Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by James_Newman, Jul 3, 2007.
over my dead body.
my goodness how sad. I know some girls here who understood that vaccine to be mandatory as they got their shots updated for college. How sad :tear:
The misinformation on this vaccine is astounding.
Ask around, and see how many people think this is a cure for a particular form of cancer. (Fact: It's a vaccine for a virus that could, maybe, cause cancer--but how many women have actually contracted the virus is a smaller amount than we're led to believe; and how many women have developed cancer because of having the virus is a much smaller amount than that)
If you've already had sex before you receive the vaccine, there's a good possibility that the vaccine won't work. That's why some folks were crying out to have 11 year olds (and even younger) vaccinated.
As we're all aware, Texas tried to make this mandatory, and the outcry was such that the governor finally reversed his position--somewhat. Of course, making public his ties to the corporation marketing this vaccine didn't help his position any.
And now, the true test results are coming in. Women are once again being used as live guinea pigs for a vaccine that may not necessarily do what it's touted to do.
While I am adamentaly opposed to this particular mandatory vaccine for underage girls, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I understand the outrage against this type of legislation, however.......
The general public's ignorance is just that......their own ignorance. Most people, in general, including women themselves are ignorant about women's health issues and issues relating to STDs.
No government agency, to my knowledge, is touting this vaccine as a cure for cancer.
This is what I mean by "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Let's don't downplay HPV nor cervical cancer just because we don't agree with mandatory vaccines for minor girls.
Could? Maybe? It's true that having the HPV virus doesn't automatically mean a death sentence of cervical cancer, but 90%-100% of women who have cervical cancer got it from HPV. The American Cancer Society and the Center for Disease Control along with other sources vary on that percentage.
No one has said that HPV is akin to the bubonic plague in numbers, but what people are trying to say is that, for women, HPV can be deadly in its affects on the body.
Cervical cancer doesn't come in the same volume as breast cancer, but cervical cancer is harder to detect and once detected, kills in larger percentages than breast cancer.
Just because the numbers are smaller doesn't make it less of a threat.
I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating the vaccine for already sexually active females.
Yes, and I agree that he should be ashamed of himself for that.
It's the way the commercials--put out by the company, not the government--are worded, that mislead the average person into the misunderstanding.
You're quite right, and I was wrong for doing so. Any form of cancer is serious.
The issue is that EVERY female in America is being encouraged to get this vaccine (it was reported this morning that California now has a bill requiring it).
The question should be asked, are there any other alternatives besides a vaccine that has proven to be problematic in a percentage of women?
The vaccine is for all females, not just those that haven't had sex yet. If you read the fine print--which most people don't do--you find that the efficacy is best for those that haven't had sex yet. For the rest, who don't read the fine print, the vaccine is for everyone.
Whether these "subtleties" are being communicated to the young ladies before they receive the vaccine hasn't been publicized (to my knowledge).
I've only seen one commercial (repeatedly), so my experience with the advertising is limited.
I agree that this is drastic and cannot be legislated at this time.
This is what I mean when I say that there is not enough awareness into women's health issues. Before a vaccine should be mandated, every other alternative should be researched and addressed. (abstinence, increasing yearly exam awareness, earlier detection tests.....) Until then, vaccines should only be voluntary and with a parent's initiative with minor girls.
Cannot, or should not?
Coincidentally, I accompanied my wife to an OB/GYN appointment this morning. In the doctor's examining room was literature for this vaccine, which stated that it was best for young women 11-13, but (and I quote) *should* be used by all women age 13-21.
I didn't get into the discussion with the doctor; we were there for a different reason.
Should not. Of course, they can legislate whatever they want to.