is married before she is but I live in the real world and acknowledge this may not happen. Girls have sex for all kinds of reasons, they may be or think they are in love, they may be curious, they may be abused or they may be raped. Even if they wait till mariage their husband may have had multiple partners. They may marry some one who has affairs. So all that said I would encourage her to be vaccinated at some point before she becomes sexualy active.
One other point. We have to be careful not to put a stigma on cervical cancer. Someone who gets this disease did not deserve it because they were sexualy permissive. It reminds me of the hysteria over AIDS. Anyone can get it. It's not a reflection on the girl/woman.
02/02/2007 08:16:16 PM · #25
Originally posted by srdanz:

Or should I say, Merck wins big.

Having a girl, I'm off tomorrow to Texas Department of Health offices to ask for the exception paperwork, for the reason of conscience.

I would urge all people with their own brain that have kids to do the same. Mark my words: my girl will get that vaccine only over my dead body.

The rest of you, who think differently, should at least ask for some money from Merck to participate in this state-wide guinea pig experiment.

This is bizarre, from as many angles as you can imagine.

//www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/020207kvueHPVorder-cb.449557f1.html

I'll talk to you in a couple of years when class action lawsuits against Merck start popping up because of this "medicine".

Sheesh!


Offering a vaccine to stop "one of the most common causes of STI in the world is a bad thing? Especially when by the age of 50, 80% of women in the U.S. will have contracted HPV. I agree that it should not be manditory, but it should be offered to people.

If you want your daughter to opt out that's your business. But, I suggest you give her the facts and let her decide on her own if she wants to do it. Gardasil is a vaccine that prevents infection with four HPV types: 6, 11, 16, and 18. Types 6 and 11 are low risk HPV types, associated with 90 percent of genital warts. Types 16 and 18 are high risk HPV types which together cause 70 percent of the cases of cervical cancer.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/25/2020 12:32:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/25/2020 12:32:31 AM EST.