US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls

Originally posted by yanchek
did anyone noticed we now have viraly transmited cancer?

Yes. That's how this cancer gets started. It's been that way for as long as I know. The other cancers .. no. This one .. yes. (as far as I know) and it's not new.

Here's another example of rediculas logic at work. I'm very conservative morally, but I see blocking medical technology that could save lives to promote someone's idea of morallity as rediculas. This time they are going too far! Who are they to deny someone the right to use preventitive medicine because they don't agree with how they choose to live?

Tim

One-Line Wonder

Originally posted by grover
spare us the tripe alright.

Actually, that post contributed something worthwhile to the discussion, while yours did not.

Spare us the tripe, alright?

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by nick7261
The only reason this made headlines is because the story could be spun to disparage conservatives. If the liberals/democrats would have blocked the vaccine the headline would have been:

"Democrats Prevent Bush Administration From Implementing Mandatory Drug Injections"

spare us the tripe alright.

Tripe? What tripe? I stand by what I posted. If you would take time to read the quoted article it begins by saying that conservative groups have blocked the mandatory vaccination laws, but then gives no evidence of any group blocking anything.

The attempts to force people to be injected with Merck's vaccine are more of a violation of a person's civil rights than the NSA listening in on your phone calls, or the FBI watching your web surfing.

So why would the government have any business telling me that I am required to get this vaccine for my children? What's next, having the government force my kids to eat the daily recommended allowance of fiber so they won't get colon cancer?

This is nothing more than a big-business/big-government scheme to violate individual rights so that a small group of people can make a lot of money. If the vaccine is so great, Merck should have no trouble marketing it. Why would they need the government to force people to get the vaccine?

Like I said, if Bush would have signed an executive order mandating all girls between the ages of 12-18 be required to be vaccinated people would have pointed to this as just another example of Bush taking away your rights.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Here's another example of rediculas logic at work. I'm very conservative morally, but I see blocking medical technology that could save lives to promote someone's idea of morallity as rediculas. This time they are going too far! Who are they to deny someone the right to use preventitive medicine because they don't agree with how they choose to live?

Tim

My understanding of the issue is that they are not denying anything to anyone. Theyre simply not allowing a governor who's on Mercks payroll to pass a law mandating that every girl be injected with a vaccine that has limited applications at best. Of all of the strains of HPV only a few actually lead to cervical cancer and of those few even fewer MAY be prevented by the vaccine.

Not only would forcing this on the public be sick passing such a law would bring precedent for forcing other vaccines on the public. Currently there is no law. There are policies for schools and such but no laws. Right now if youre willing to jump through hoops and put up with alot of threats you can save your children from these injections. If this law were passed you could wave that freedom good-bye.

This whole thing reeks of shenanigans. To those who dont believe there is spin, the title itself is spin. Conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls? How about Conservatives block dirty politician from profiting off of legally forced human drug testing? Or if you want to go the way the news should have reported: Politician seeks to legally require all girls be vaccinated with drug with no long term safety data.

New England Journal of Medicine

Some people wouldn't know a trojan horse if it bit them in the azz.

Do you want someone telling you what you MUST take for your own good? Or what your family MUST TAKE for your own good?

No you do not. Just like small pox vaccines and other immunizations only this time at a higher age. Sterilization anyone?

Freedom always involves the freedom to make bad choices. It is the making of the choices that invokes freedom not the outcome of those choices.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


oh, looks like a million monkey really do write Shakespeare from time to time. their reasoning is still wrong, though which will bite us in the backside, because, instead of clear reqasons we get yet another religiously tainted argument. as if there weren't enought already

I found a link to Michael Wright. He's been a paid AIDS researcher in the past. He's now strongly opposes what he sees as the over medication of Americans by the big drug companies for the purpose of profit before public health.

hometown.aol.com...

An interesting perspective


Cancer prevention has fallen victim to the culture wars.

Originally posted by zerotime
Can you site this evidence? According to the information that I can find there was very little testing done on the drug Gardasi in young females.

The actual study can be found here:
Quadrivalent Vaccine against Human Papillomavirus to Prevent High-Grade Cervical Lesions




[edit on 5/15/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT
An interesting perspective


Cancer prevention has fallen victim to the culture wars.

HPV-vaccination mandates, which are aimed more at protecting the vaccinee than at achieving herd immunity, have been attacked as an unwarranted intrusion on individual and parental rights. The constitutionality of vaccination mandates is premised on the reasonableness of the risk–benefit balance, the degree of intrusion on personal autonomy, and, most crucial, the presence of a public health necessity. On the one hand, to the extent that required HPV vaccination is an example of state paternalism rather than community protection, mandatory programs lose some of their justification. On the other hand, the parental option to refuse vaccination without interfering in the child's right to attend school alters this balance. Here the mandates act less as state imperatives and more as subtle tools to encourage vaccination. Whereas an opt-in program requires an affirmative effort by a parent, and thus misses many children whose parents forget to opt in, an opt-out approach increases vaccination rates among children whose parents have no real objection to the program while perfectly preserving parental autonomy.

My previous point stands. An opt-out system enables far too many doctors to quickly brush over what they are shooting into the child without giving the parent the knowledge or opportunity needed to opt-out. It must be an opt-in program where the parent is made fully aware of what they are agreeing to and all liability therefore rests on them.

Opt-out systems are ideal to deceive and coerce people. This is why most SPAM has an opt-out origin. You don't know you signed up for it, but you did, and it's up to you to remove yourself.