Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rising GOP star Haley has own history with HPV vaccine fallout
CNN ^ | 16 Sep 2011 | Shawna Shepherd

Posted on 09/19/2011 8:54:44 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

As the debate over Texas Gov. Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine continues between Republican presidential candidates, a woman whose endorsement is coveted by all them, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has her own complicated history on the issue.

In 2007, shortly before Perry issued an executive order requiring that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes most cervical cancers, Haley was throwing her support behind a similar bill in South Carolina. At the time she was in her second term as a state representative.

State Rep. Joan Brady introduced the Cervical Cancer Prevention Act in South Carolina, and the Republican corralled more than 60 legislators, including Haley, to sponsor the bill. Unlike the executive order for which Perry is taking heat, this legislative mandate did not include a provision for parents to opt out of inoculating their daughters.

Within months, fierce opposition mounted, and legislative records back up accounts from sources who recall sponsors "dropping like flies" before a unanimous vote killed the bill on April 18, 2007.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: captaingardasil; hpv; nickkihaley; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: CholeraJoe

You should ask your doctor about having the full round of vaccines for yourself. If it’s good for your daughters, then it’s good for you. You could get HPV that turns to cancer and have to undergo costly treatments and even death. But it’s up to you to decide.


101 posted on 09/19/2011 12:33:16 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
And when they heard the roar of the people, they stopped.

That's one wat to look at it. The following is from Reuters, May 8, 2007 Texas governor backs down on HPV vaccine effort:

The Republican-majority Texas Legislature passed a bill last month contravening the order by preventing the vaccination program for at least four years. Several other states are also considering requiring the vaccine.

Perry announced on Tuesday he would not to veto that bill, meaning it will become law. Perry said a veto was futile because the legislature would vote to override it. He blasted the legislature for its decision.

102 posted on 09/19/2011 12:34:31 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: July4
-- Why aren't boys given the HPV vaccine? --

They are, now. Use in males was approved late in 2009, IIRC.

A better reason for targeting females first is that a female's chance of serious complications from HPV infection, although minuscule, is greater than a male's chance.

103 posted on 09/19/2011 12:40:55 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: GBA

You don’t seem to get it.

Of course there was a firestorm. Why do you waste bandwidth trying to prove something everyone knows.

The point is, if Rick Perry had known ahead of time that this firestorm would come at him, he would not have issued the order. Likewise, since this thread is about Nikki Haley, I comment that she, too, was at first for it in her state of South Carolina, but she, too, did not anticipate the firestorm there, and when it happened, she changed her mind as Rick Perry changed his.

She no more anticipated the firestorm in her state than Perry anticipated the firestorm in his.

How do we know this? It is so simple I could have reasoned it as a young child. If they had anticipated it, they would never have pushed it in the first place. It has brought them nothing but embarrassment and grief. And because he is running for President, that is especially true of Perry right now.

And I commented, bottom line, this belief they had that their actions would be welcomed, is exactly what proves that they did not do this for ill motives but wrongly believed the people would be for it, and they saw it as a medical issue of Cancer vs. young people.

No one would deliberately push such a program if they realized what bad things would come upon them and haunt them forever for having done so.

So simple, so indisputably true, a child...at least I could have as child...could correctly reason this.

I don’t get why you don’t get it.


104 posted on 09/19/2011 12:57:39 PM PDT by txrangerette ("...HOLD TO THE TRUTH; SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

What is the difference between Bachmann getting cash from 4 Drug companies that are pushing the competeing drug to Gardisil and then publically calling it a Mental retardation drug (big LIE).

Perry received 28,500 from Merck over 10 years. Do you really think $2850.00 per year buys a pol. maybe the local dog cathcher but not in the big politics.


105 posted on 09/19/2011 1:06:26 PM PDT by Marty62 (Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

“Well, Perry’s EO didn’t “include an opt out.””

That’s not correct. All vaccines in Texas are opt-out.

Indeed, if you don’t go to public school, there are no required vaccines.

All the procedure did was make sure the Hispanic population (who, sadly has kids at 11) gets the vaccine in a timely fashion and it is paid for with taxpayer money.


106 posted on 09/19/2011 1:10:18 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

Their lobbyist also donated to him. Lord knows how many other ‘groups’ gave Rick money. Then, there’s the RGA.

One thing is clear from his record: it doesn’t cost a whole heck of a lot to buy Rick Perry. he’s pretty free flowing with the taxpayer dollars for his donors.

I don’t think you’ve made your case on Bachmann. Are there 4 drug companies making competing drugs to Gardasil? Did she call it a ‘mental retardation drug’ or did she repeat that a mother had told her that?

Show me, not only the appearance of impropriety in Bachmann’s case, but please also show me the long record of similar shady behavior in her that Perry has. I doubt you can.


107 posted on 09/19/2011 1:11:23 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Perry's idea of border control: Use both hands to welcome the illegals right in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian
-- That's not correct. All vaccines in Texas are opt-out. --

By now you have probably read on, and captured my repetition of what that entire paragraph meant to convey. I'd have better said "didn't create an opt-out," so as to not get mired in debating the verb "include."

108 posted on 09/19/2011 1:25:31 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
You certainly can reason it any way that works for you. I'm merely pointing to history's record.

At the time, Rick Perry didn't change his mind. The Texas legislature changed it for him and he blasted them for it.

Nikki Haley wasn't a Governor and had no power to force a vaccine or anything else on her state.

Perry did have that power and he did force it on his state, all by himself, despite opposition from his base.

Then, he refused to repeal his Executive Order when legislators came to him and asked him to, so they did it for him.

I'm posting articles from that time so people can read it for themselves. It's called 'vetting'.

If that's wasting bandwidth, then I be guilty.

109 posted on 09/19/2011 1:26:47 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Perhaps the states could have saved MORE lives by mandating the flu vaccine, but, again, looking at it through the eyes of all our states, all of them implementing Gardasil programs at that time, take a look at the compulsive and significant information that the CDC and almost all other major health agencies and organizations were providing to all those states at that time. Right or wrong as we know it now, at least we can understand why HPV was an issue of national importance back then and why Gardasil programs were starting up all across the country during that time period.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5602.pdf

http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/dental/pdf/guidelines_for_vacination_2008.pdf

http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/NEJM%2007%20OPORTUNIDADES.pdf

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/551247

http://www.childrensmemorial.org/ce/online/article.aspx?articleID=190

I know those above links are all old links, but I think it is good for people to understand why all the states were implementing Gardasil programs back then. The CDC, American Cancer Society, Department(s) of Health, hospital researchers, physicians, and all kinds of reputable health organizations were promoting HPV as a significant health problem in the U.S. AT THAT TIME, and the states were listening and implementing Gardasil programs all across the country.

Granted, a couple years later a different vaccine, Ceravix (Michele Bachmann’s choice for HPV vaccinations) did become available, and some states then switched from Gardasil to Ceravix, but Ceravix was not approved or available until 2010 or so, well after all the states had already started with Gardasil.

Here are the two points:

1. ALL states were implementing Gardasil programs during that same time period. This also goes to the fact that Merck wasn’t receiving funds from just one state; it was receiving fund from ALL of them (on possibly varying levels though as you pointed out).

2. All states were implementing these Gardasil programs because of the warnings and recommendations the major health agencies and organizations (including The American Cancer Society and the CDC) were promoting to all the states. If you read the above information going out to all the states at that time period, you can see why the states became so concerned and jumped in with these Gardasil programs so passionately all across the country.

And here is a third point:

3. It is easier to see with hindsight than it is to know at the time what the future will see or what the future may hold.

So I’ll take your thought that perhaps the flu has touched more people than cancer, but I do think it helps to see why all our states were so concerned with HPV at that time and WHY they were all implementing Gardasil programs (and then Gardasil or Ceravix) programs.

***

I have enjoyed our back and forth here. You have made many good points, and it has been good you were able to provide some actual information here to help in the process of America trying to figure this entire issue out. Thanks for sharing all you did!


110 posted on 09/19/2011 1:35:53 PM PDT by casinva (Maybe it's time to have some provocative language. (PERRY / CAIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
-- If they had anticipated it, they would never have pushed it in the first place. --

Your entire argument depends on making Halley and Perry "push" activities, in making public policy, equivalent.

But the simple, basic facts of the news reports make an equivalence characterization absurd.

111 posted on 09/19/2011 1:39:38 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: casinva
-- 1. ALL states were implementing Gardasil programs during that same time period. --

And as far as I know, all still are. But only Texas, Virginia, and Washington DC implements a public policy of "mandatory" vaccination. Texas' mandate was implemented unilaterally, with no public debate, by Perry, and was subsequently reversed. Virginia's mandate was reversed by the Virgina House this past February, bu the DEMs in the Senate committee refused to allow it to come to a vote in the VA Senate.

-- So I'll take your thought that perhaps the flu has touched more people than cancer, but I do think it helps to see why all our states were so concerned with HPV at that time and WHY they were all implementing Gardasil programs (and then Gardasil or Ceravix) programs. --

I have no problem with states being involved in this, and long ago I said I figured the vaccine was a net benefit, although it was useful for a small fraction of the population.

Perry was WAY out of line implementing a mandatory vaccination via EO, and the decision reeks of cronyism (not quid pro quo, mind you, just cronyism). He is also spinning a bit, now, inflating the significance of his contribution to the "opt-out" and leading most causal observers to mistaken belief.

His conduct then and now has ruined any chance he had at earning my trust.

112 posted on 09/19/2011 1:49:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

Bachmann stated it was ok for her to lie (about Mental retardation) because she’s not a Doctor.

There are no good reasons for lying or misleading. Frankly I don’t want a Prez that continues the old standard “it’s according to what the meaning of is..is.”

We will not agree on Bachmann. She has absolutely no credibility with me.


113 posted on 09/19/2011 2:01:55 PM PDT by Marty62 (Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

‘It is a vaccine most vile.’

With you there, and you’ve probably read way more than I, tho.

Since the ‘70’s, we have been very cautious with vaccines.

The first horror I think of is putting awful ingredients in the adjuvant and injecting it directly into the CLOSED bloodstream.

We think it’s ‘criminal’to inject tiny babies with this junk.

And look at the increase of recommended shots for kids. And so many vaccines per shot. Absolutely ridiculous.
How the He__ did we all survive up until now??!

If there happens to be no immediate side effects from a shot, there is the possiblity down the road of these awful ingredients affecting our DNA.

It is said a vaccine is ‘tricking’ the immune sysem into action to fight whatever.
Many times the immune system has a ‘trick’ of it’s own, in response, and not in a good way.


114 posted on 09/19/2011 3:04:55 PM PDT by USARightSide ( * SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Carling; Cboldt

‘____the “opt-out” was provided_____________’

Chiming in with something I’m having a hard time spotting in this whole thread.

Part of the anger with Perry’s EO was that it didn’t require parental consent, I do believe.
Know this may be obvious to some, but the rest of us need to see it plainly:

The shot would be given without PARENTAL CONSENT.

That is one of the scariest things out there.


115 posted on 09/19/2011 3:18:42 PM PDT by USARightSide ( * SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: petitfour; CholeraJoe
You should ask your doctor about having the full round of vaccines for yourself. If it’s good for your daughters, then it’s good for you. You could get HPV that turns to cancer and have to undergo costly treatments and even death. But it’s up to you to decide. Gardasil is only indicated for ages 26 and younger. If a doctor gave it to someone 27 or older, they could be held personally liable for any adverse reactions to it.

The ignorance surrounding this vaccine of FR continues. Every day, I read something new and idiotic about it. Thanks for supplying today's version!

GARDASIL is a vaccine indicated in girls and women (and boys and men) 9 through 26 years of age for the prevention of the following diseases caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV) types included in the vaccine:

116 posted on 09/19/2011 3:22:36 PM PDT by Carling (Sarah Palin Supported TARP Before She Was Against It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

She only put her support behind a bill...Didn’t order kids to have it. Now if as Gov. she did this I might have a problem. I think some reporter sees a political future for Gov. Haley....They think maybe in 2020 she will be ready to be President Haley! Yes I will go ahead and say it Haley/Rubio 2020!!!! LOL


117 posted on 09/19/2011 3:29:19 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carling

LOL Are you just a bit tightly wound?

Gardasil seems to be the only vaccine that is not recommended for me and my husband. I wonder why my girls are so valuable.


118 posted on 09/19/2011 3:31:56 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: USARightSide
-- Part of the anger with Perry's EO was that it didn't require parental consent, I do believe. --

No, it required consent. But consent was "coerced" by making the vaccination mandatory for entry to school, or mandatory the same way MMR, DTP and other vaccines are.

In the universe of possibilities, there are family situations where parental consent is not required (incarcerated juvenile, emancipated juvenile, adjudicated mature juvenile), but those are the exception, not the norm.

119 posted on 09/19/2011 3:50:24 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
There are no clinical studies on ages 27+, hence no FDA-approved indication for those aged 27+.

Perhaps you could do us a favor and educate yourself on how medicines and vaccines get FDA approval, and how they are subsequently pulled from the market? Then you wouldn't look so ignorant when you're offering your negative opinion on a vaccine that literally saves lives. I wouldn't mind if someone knowledgeable offered up valid reasons for Gardasil to be pulled off of the market, like Merck did with Vioxx, and that the FDA has done with other medicines that show post-market concerns via study and analysis. Problem is, I've yet to find that person on FR, so all we get is “well, why don't you take it if it's so safe”, which is an absurd statement when one actually knows how the FDA works, and how that impacts the medical community.

So, if I'm “tightly wound”, it's only because I've seen more ignorance on this subject (Gardasil’s safety, not Perry's EO) than I have on any other in my 7+ years on FR.

120 posted on 09/19/2011 4:06:05 PM PDT by Carling (Sarah Palin Supported TARP Before She Was Against It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Carling

OK. I’ll continue to LOL.

What’s negative about wanting people to get a vaccine that might prevent them from getting cancer? They are probably doing studies on this right now. Maybe soon.


121 posted on 09/19/2011 4:19:24 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

She’s one of those people that wouldn’t mind being Mitt Romney’s (or Rick Perry’s) VP nominee...that’s why she will not endorse Palin as soon as she should. (What woman of her stature wouldn’t, deep down, want to beat Palin to becoming the FIRST woman President?)

And for that reason I am no fan. I’m a Palin-bot, what can I do? I’m not ashamed. :) LoL


122 posted on 09/19/2011 5:16:57 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Best protection rates are only found in studies when the vaccine is given at a young age.

I hope that isn't a Merck study you're citing. Is it?

123 posted on 09/19/2011 5:44:50 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Marty62
Perry got a total of $28,500 in contributions from Merck’s political action committee from 2002 to 2010.

That and a lobbyist to be named later...

124 posted on 09/19/2011 5:50:03 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Perry heard and that’s important. Every candidate, with the exception of Cain, is a tried and true politician. We’ve got to pick the one with the fundamental values closest to our hearts. So far that appears to be Perry.

We shouldn’t shun this vetting process. It is best to get all the poison out before the general. That way we can be inoculated against the inevitable attacks from the Machine.


125 posted on 09/20/2011 3:02:44 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
HB 2475 ...
This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015. The department is required to work with the Texas Cancer Council and is authorized to convene workgroups that may include physicians, nurses, cancer epidemiologists, representatives of medical schools, health educators, representatives from areas or groups at higher risk, representatives from community-based organizations, or anyone else deemed necessary. When developing the plan, the department is required to identify barriers to screening and treatment, identify methods to increase screenings, review current technologies, develop partnerships, identify gaps in service, identify actions to reduce morbidity and mortality, and make recommendations to the legislature on policy and funding changes. The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006. This section expires January 1, 2007.

Heh. This whole effort was started, it appears, by the organization "Women in Government," which was organized by Merck as part of its government lobbying efforts. HB 2475 was passed as a result of Women in Government efforts. See page 8 of the report, "Women in Government urged state legislatures ... The Texas Legislature responded to this challenge in 2005." Meaning, I think, that HB 2475 was instigated by Women in Government.

Anyway, I'm reading through the resulting report, seeking policy recommendations that are directed toward HPV vaccination.

@ page 17
Goal I: Information & Communication.
Objective C, Increase the number of Texans participating in informed and shared medical decision-making about cervical cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship.

Strategy 5: Promote and encourage communication between health care professionals and patients to increase patientsa knowledge and facilitate their decision-making about HPV testing, diagnosis and prevention, including vaccination.

@ page 21
Goal II: Access to and Use of Services.
I. Recommendations to Improve Access and Use of Services

As long as all women do not have access to necessary preventive health services, including low cost screening, cervical cancer will remain as a health threat in Texas. Recommendations to eliminate cervical cancer must prioritize access to care and improve the quality of cervical cancer services in public health settings. Access to the Pap test is not enough. Women must also be able to access the latest discoveries and technologies in cervical cancer. Recent advancements in cervical cancer care technology include the liquid-based cytology for Pap test; Pap test combined with HPV test; and the availability of HPV vaccines.

@ page 22
Recommendations for Funding:

Provide sufficient state funding to comply with federal Food and Drug Administration and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for HPV vaccination for age appropriate Texas females in public health programs.

@ page 25
Objective E: Increase the number of Texas residents with access to cervical cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship services delivered in a culturally appropriate manner throughout the continuum of care

Strategy 5: Promote and implement policies and programs that reduce health care disparities, including increased access to preventive vaccines and other health services for the medically underserved.

@ page 36
GOAL IV: Professional Education & Practice
I. Recommendations for Using Data

Promote the use of the DSHS ImmTrac registry to monitor the use of the HPV vaccine in Texas.

I find "Perry had every reason to believe an executive order mandating HPV vaccination as a condition of public school attendance would be welcomed." to be totally disconnected from that background. I would also find a total disconnect between the recommendations in that report, and the Texas legislature mandating HPV vaccination.
126 posted on 09/20/2011 5:04:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

So you are stating that Perry was more interested in being popular rather than doing what he believed in?


127 posted on 09/20/2011 5:46:59 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
I have to take back part of my ultimate conclusion, because "Provide sufficient state funding to comply with federal Food and Drug Administration and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for HPV vaccination for age appropriate Texas females in public health programs" incorporates, by reference ... Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
Recommendations for Use of HPV Vaccine

Recommendations for Routine Use and Catch-Up

Routine Vaccination of Females Aged 11--12 Years

ACIP recommends routine vaccination of females aged 11--12 years with 3 doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccine. The vaccination series can be started as young as age 9 years.

Catch-Up Vaccination of Females Aged 13--26 Years

Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13--26 years who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the full series. Ideally, vaccine should be administered before potential exposure to HPV through sexual contact; however, females who might have already been exposed to HPV should be vaccinated. Sexually active females who have not been infected with any of the HPV vaccine types would receive full benefit from vaccination. Vaccination would provide less benefit to females if they have already been infected with one or more of the four vaccine HPV types. However, it is not possible for a clinician to assess the extent to which sexually active persons would benefit from vaccination, and the risk for HPV infection might continue as long as persons are sexually active. Pap testing and screening for HPV DNA or HPV antibody are not needed before vaccination at any age.

There is some connection between "routine" and "mandatory," even though they aren't exactly the same thing.

I'm not familiar with the terms of art used by ACIP, so don't know if there are some vaccines where the recommendation is "mandatory vaccination." I think I'll research that.

128 posted on 09/20/2011 6:11:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

I was born in SC.

I now live in AK.

I like the way this is going!!!!


129 posted on 09/20/2011 6:25:44 AM PDT by kennyboy509 ( Ha! I kill me!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

In the ACIP cut-sheet on Hep-B vaccination ...
States are encouraged to adopt regulations or laws that require hepatitis B vaccination for entry into child care and also for entry into kindergarten and/or elementary school to ensure high vaccine coverage among infants and children. ...

States are encouraged to adopt regulations or laws that require hepatitis B vaccination before entry into middle school or its equivalent.

This sort of "encouraged to ... require" language is absent from the ACIP cut-sheet on HPV vaccination.

So, it appears ACIP does not encourage states to require HPV vaccination, but it does recommend HPV be part of the routine childhood vaccination schedule.

130 posted on 09/20/2011 6:35:57 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

I’m pretty sure that was from the CDC.


131 posted on 09/20/2011 6:53:35 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

ACIP recommendation for influenza ...
Recommendations for Vaccination
Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged >=6 months
That might be sufficient to reinstate the contention I took back. That ACIP recommends something be routine, is not the same as ACIP recommending the vaccine be required.

So, with the Texas HPV report and its recommendations, I submit that one would be surprised to find a legislated HPV mandate. As far as I know, there has only been one vaccine mandate via EO, in the history of the country; and the Texas HPV report, in combination with the ACIP recommendation, do NOT support a requirement for the vaccine.

It doesn't cause me to knock Perry out of contention, and the effort has shown me, again, the importance and value of doing independent research.

This accused liar, also accused of lacking personal integrity, is concluding research into Perry's claims on his HPV vaccine mandate. I think I've found the source documents for all the claims and defenses made.

And FWIW, not that it's some sort of brilliant revelation, posters do make their own reputations; and as far as I'm concerned, a few more names have emerged as untrustworthy towards truth, and not worth engaging in discussion.

132 posted on 09/20/2011 7:35:43 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

Good points!


133 posted on 09/20/2011 7:45:42 AM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson