Posted on 12/19/2007 4:02:50 PM PST by wagglebee
There is a HUGE difference between the means of contracting polio and contracting HPV.
If you don’t understand the difference, I feel sorry for you.
I think they ought to give it to males, too.
After all, who are the main transmitters of HPV? I don’t think women are catching it from other women.
Besides, even if a woman remains chaste until marriage, she can catch HPV from her husband, if he is more “experienced” than she.
Seems that vaccinating only half the population is the very thing the mandatory vaccination advocates are against. They complain that the unvaccinated part benefits from the herd immunity and they aren’t taking their share of the responsibility. So people who want to opt out to avoid any potential side-effects are strongly condemned for being irresponsible.
The vaccine crowd acts as if that’s an immoral thing to do, ride the benefit of herd immunity without taking the risks of the vaccine yourself. But that’s the very thing that’s being promoted here with only females being required to get the vaccine. Granted only females get cervical cancer, but since the vaccine targets the VIRUS that is implicated in the cancer, then it’s hypocritical for only females to get the vaccine and take all the risks of any side effects that vaccine may produce when males transmit the virus.
“The long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known”
What part of the above statement of fact is unclear to you?
How many of your own daughters have undergone the vaccination schedules?
..............
Worth repeating, so I have :-).
Note to government: I am more qualified to make decisions about my children's medical care, education, diet, and housing than you are. I know their names!
OUCH........
But absolutely right on!!!!!
Even if I can’t recall their birthdates right off ...
I cribbed the line from Senator Phil Gramm. The story goes that he told a bureaucrat in a Federal child care program that parents were the best people to rear their children, since they loved their children most. The bureaucrat said, “I love your children as much as you do, Senator!” and Gramm responded, “Oh, I’m so glad to hear that! Now, what are their names?”
LOL! I hadn’t heard that story before.
Senator Gramm was famous for his wit. I think Emmett Tyrell was the one who said, “Phil Gramm is the smartest man in the United States Senate, and he’ll make sure you know it!”
Exactly! Vaccinating everyone would be far more effective, if vaccinating is indeed effective.
If HPV can cause cervical cancer, I'd mandate a vaccine against it long before the already-required vaccines for nuisance diseases like chicken pox or the measles, which are rarely fatal.
The original post I responded to was so ludicrous in its paranoia, I thought my sarcasm would be evident. Next time I'll add the /sarc tag.l
As a parallel example, consider that the long term effects of statins are unknown. They were only invented recently (late 1990's) and yet are the most widely prescribed drugs, with a proven ability to reduce death from CV disease.
Do some people encounter serious or fatal adverse events from them? Yes. Is it worth the risk? Apparently millions of peole think so. You balance risk/reward every time you get in your car to drive to work, risking a car accident to obtain a salary. The ride to the doctor's office to get the Gardisil vaccine is the most dangerous part of the process.
You can fail to vaccinate your daughter and someday maybe she'll become infected with HPV. If she's lucky, she won't develop cervical cancer. Then maybe she'll transmit HPV to someone's son, who will pass it on to someone else's daughter, who will then die from cervical cancer.
I absolutely agree it should be done. However, in the case of this particular vaccine they are seeking to mandate it for females who are far below the age of those on whom it has already been tested and without knowlege of any possible long term side effects. Thus there is no known risk/benefit ratio for the age range of the mandates.
The majority of the opposition I have seen here to the mandates is because of the age, not against the vaccine itself. The testing of these drugs were not done on pre-pubescent girls, yet that is the age these mandates are calling for.
My opposition to the mandates for these vaccines are based entirely on scientific reasons, and not morality. Talk to me about this vaccine when my 9 year old is 15 and there have been more studies done on the side effects.
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.