Newt Gingrich: Rick Perry's book "almost came too late" [Foreward to "Fed Up!"]

There are so many errors in your post regarding mechanism, effectivity, and medicine itself that you prove to FReepers that much of what you post is a pathetic joke defending pathetic losers.

There was NOTHING in my post regarding mechanism or effectivity of the medicine itself. Nor was there any defense of anybody; It's pretty amazing that you can find "errors" in stuff that is only in your own imagination. Maybe you should try imagining truthful things -- I know that would be a stretch for you, but it would save you some time.

Of course you won’t get into RISK BENEFIT issues

I never said I wouldn't get into anything; it never came up, and you certainly aren't going to talk about it.

However, HERE is the lead post of mine to a thread from 2009 where I attack Gardasil and argue Risk/Benefit in a way that might be helpful to you.

Of course you won’t get into INFORMED CONSENT issues.

Again, I never said I wouldn't get into anything; that was the one thing of everything you posted for which you made a modicum of sense, so I didn't feel it was necessary to correct you.

However, Here is an FR thread post of mine where I come closest to defending Perry, noting that his proposal allowed parents to opt out without cause; in another post in that thread, I quote from a source which specifically discusses informed consent.

Unlike you, I actually have researched this issue, and published opinion pieces opposing mandatory Gardasil vaccinations, a fact you would know if you did even the tiniest bit of research rather than just spouting off ignorantly.

I'll close with this FR post from 2009, giving my reason why I wouldn't have my kids vaccinated:: "Because the “risk” can be almost entirely controlled, while the risk of the vaccine cannot be."

I think trying to use the Gardasil argument as a disqualifying one against Perry is stupid, given the actual facts of the matter. But I'm not going to defend him against these stupid attacks. I'm simply correcting your factually inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete statements. Which itself could be a full-time job.

BTW, do you feel that way about all vaccinations, or just this one?

A good libertarian position is that the state has no right to force people to get vaccinated against their will.

However, a counter “commons” argument is that vaccination against deadly and highly communicable diseases is a way to protect the public from harm by others (while the harm would be inadvertent, it is harm one person would cause another in any case).

My argument against Gardasil wasn’t that the state has no right to make people get vaccinated, because I believe the state has some authority to maintain the “commons”, to protect each person’s life and property from harm caused by other people, in this case the spread of the disease.

Instead, my argument was that, whether Gardasil worked or not, the disease being protected against was not commonly communicable, being spread only by intimate and controllable contact.

One reason some states moved to put Gardasil on the “must-vaccinate” list was to make it available for reimbusrsement by insurance. This is a side effect of government overregulation — the government defines what things insurance “has” to cover, and one of those things is “mandatory child vaccinations”, so in order to get Gardasil covered, it had to be added to the “mandatory” list.

So it was government interference compounded by more government interference. In Virginia, some legislators felt that Gardasil was a good vaccine, and they wanted to make it available to families who desired it, and make sure it was covered by the insurance, so in what they thought was good-intentioned interference, they almost forced Gardasil on our children. Wiser heads prevailed.

During the Gardasil arguments in 2007-2009, some freepers argued against all mandatory vaccinations, which as I said is a different, more libertarian argument.

You are a RomneyBOT who works for FASCIST STATISM
and control of children and adults by Romney and Perry.

The NET Benefit of a medical treatment is

NET BENEFIT = (Risk with NO treatment)*(the net benefit of the treatment) - (The risk of harm).
Now the total incidence of cervical cancer was
given above (post #5), and the risk of harm is
still ongoing and increasing.

Bottom line: You care as little for the people afflicted by
Perry's RINO-Gardasilism as you do for those afflicted
by YOUR Master's RomneyCARE.

Go change the subject all you want
just the way that you always defend Romney and Obama.

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.