Has Merck Turned Mandatory Gardasil Lobbying Efforts Onto a New Media Offensive?

[The Cleaner]

Yesterday and today the news suddenly (and conveniently) cited a new "study" showing that 1 out of 4 women have HPV. They cited new numbers which "frightened" and "surprised" even medical doctors, let alone concerned parents. Suddenly doctors came on TV talking about the "epidemic" of cervical cancer in our country and citing scary statistics.

Something is very fishy here. Why the sudden scare tactics just after Merck pulls back from its lobbying efforts? What is so new about these studies? Not much.

I propose Merck pulled back its lobbying efforts with state legislatures to make Gardasil mandatory, and rather refocused their efforts on a new media offensive to flood the media with scary made up numbers and official-sounding "studies" in order to scare wary parents into accepting Gardasil on a mandatory basis. Why? Because Merck stands to make money with Gardasil on a mandatory basis - LOTS of money.

What they didn't say is that out of over 100 strains of HPV, it's supposedly only the higher-risk types 16 and 18 are thought to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. Even if it were true that 1 out of 4 women have HPV, who is to say it is these 2 higher-risk types? In fact the majority of HPV cases are NOT these strains!

The point is, they were painting with a very broad brush and clearly obfuscating in order to create some sort of public health emergency mentality and to change the minds of parents into accepting Gardasil on a mandatory basis. But don't take my word for it:

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

This is not to discount the seriousness of cervical cancer nor the potential of Gardasil to save lives. This is only to show that some dirty dealings and major obfuscations are taking place in order to scare the public into accepting a mandatory vaccine when in fact it's not necessary to take the mandatory route (case in point, South Dakota is offering Gardasil opt-in, free, and available to any young girl who wants it).

[Kagemusha]

1. I'm just coming off a thread reading how Gardasil is "expensive per life gained"

or per year of life gained or whatever.

That's an argument that to me, has more traction than all the hysteria. Regardless of if the vaccine is a health benefit - and mind you, AFAIK, all the science says it is - Merck isn't a charity and wants to make money, and vaccines cost money.

That's a long way from the argument that the vaccine must be unsafe and will kill people just because Merck has a profit motive, however.

[KittyWampus]

32. FYI, 90% young women spontaneously rid themselves of HPV. The very young women this vaccine

is targeting.

In other words, Merck is using 9 year old girls as guinea pigs for a vaccine that may be effective for a virus that their own bodies naturally shed without any medical intervention.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Most women have sex more than once, Cryingshame.

Otherwise more than 50% of women wouldn't have HPV.

[KittyWampus]

55. Young women into their twenties shed the virus. Why vaccinate 9 year olds?

Why not target women in their thirties for vaccination? It's not until they turn forty that HPV becomes risky.

[Kagemusha]

57. Er, don't you vaccinate people ideally BEFORE the virus infects them?

Just wondering here...

[The Cleaner]

65. And if that 50% number is actually true,

then only a mere handful (if even) of that 50% have the higher-risk strains of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer - types 16 and 18.

The news is acting like that entire 50% are well on their way to contracting cervical cancer, which is simply false. The reality is in the NIH quote in my OP.

[antigop]

2. HA, Cleaner! I was thinking the same thing! What timing on this announcement! n/t

[The Cleaner]

4. Yup...

What timing is right. Convenient, isn't it?

[antigop]

8. Keep questioning. Keep reporting. Keep up the good work! n/t

[kiahzero]

3. Why are you so against mandatory vaccination?

Alternatively, why are you not opposed to mandatory vaccination for MMR, or any other of the number of mandatory vaccinations that already exist?

Were you just not aware of them, and will begin crusading against them, or is it something special about HPV that leads you to treat it differently?

[The Cleaner]

7. Because for one, it's undemocratic

to force this vaccine on everyone.

2 - there is no real health crisis here (read the NIH quotes in my OP)
3 - the public is being lied to and manipulated for profit and political gain
4 - Merck colluding with state governors and legislators to make this mandatory is a conflict of interest and pollutes the democratic process
5 - Any democracy is formed on the will of the people and in this case (esp. in TX) making it mandatory silences votes and debate

[kiahzero]

9. So it's undemocratic in the case of MMR, too.

Yet I've yet to see you start a movement to end mandatory vaccines generally. For some reason, you seem to be focused solely on a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease.

Hmm.

[The Cleaner]

12. HPV is 100% preventable and is not a disease.

n/t

[kiahzero]

15. And thus, the truth comes out.

You don't want kids vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease, because if they get it, they deserve it.

Of course, you don't say that generally, because you know that most people will find it repugnant (and rightfully so); thus, you concoct these ridiculous arguments that mandatory vaccinations are "anti-democratic."

[Mandate My Ass]

16. Girls must be punished for having sex

Other than virginity for life, the only thing that can prevent HPV infection at 100% is this vaccine.

[havocmom]

103. does the vaccine prevent only two types of HPV?

Not much of a recommendation

[The Cleaner]

18. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You asked me a question, I answered.

Want to reduce your chances of getting lung cancer? Don't smoke.
Want to reduce your chances of getting HPV? Defer sexual activity until a later age.

Now that's not so difficult to understand, is it?

HPV can be prevented 100%. It's just that some believe in the absolute necessity of early sexual activity, which I disagree with. HPV is not contracted through the air.

[kiahzero]

21. So you think that anyone who gets it deserves what they get.

You don't want to say it, because you know how awful a statement that is, but that's exactly what you're arguing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. How about HIV?

Is that not a disease? Is it 100% preventable?

Back in the eighties, were you one of those people that didn't want HIV positive kids in schools?

[rinsd]

51. As one ages, one develops immunity to HPV?

"Want to reduce your chances of getting HPV? Defer sexual activity until a later age."

Your slip is showing.

[The Cleaner]

61. If you have a solution that can be proven 100% accurate, why not consider it?

If you don't smoke, chances are you won't get lung cancer.
If you defer sex until a more responsible age, chances are you won't get HPV.

It is simply irresponsible to promote early sex, not just morally but medically. You are literally putting kids' lives in danger with all the potential for disease and virus infection.

But can you answer me this question. Is NIH wrong on this one?

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[PVnRT]

62. Who the hell is "pushing kids to have sex at an early age"?

Now you're just repeating fundamentalist talking points. No one necessarily wants them having sex at 13, but some are, and they should have the ability to protect themselves. Sticking your head in the sand and just assuming that the ones who catch something are the bad, slutty girls is ludicrous.

Most infections don't cause cancer? Gee, I guess there's absolutely no problem, is there?

[The Cleaner]

66. From the National Institutes of Health:

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

What have you to say about this? Is NIH wrong? Take it to them then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. The NIH recommends the vaccine.

Those sluts.

[PVnRT]

84. Answer my question: Who is suggesting girls have sex at an early age?

Or are yu just going to keep latching on to that little factoid and using it to "prove" that you're right.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Promoting sex at an early age?

Now you're into Fred Phelps territory.

[The Cleaner]

68. Still nobody can answer this important question:

Is the National Institutes of Health wrong? Or is Merck? Are you being fed propaganda in order for Merck to make a profit, or are you being fed real scientific fact?

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. It's irrelevant.

[havocmom]

104. Difference between fact and propaganda is irrelevant?

Damn, sounds like something from D.C. or FAUX

[NashVegas]

78. Deferring Sexual Activity to a Later Age Is NO Guarantee

Unless both partners only marry virgins.

[The Cleaner]

26. Wrong again.

Are you saying you would be fine with encouraging people to smoke 2 packs a day and if they get lung cancer too bad, it's their fault? That's cold dude, very cold. It's the same way with HPV. Encourage early sexual activity and HPV infection becomes possible. That's just logical. But you don't care about logic I suppose...and you also don't care to hear that I am FOR Gardasil but on an OPT-IN basis like they do in South Dakota.

But why can't you stick on topic here instead of these baseless personal attacks?

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

How is that a health crisis that necessitates Gardasil be made mandatory?

Oh yea that's right. You'd rather stick with your ridiculous personal attacks. You couldn't possibly answer that question like a mature, rational individual. :eyes:

[kiahzero]

28. The HPV vaccine is for the cancerous variety.

Which does not, as I understand it, "go away on their own."

If there were somehow a vaccination that would prevent lung cancer, I would see nothing at all wrong with making it mandatory, despite the fact that some sufferers could have avoided getting it by changing their habits. I think that's the difference between you and I - I don't see diseases and sicknesses as "just punishment" for misbehavior.

[PVnRT]

64. Maybe you should drop the strawmen arguments

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

33. Bullshit. 90% of young girls spontaneously rid themselves of HPV. With NO VACCINE

so why push a vaccine on young girls when their own bodies do the job?

And for the miniscle number of young girls who do NOT rid themselves of HPV, you must factor in the adverse reactions to Gardasil.

But we really can't know the full scale of adverse reactions because Merck contaminated the placebos with aluminum thereby rendering their studies scientifically invalid.

And as for the bogus numbers that Merck DOES produce when talking about adverse reactions to Gardasil, they simply ignore deaths etc.

[kiahzero]

42. 90% of HPV generally, or 90% of the HPV at issue?

Additionally, measles, mumps, and rubella are also generally mild diseases, yet vaccinating for them doesn't provoke the outrage.

Hmm.

[The Cleaner]

58. How do you account for this? Is NIH way off base here?

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[depakid]

13. Hep B must also be "undemocratic"

since school districts require immunization records for this disease as well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. How is an optional vaccine undemocratic?

[antigop]

5. Add New Hampshire to the list of states were it's free but not mandatory

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x15491

[depakid]

6. I reckon you don't see the irony in this post?

The study just published in JAMA has been in the works for a long time and has gone through peer review.

It was free online yesterday, though it looks like they've now embargoed it.

Bottom line is that the researchers used scientific methods and reported their objective findings- and they have no ties to Merck- or any other pharmaceutical company. Here are the disclosures:

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assisted with the conduct of the study, in the collection and management of the data, and in the preparation and review of the manuscript.

Author Affiliations: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Drs Unger and Swan, and Ms Patel); and National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bethesda, Md (Dr McQuillan).

To underscore the irony, the only people I see on these threads using "scare tactics" and fostering paranoia are the fundies and the irrational anti-vaccine crowd- who neither understand the approval processes nor have the most basic appreciation for medical science and rational public health policy.

[The Cleaner]

10. Who cares?

I believe Merck still worked behind the scenes to use this so called study to begin their media offensive to scare the public. The fact that the study itself had no ties to Merck is irrelevant.

And you don't question the timing? My you are a trusting one.

[depakid]

11. Rational human beings do

Particularly if they have some knowledge of the field.

On the other hand, what you've written sounds like something we might have heard on the old Art Bell show.

[kiahzero]

14. It's like talking with Jack Ripper

It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

[The Cleaner]

19. "How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Big Pharma and Dirty Repuke Politics"

is more like it dude.

[kiahzero]

20. Yet you love the Religious Right

You at least agree with them than women need to be punished for having sex.

:puke:

[The Cleaner]

22. You love the religious right for supporting Rick Perry's (R-TX) Exec Order Mandating Gardasil.

REPUBLICAN Rick Perry of Texas that is.

[kiahzero]

25. Do you even see what you're saying?

Basically, your argument now is that because a Republican did it, it must be bad.
Therefore, you must agree:
* If a Republican did it, it must be bad.
* Republicans breathe.
* Therefore, breathing is bad.

You might want to try arguments that don't suck next time.

[The Cleaner]

27. Do you see what you're saying?

Like so many here you are siding with pro-Republican dirty politics. Do you have any idea what went on here in Texas? That Rick Perry signed an exec order mandating Gardasil for every girl in TX? That if parents want to opt out for medical or religious reasons the opt-out is cumbersome (requiring an Affidavit and a notary public signature) and girls would not be accepted into any school?

How is that democratic to run roughshod over the people, to bypass the legislature with no votes and no will of the people? Then to find out Rick Perry's ties to Merck, including his former chief of staff, now Merck lobbyist??

The entire thing stinks of dirty Repub politics and you're falling right into their little trap.

[kiahzero]

31. Quite honestly, I don't care that Republicans did it.

I think the vaccine should be mandatory. Thus, I don't have a problem with Republicans making it mandatory. Now, I do have a problem with corruption, and if they did it for the wrong reason, that's problematic. However, it doesn't make the right decision any less right.

If a Republican were to be bought off by a company that stood to profit off of reducing CO2 emissions, you would apparently argue that global warming isn't real.

[antigop]

36. Sorry - Perry does not have the authority to issue this executive order n/t

[kiahzero]

43. Which has no bearing on whether the vaccine should be mandatory or not

Many who are making that argument are making the argument that if the order was outside Perry's authority, then Gardasil shouldn't be made a mandatory vaccine.

[antigop]

44. You said, "I don't care that Republicans did it" -- it's unconstitutional n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. What makes it unconstitutional?

Is the tetanus vaccine unconstitutional?

[antigop]

46. Perry did an end run around the legislature -- the lege did not vote on it n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. And that's unconstitutional via Texas law?

Are you an expert on Texas law?

[antigop]

49. HA! Nice try! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. So, are you saying it's unconstitutional or aren't you?

What part of the Texas constitution is being violated, and when are you planning on taking the order to court?

[antigop]

53. It's already been taken to court n/t

[antigop]

54. So sad-- didn't you take Civics 101??? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. I have indeed taken civics.

And you've failed to explain how it's unconstitutional.

[antigop]

73. deleted

[antigop]

75. Ever hear of separation of powers? n/t

[kiahzero]

77. Throwing around terms of art doesn't make them applicable. (n/t)

[kiahzero]

47. That doesn't make mandatory vaccines unconstitutional.

Arguing that what Perry did was unconstitutional has no bearing on the merits of making the vaccine mandatory.

[antigop]

50. Yes, it does -- if Perry's executive order is replicated -- it's the tactics n/t

[xchrom]

72. perry followed texas administrative code

Next Rule>>
TITLE 25 HEALTH SERVICES
PART 1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES
CHAPTER 97 COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
SUBCHAPTER B IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS IN TEXAS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
RULE §97.63 Immunization Requirements in Texas Elementary and Secondary Schools and Institutions of Higher Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every child in the state shall be immunized against vaccine preventable diseases caused by infectious agents in accordance with the following immunization schedule.
  (1) In accordance with the Department of State Health Services Immunization Schedule as informed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) recommendations and adopted by the Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission and published in the Texas Register annually, for all vaccines herein, vaccine doses administered less than or equal to four days before the minimum interval or age shall be counted as valid.

now will the legislature over turn him because they hate women -- probably -- or they'll try damn hard.

BUT perry did follow the texas administartive code.

[antigop]

74. Nope -- look at the lawsuit filed n/t

[kiahzero]

79. Are there anything more than press reports?

I've yet to see any legal papers that could be used to determine whether the lawsuit has any merit whatsoever.

[antigop]

80. Go get a copy of the suit! n/t

[kiahzero]

82. Cite it.

Like I said, all I've found is press reports. If you have a link to something more authoritative, provide it. From the limited reading of Texas law that I've done, it looks like Perry may well have the power to do this, so until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to think this move was legitimate.

[antigop]

86. HA! Go get a copy of the lawsuit and read it! n/t

[kiahzero]

88. Where?

I've yet to find anything more specific than "Perry's being sued in Travis County." Travis County doesn't have any information about it, and there doesn't even appear to be a website for the plaintiffs.

Tell me... where did you get your copy?

[depakid]

34. I think we're siding with medical science

and seeking the policy that will immunize the most kids before they get infected.

Not sure who you're siding with- it's somewhat hard to tell...

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Sometimes a coincidence is just that.

The timing of the publication could be manipulated (although in the case of JAMA it would be extremely difficult to time the publication so neatly with the trajectory of Merck's Gardasil strategy. Regardless of that conspiracy theory, the study stands on its own merit.

[KittyWampus]

35. What nerve mentioning JAMA. Ask JAMA what they think of Merck contaminating the placebos

with aluminum when it should have been simple saline solution. Merck invalidated their own studies. Their statistics are junk science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. A saline solution?

Well then how do you know the saline isn't toxic?

[antigop]

17. Keep questioning Perry's "undemocratic" mandate, Cleaner! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. "mandatory" is a bit misleading, isn't it?

They're talking about optional vaccine programs.

[antigop]

37. Hey, Cleaner-- isn't it amazing that people on DU support unconstitutional executive orders? n/t

[depakid]

39. What's impressive is how little you seem to have to say...

Other than vacuous cheerleading and kicking posts from the sidelines....

[antigop]

41. What's impressive is that no one can address Perry's unconstitutional mandate n/t

[The Cleaner]

59. How do you account for this? Is NIH wrong?

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[Lurking Dem]

60. Most cases of mumps

do not cause deafness, sterility, or inflammation of the brain either.

[Lurking Dem]

87. No comment?

[antigop]

38. Executive disorder: Courts and Legislature rightly question Perry's attempt to play decider

Great editorial on Perry's executive orders:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4580915.h...

>>
Although Gov. Rick Perry was re-elected with a minority of the vote, he is pursuing a policy that aims to expand the weak executive powers the state constitution gave his office.

Trying to impose his will without public debate, the governor has been firing off executive orders in all directions.
>>

People on DU should question Perry's move toward the "unitary executive" just as they question Bush's.

[The Cleaner]

56. Yes exactly - there is a MAJOR corollary here.

And yet too many here don't see it.

Perry also fast-tracked building permits for new coal plants here in TX with an executive order.

[antigop]

76. Sad, isn't it? That people on DU would support the "unitary executive"? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

91. Very sad indeed. Left Libertarian here. Some may extend all this Nanny State directives

to arresting us for enjoying an Adult Beverage in the privacy of our own home. A very slippery slope to make this vaccine MANDATORY. :thumbsdown:

[PVnRT]

95. Vaccination = Prohibition

It's getting hard to wade through all of the straw littering this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

96. It should be a CHOICE, not a MANDATE. Simple but true if you live in a free country. n/t

[PVnRT]

100. Yes because diseases choose who to infect, right?

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

102. Again, because we are talking MINUTE percentage here, your

"fear the epidemic" argument is moot from it's conception.

[bedazzled]

81. some of the folks on this thread have got to be merck stockholders

people really fly off the handle when discussing this
subject. they are so anxious to use their kids (mine,
too) as guinea pigs. i wish i was so trusting -- sure,
merck has our best interests at heart. their financial
gain is the LEAST of it. right. i don't care if other
folks choose to give it their kids, but i'm not going
to test it out on mine...

i love the hysterical argument that you think girls
should be punished for having sex. i don't know where
that came from - nothing you've written indicates that
you feel that way. logic flies out of the window in
these threads. i think folks should be punished
for using their kids as free and undocumented test
subjects for merck.

you're right - they're starting a media scare campaign
as their new "lobby." it's even more obvious than the
backstage tactics.

[kiahzero]

83. They're not guinea pigs.

Did you forget there were already clinical trials?

Oh, right... facts don't matter unless they agree with your worldview that vaccinations are a bad thing. :crazy:

[bedazzled]

89. ah, yes, the famous "merck clinical testing." like for vioxx

know who "clinically tested" vioxx? my aunt. she's dead.
i'm not saying that the vioxx killed her, but the cocktail
of ten or twelve drugs she was on destroyed her kidneys.
since vioxx was withdrawn from the market, i guess a few
other guinea pigs had trouble with it, too.

i don't trust merck. i don't trust the government. i
don't trust the media. if you choose to trust merck,
good for you. i don't and THAT'S THE FACT.

[ShortnFiery]

98. Oh yes, and also those illustrious clinical trials are why many Clinically Depressed

patients are ADDICTED to their antidepressants. In fact, they can't get off of them even if they wanted to ... especially PAXIL.

If you read the literature about the recently revealed, but devastating PAXIL WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME, it will give you pause concerning conclusions Re: the long term validity "clinical trials." Yes, after this antidepressant has been out going on approximately 8-10 years, this ugly beastie rears it's head. :thumbsdown:

Again, the long term manifestations of this vaccine are UNKNOWN?

I think I'll wait and see what the Political Elites choose to do with their Pre-teen daughters ... methinks that they'll also *consider waiting* 5-10 years to see how the peasant class guinna pigs are doing. :shrug:

[PVnRT]

85. Of course, when people who you agree with

use misinformation and scare tactics, that's perfectly fine.

"you think girls
should be punished for having sex"

See the subthreads up above where it's claimed that the non-anti-vaccine crowd want kids screwing with reckless abandon, despite no statement made as such on our side.

"some of the folks on this thread have got to be merck stockholders"

Amazing the leaps of logic some people make. I could make an equally valid claim that many in this thread must be stockholders of Merck rivals that are trying to make their own vaccine.

[bedazzled]

90. ah yes -- merck rivals -- talk about "leaps of logic"

hey, go ahead. it's no skin off of my nose if you
give your kid everything every drug company recommends.
you take everything, too. i'm interested in myself
and my son. that's not to say i won't feel sorry for
you later on when some damage is evident. you can go
"boo hoo hoo." remember, though, that you won't be
able to sue.

[ShortnFiery]

92. Good Point! This vaccine has NOT been studied long term.

It's a judgment call but "what if" as was with The Anthrax series of vaccines there turns out to be PROFOUND long term illnesses linked with this MANDATORY vaccine?

It's the individual family's decision NOT the State. :(

[PVnRT]

93. Define "long term"

Shall we wait fifty years to see if anything bad happens?

[ShortnFiery]

97. No but I'm sure as hell will *consider waiting* at least 5-10 years in order

to rule out some of the potentially life effecting neurological side effects. Those tend to surface earlier rather than later. Yes, I have a preteen daughter so it is a VERY PERSONAL and PRIVATE FAMILY Decision. I don't want "big brother" dictating what shots I must have for my young daughter.

If this damn shot is so great, mandate it for *all pubescent boys too.*

Again, that's ME, My Family, and OUR personal CHOICE.

I'm sick of this Nanny State Mentality that sometimes surfaces. :thumbsdown:

[PVnRT]

99. It hasn't been tested on boys yet

And it should be.

Ever traveled overseas to some countries? You're required to get certain vaccinations then. How you feel about that?

[ShortnFiery]

101. That's a CHOICE too ... for travel. Having lived in several countries of the world.

I'm aware of that fact. Yet, I tempt fate at all the Liberal Catholic Masses I attend by shaking hands with everyone I have the opportunity to be acquainted with ... spreading all those nasty germs. "Monk" would go into seizures. :P

We are talking between 3000-4000 within a population of 300 million. Albeit it's tragic for those families, HPV is hardly proving to be in epidemic proportions, your basic argument does not pass the smell test. :shrug:

[PVnRT]

94. Thank you for ignoring my post

Yes, you are a fighter for TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY and anyone who questions you is an evil agent of Big Pharma. If that delusion gets you through the night, be my guest.

Spare me your strawman arguments, which is about all you anti-vaccine people have left. Where did I say that we should take it because the drug company "recommends" it? I'd call your rantings "leaps of logic," except there is no logic involved.

[live love laugh]

105. This is atypical of the pro-life crowd. They want to govern our bodies

and mandate that women have unwanted children, hide the fact that they are poisoning all of mankind with either pollution or chemicals and GM foods, and now the vaccines. They should name themselves the destructionist party.

I hate them.

[havocmom]

106. I would never dismiss the real pain of people who have lost loved ones to cervical cancer.

The condition is real and it is terrible.

But, how many people are killed in car accidents? Maimed in car accidents?

Shouldn't the noble governor of Texas issue an executive order banning the use of machines with such a long and indisputable record of harming people?

Yes, it's an off topic straw-man... or, is it really?

We get our knickers in a bunch about something that harms but ignore that which harms more.

Pretty fucking silly actually. Folks, if your aim is to save lives, start at the top of the list and work down when mandating behavior and preventative measures.

Park your car, then we'll talk. Til then, it's all like Homeland Security making people miserable at airports in the name of fighting terrorism while at least 80% of cargo coming into the US goes without real inspection. All for show while somebody is making a fast buck.