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.
