Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » HPV Vaccines in Public Schools (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: HPV Vaccines in Public Schools
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perry won't veto virus vaccinations bill By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 8, 9:39 PM ET



AUSTIN, Texas - Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday said he won't veto a bill that would block state officials from following his order that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_re_us/texas_cervical_cancer;_ylt=Amku8LYrvCsZt7fnnugSP5cR.3QA

Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen bristled at the governor's criticism of his bill.

"We should not and are now not going to offer the 165,000 11-year-olds in Texas up to be the study group for Merck to find out what the implications of this vaccine would be for these girls," he said.

About half of all men and women are infected with HPV at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency recommends that girls get the vaccine when they are 11 or 12 so they will have immunity before they become sexually active.

Bills have been introduced in about 20 states to require the vaccine.


-----------------------------------------------

Now I'm not against this vaccine being offered for free in public schools but it must be on an opt-in, not an opt-out basis.

And I wonder if they bothered to take out the thimerisol this time. I doubt it. A little mercury never hurt anyone after all.


As I wrote that, I decided not to be so lazy and look it up myself:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-hcp.htm

HPV Vaccine Safety

The HPV vaccine has been tested in over 11,000 females (9-26 years of age) in many countries around the world, including the United States (U.S).
These studies found that the HPV vaccine was safe and caused no serious side effects. Adverse events were mainly injection site pain. This reaction was common but mild.
A detailed and coordinated post-licensure safety monitoring plan is in place.
There is no thimerosal or mercury contained in the vaccine.
HPV Vaccine Efficacy

The efficacy of this vaccine has mainly been studied in young women (16-26 years of age) who previously had not been exposed to any of the four HPV types in the vaccine. These clinical trials have demonstrated 100% efficacy in preventing cervical precancers caused by the targeted HPV types, and nearly 100% efficacy in preventing vulvar and vaginal precancers and genital warts caused by the targeted HPV types.
The vaccine has no therapeutic effect on HPV-related disease. If a girl or woman is already infected with one of the HPV types in the vaccine, the vaccine will not prevent disease from that type.

--------------------------------------------

So wonder of wonders, they took the thimerisol out of this vaccine, but they still give it to newborn babies in their vaccines. I guess it's a start.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You do realize that there is scant evidence supporting the belief that thiomersal is harmful and virtually no vaccine products suggested for young children have contained it for a number of years.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Now I'm not against this vaccine being offered for free in public schools but it must be on an opt-in, not an opt-out basis.

And I wonder if they bothered to take out the thimerisol this time. I doubt it. A little mercury never hurt anyone after all. "

Well, I know nothing about thiomersal whatsoever, so I can't say a word on that.

However, as for being an opt-in, not an opt-out basis, I'm not immediately against that, certainly at this moment in time.

However, at the same time, the study (which seems legit from my reckoning) seems to show that it isn't going to have much negative effect. Also, does it stop the HPV itself, or just the negative cancerous effects of the HPV?

Pity my ex never got one of these. She got HPV from a boyfriend and never knew about it until later. It's very uncool.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well, I know nothing about thiomersal whatsoever, so I can't say a word on that. "

I guess the theory is that it gives young children autism, something like autism, or some other cripling disease. I don't know if it's true. I know a woman I work with claims that a vaccine made her son autistic... but autism is a genetic disorder.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder if they bothered to take out the thimerisol this time. I doubt it. A little mercury never hurt anyone after all.
There is no evidence that Thimerosal causes autism.
quote:

In May of 2004 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed all of the MMR-autism data available to date and concluded that there was no association and that the case is essentially closed - a conclusion confirmed by still later studies, such as the one in Japan.

Believers in the MMR-autism hypothesis largely dismiss these findings as biased. They also dismiss the findings of the larger and more powerful epidemiological studies. Bernard Rimland, who leads the Autism Research Institute, rejected the IOM report, writing that the evidence "does not exclude the possibility that MMR vaccine could contribute to ASD in a small number of children." Rimland interpreted this as support for a link. Rather, it merely reflects the logical necessity I referred to above: It is impossible to prove a risk of zero.

In May 2004, 10 of Wakefield's co-authors on his original paper withdrew their support for its conclusions. One author, Dr. Simon Murch, stated: "There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism - this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis." The editor of Lancet also announced that they withdrew their endorsement of the paper, and cited as part of the reason an undisclosed potential conflict of interest for Wakefield, namely that at the time of its publication he was conducting research for a group of parents of autistic children seeking to sue for damages from MMR vaccine producers.

quote:

The bottom line is this: Yes, there is reason to believe that thimerosal, in sufficient doses, could be toxic and cause neurological damage. But the best data we have so far indicates that thimerosal probably was not given in high enough dose to be neurotoxic, although there is room for reasonable doubt. So, given the uncertainty, the FDA did recommend the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines, and by January 2003 the removal was complete (according to the CDC, all lots of childhood vaccines containing thimerosal expired by January 2003), although it is still found is some flu vaccines and some multi-dose vaccine vials exported outside the United States.



[ May 09, 2007, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Adam Lassek ]

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Autism rates have continued to climb even though thiomersal has been all but eliminated for a number of years now. The WHO says there is no evidence that thiomersal is responsible for autism. The FDA agrees.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aye, it ought to be opt-in. HPV isn't measles, mumps, or smallpox.

Also, the vaccine is just too new to go around mandating. Yes, it's probably completely safe, but we don't really know what effects might be in thirty years.

There is, however, suffecient public health interest to make it freely available to those unable to afford it.

Fair warning - if/when HIV or Herpes Simplex 2 vaccines come out, if they are reasonably tested and reasonably safe, I'm not going to give a damn about parental rights and will be all for mandatory vaccination.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Fair warning - if/when HIV or Herpes Simplex 2 vaccines come out, if they are reasonably tested and reasonably safe, I'm not going to give a damn about parental rights and will be all for mandatory vaccination.

That is fair enough warning indeed.

Must home schooled kids also get vaccinated?

With just about ANY vaccine, if you give it to enough people, some will have a bad reaction, maybe even die. What if giving this vaccine kills someone who never even would have gotten AIDS or HPV? And it was forced upon them? Who is going to be responsible for that? How is that not murder?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How was it not murder when folks died from smallpox vaccination?
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This reminds me of the anthrax vaccines our military was forced to take during the Gulf War. My sister was in the Marines in Saudi Arabia and they made her get it. Now she has MS and it is directly connected to that vaccine. It boosts the immune system so much in some people that their immune system attacks their own body. She's doing well so far on the treatments, all of which are covered by the VA which admits the causal relationship to the vaccine.

Even if this vaccine seems safe, so what? Peanut butter seems safe too. It can still kill some people. With anything like this, there should be fully informed consent and people shouldn't have to get it if they don't want to. It's not like it's as contagious as the bubonic plague (yes, I know that's bacterial).

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Smallpox is a lot more contagious. I think there's a big difference between that and AIDS. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would agree with you that everyone should be vaccinated and the greater good is served even if some people have adverse reactions. That's the CDC stance on thimerosal in vaccines too, even if it resulted in a lot of kids getting autism (the symptoms of which look a lot like mercury poisoning).

I'm glad if they've finally removed it from the vaccine supply (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/faqs-thimerosal.htm#4) but what that whole episode showed is that they aren't really looking out for us. It took a lot of work by a lot of people to get them to remove it, and they still don't admit it may have caused any problems. I can anticipate the same thing happening with this HPV vaccine, and an AIDS vaccine. For the greater good. For the collective.

It’s funny how liberals don’t usually trust the biopharmaceutical industrial complex, but it it’s something that might be good for sex, full speed ahead!

I'm just not feeling that.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

It’s funny how liberals don’t usually trust the biopharmaceutical industrial complex, but it it’s something that might be good for sex, full speed ahead!

Yes, it is.

As I was listening to another report on HPV and the vaccine the medical person admitted that the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV. We have a new vaccine that involves all kinds of controversy, it is being forced on people who don't want it, and it doesn't even do all of what it is supposed to do?

That doesn't sound like a winning plan.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:

With just about ANY vaccine, if you give it to enough people, some will have a bad reaction, maybe even die. What if giving this vaccine kills someone who never even would have gotten AIDS or HPV? And it was forced upon them? Who is going to be responsible for that? How is that not murder?

At the end of the day all you've got when it comes to deciding whether to apply a vaccine on a broad scale is the number of people who'll die or have their lives ruined by the vaccine vs the number of people who'll die or have their lives ruined by the disease it vaccinates against. Or to put it into perspective, what if missing out on this vaccine makes someone die from the illness who never would've died from a bad reaction to the vaccine? And it wasn't available to them? Who is going to be responsible for that? How is that not murder?
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is that issue of voluntary choice to consider.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Or to put it into perspective, what if missing out on this vaccine makes someone die from the illness who never would've died from a bad reaction to the vaccine?

People not getting the AIDS or HPV vaccine should be fully informed about the consequences and have the opportunity to manage their own risks as they see fit. Forcing people to get vaccines like these is just quite beyond scary.

For me, there is a much greater risk from the vaccines than there is of me ever getting HPV or AIDS. Unless I get raped by some man (or woman) with HPV or AIDS, the chance of me getting either disease is just about zero. That's just how I roll.

And now if you have a government, and people, who would force a needle into my arm filled with a vaccine I don't want and most likely don't need, that's just going way too far. I don't think I can overstate how scary that really is that people think they'd have a right to do something like that.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The chances of getting smallpox, etc, are pretty small anymore too, huh?

Here's the thing. So what, you're personal chances are low to get it.

But if an HIV vaccine appears, it's the possibility of eliminating a disease that, while not as immediately damaging as, say, smallpox, is still just as dangerous.

And, in addition, it's a disease that many, many people get. Millions upon millions. The chances are far, far higher on average of getting HIV than having an adverse reaction, if we assume the vaccine will have similar rates of safety as most.

In this case, just like with smallpox, polio, measles, etc, your personal chances and so forth are irrelevent. This is to protect the whole of society, with something that is very, very unlikely to hurt you. The people hurt by that vaccine, first of all, is vastly smaller than the amount hurt by AIDS in this country.

In the end, saying "I won't be getting AIDS anyway" is about as valid as "I wont' be getting smallpox anyway."

It doesn't matter, and unfortunately, this is one of the few freedoms I support taking, for the vast net gain of everyone and the elimination of terrible diseases.

It's not because it's sex-related, cherrypoptart. (and there you go with the "liberals all think this" stuff.) It's because AIDS is an incredibly dangerous disease on the same scale as, or at least not much less dangerous than, the terrible diseases of the past. That's why an AIDS vaccine shouldn't be voluntary.

HPV? Voluntary, I think. As least for now. It's different than an HIV vaccine, which we all need to take, just like smallpox shots.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Long before there should be mandatory AIDS vaccines, there should be criminal prosecutions of people who spread AIDS even if they don't know they have it. If people were serious about stopping AIDS, it would be against the law to spread it. I'd never let myself be forced to get an AIDS vaccine. But I think that would be a good hypothetical question to ask politicians. I can see you're tired of the liberals and conservative stuff, but I just can't help it. I find it ironic that liberals are supposedly for freedom, but it's not the conservatives you would see pushing for these mandatory vaccines. And yes, I see the obvious flaw already in that it was Rick Perry, a Republican, who got this started in Texas. There are definitely exceptions, lots of them. Plenty of liberals were against mandatory (almost) vaccinations for HPV too, and it was nice to see them coming together with even more conservatives to get this whole idea scrapped.

One other issue here is that the HPV vaccine wouldn't protect against all strains and could give some people a false sense of security, especially since besides other strains of HPV there are plenty of other STDs out there anyway. Same thing probably with an AIDS vaccine. But it is a good issue anyway to get a feel for how much authority people think the goverment should have over our bodies.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And thus we start down the slippery slope of forcing one person's ideas about what's right on another... not that we aren't nearing the bottom of that slippery pit of poop, anyway.

It's sometimes a tough choice, but, for me, I cannot cherry pick which things I will and which I won't support personal choice. Anything else is an affront to my ideals. Keep your damn shots and "good intentions" out of my family, thank you very much.

While we're at it, you know where you can stick your seatbelt and helmet laws, too! [Razz]

[ May 10, 2007, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel that the difference between the HPV vaccine and something like the smallpox vaccine is in how communicable the virus is. And it's not because the HPV is related to sex, it's the fact that I could pick up smallpox from someone walking down the street, on the bus, in the store or whatever. In order to keep me safe, someone with smallpox would have to be locked up, preferrably not next door. I can't be reasonably expected to keep myself safe from smallpox. I can, OTOH, keep myself reasponably safe from from HPV. I can choose to absolutely abstain from all sexual activities, and, barring rape, I am safe. If I am monogomous, I am relying on my partners faithfulness, but I have some degree of trust there, so I can still consider myself to be reasonably safe.

Because I am capable of protecting myself from HPV without a vaccine, it shouldn't be required of me to get the vaccine.

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Problem is, these things may be personal choice. But your personal choice may kill someone ELSE.

And your personal choice will DEFINETELY cost other people a lot of money.

can you come charge you with murder when you decide to with hold vaccination from your children, then attend a public school, and infect a classmate with a disease?

If not, then saying "personal choice" is just sticking your head in the sand.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to picture somebody, anybody, taking HPV into consideration before choosing to have sex today, and I'm failing miserably.

To give a false sense of security, there's got to be at least a minimal appreciation of the inherent risk.

poptart, are you against all mandatory vaccines, or just the ones you associate with sex?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunshine
Member
Member # 2990

 - posted      Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do these arguments always seem to devolve into oversimplifications about the connies and the libbies?

RE: “Admitting” that the vaccine “only” works on four strains of the virus.
That’s not exactly hidden knowledge. Anybody with Google access can figure this out. As for the idea of it not doing all it’s supposed to do, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. They are pretty clear about what it does. The four viral strains the vaccine protects against are responsible for about 90% of the warts (2 strains) and 70% of the cervical cancer (2 strains).

Posts: 249 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why do these arguments always seem to devolve into oversimplifications about the connies and the libbies?"

because most animals, including us, like very much to gather in bunches on both sides of an easily defined divide and yap away.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is only one reason I would support mandatory vaccination for HIV. I've talked to enough people who believe their child deserves to die for having what they consider innapropriate sex.

It's not the childs choice we'd be taking away - it would be the parents choice.

So, fine, not mandatory, but if your child contracts HIV before the age of 18, when they can decide for themselves whether or not to be vaccinated, you get manslaughter charges.

If it can be proven that you knew your child was sexually active but still elected to withold the vaccine from them, you get murder charges.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why can't guys get the HPV vaccine?

My last girlfriend got the vaccine right before we started going out, and her mom said, "No losing your virginity for a year so it can take effect!"

Is that true? Does it really need a year?

Can I sue a girls parents if they don't let her get the vaccination, and I get HPV from her?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"there should be criminal prosecutions of people who spread AIDS even if they don't know they have it."

No. Sorry, no.

Anyway, this is all getting absurd. Criminal charges left and right, no!

"I'd never let myself be forced to get an AIDS vaccine"

Ahh. We finally see the truth. The conservative agenda is libertarian anarchy, in which people can even refuse vaccines against AIDS and smallpox, regardless of the harm it would cause other people.

Sorry, that's the sort of thing you keep doing. [Big Grin] It's so damn silly!

" I find it ironic that liberals are supposedly for freedom, but it's not the conservatives you would see pushing for these mandatory vaccines"

Absolue freedom is something no one is for. Conservatives, in a lot of cases, are against some rights too, after all. (*cough* gay marriage*cough*)

However, freedom is one thing. Eliminating a pandemic disease that kills millions is something a little more important.

Your refusal, should you succeed, would be abbetting the deaths of millions. Just as if you were doing it with smallpox.

Millions of lives are worth a shot with less chance of killing you on average than the disease you'd otherwise get, I'd wager. To do othewise is truly immoral. [Big Grin]


Anyway, I think the elimination of AIDS is something worthwhile, just like eliminating smallpox or polio was worthwhile. Those who, as Jesse said, would wish their children death for that, and would refuse... are, in fact, the evil ones who need to be stopped from doing harm by legal means.

(And they're conservative. [Big Grin] Shall I give statements about the conservative agenda of murder, and the Conservative culture of death and ignorance and hate, cherrypoptart? Or would that be overdoing it a little? lol)

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyway, let's stop going to the absurdity of legal recompense for anything at this point. Mandatory AIDS vaccine, ONLY after it's proven, works, and is safe, and then we'll deal with the people who refuse the same way we deal with those who refuse other shots.
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunshine
Member
Member # 2990

 - posted      Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a link that describes the vaccine FAQs in super simple language (not that people here need super simple language, but that's how it's laid out in this particular format).

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm#16

Some of the questions answered are:
1.Studies are being done to see how effective a vaccination would be for males
2.The vaccine is given over the course of 6 months
3.It is unknown how effective the vaccine is if females don't receive the full regiment of three shots.

Edited to fix typo. Again.

[ May 10, 2007, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Sunshine ]

Posts: 249 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
can you come charge you with murder when you decide to with hold vaccination from your children, then attend a public school, and infect a classmate with a disease?

If not, then saying "personal choice" is just sticking your head in the sand.

Why not have regular mandatory HIV tests for everyone (adults included) and charge those who infect someone else with murder?

edited to add Everard's quote to put it into context.

[ May 10, 2007, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That seems to me to be quite a bit more intrusive on personal liberty then vaccinations.

[ May 10, 2007, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard,
I don't see where you're coming from, saying mandatory HIV tests are more intrusive than mandatory HIV vaccinations. How could a test to be aware of my state of health be more intrusive than a procedure to irrevocably change my immune system? Not saying I wouldn't want to be immune to HIV, just that I think immunizations are always more intrusive than tests since they actually change your body rather than just monitor it.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) A mandatory test would have to be given, not just once, but probably monthly. To every citizen. Aside from being ridiculously expensive, that also means that you've got ongoing government records of every citizens whereabouts, sexual activity, and health.

2) You're giving the government consistently updated records of your health, your genetics. Because at some point, that blood test will start being used to check for things aside from whether or not you have HIV.

A vaccination is a one time event. And nothing is TAKEN from you that can later be used against you, or to track you or monitor you. A test, on the other hand, means the government has continual access throughout your life to pretty much anything it wants to know about you.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I see. I thought I was probably missing something. I still would rather someone know information about me than have the power to forcefully change me, but I do see your point.
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way they forcefully changed you to make you immune to smallpox, etc, Carlotta?
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mean, I see your fear. And if they started foribly changing us in ways other than this, I'd agree.

But these are diseases that you don't want! That kill! (Well, not HPV, though it does cause cancer in women. Which is stil lbad.)

If a nation did not do these things with the ones it already has, and had the means? I say that that nation is commiting treason against its people.

[ May 10, 2007, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> DonaldD

> poptart, are you against all mandatory vaccines, or just the ones you associate with sex?

I think the thimerisol in a lot of these vaccines has resulted in a lot of cases of "autism" and probably some of the ADHD as well. I'm glad if they've taken it out.

As I noted, none of the vaccinations are mandatory anyway. I fully agree with public school children being required to get vaccinated.

My own children had their vaccinations up to age 3, and if the vaccines are really thimerisol free I will get their new ones very soon. I don't think it should be mandatory though, but I do think it's a good idea.

By the way, I like all this conversation y'all are having. It's interesting and cool. I especially like that I don't seem to be alone in being fretful about forced vaccinations. Not to get too far off topic here, but I wonder if the people so intent on preventing the spread of deadly communicable diseases would also like to insist that we seal the border so illegals can't waltz in here spreading them (like TB). There's really no need to answer that mostly rhetorical question, but if anyone is up to it feel free.

I also don't see why getting tested for HIV is more intrusive than being forcibly vaccinated for it. Any vaccination for HIV should require a test first anyway because the vaccine won't protect anyone who is already infected, and if they get the vaccine while they are infected they may think they won't go around spreading the disease.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CherryPopTart -

Federal and State agencies have massive power when it comes to disease prevention. They've not had to face a real epidemic in years, but they do have the power, with very few checks, to arrest, detain or quarantine almost anyone.

They can also force other measures (curfews, masks, etc.) Generally speaking I'm very libertarian, but there is a reason we have laws on the books regarding the spread of disease. It doesn't affect just the individual, it decidedly affects our society.

Should drug-resistant TB become a real menace in society, I would expect to see some major crackdowns, including border crackdowns. Just the other day I was reading about a man that was arrested and placed in solitary confinement for refusing to wear a mask outdoors, despite being infected with chronic drug-resistant TB. Disease is one of the few areas in which government can legitimately exercise great power.

With regard to an HIV vaccine - if it is effective, it would be wise to require everyone to be vaccinated. It could be effectively eliminated in less than 10 years.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can understand how not receiving a vaccine for an easily communicable disease could put others at risk (yet we still allow it), but I am having trouble figuring out how not receiving a vaccine for an STD puts others at risk unless the infected person were to then engage in unsafe sex. Somebody explain it to me in little words please.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you who disagree with the personal choice ideal automatically assume that means we'd not do something? Just becuase I hate seatbelt and helmet laws doesn't mean I don't always use my seatbelt and wear my helmet. I'd be stupid not to.

Maybe the vaccine is good, maybe it's not so good. If it's a good thing, if there is a high chance of infection, and if the efficacy is high, then I will make the personal choice to have my kid vaccinated.

Personal choice does not infer sticking my head in the sand, it merely means it's none of your f'ing business to tell me how or how not to control my and my family's health! I will evaluate and decide on a case by case basis and not blindly go along just because "everyone's doing it".

Of course, therein lies the problem do-gooders have. They are okay with my freedom to choose for myself when it agrees with their choice, but not okay with it when my choices are not the same.

Freedom of choice is a tricky thing many don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around. If you support a person's personal freedom to make their own choices, then you absolutely must allow that person to make idiotic and, yes, sometimes dangerous choices.

I'll take the danger over the tyranny every time.

[ May 11, 2007, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not danger to yourself, jm. Danger and cost to others. If you want to kill yourself at your own expense, thats fine. But when your personal choice puts others at risk, or costs them money, then we're outside the area where your personal choice is ONLY your responsibility. Its others, too.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1