A Necessary Vaccine

  • Thread starter Thread starter GregoryPalamas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GregoryPalamas

Guest
That is the question. nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Will we be giving all seventh graders two “gifts” as they enter Junior High: Vaccination against a venereal disease and a case of condoms?

Or is this a good thing to protect our daughters against a disease they may catch because they might be raped?

Or are we all turning into a bunch of sex crazed barbarians?

CDL
 
I saw in the news about vaccination for HPV for all girls entering 6th grade. I believe this just became mandatory in Texas and is being considered in other states. I am in agreement with what the Catholic Bishops said in Texas. While the vaccination is not immoral in itself, they think that parents need to make that decision, not the state. Since the diseases they wish to protect against are those contracted through sexual contact (or the ones they are stressing are), I think good Christian parents who teach their children about chastity and the evil of fornication have every right to oppose the HPV vaccine as a mandate.

I don’t think the vaccine has been out there long enough to know side effects or what harm might come from it, so to subject children to a vaccine without option to oppose, is wrong. I’m not sure of the dangers associated with this vaccine but most vaccines I’ve read about have some worry to them. There are some parents opposed to vaccines in general because of the medical risks. You can go to the gov site to see the risks but the gov site seems to be pro-vaccine so you’d only be getting a one-sided view on the issue I think.

I heard that if parents oppose the vaccine (wish they can do), they cannot send their children to public school. So technically the parents will be forced to either homeschool or send their children to private school, which is not possible for many parents due to money or employment needs.
 
I am not entirely against the vaccine. Not every woman who gets it is going to engage in illicit activities. In fact, they might want to prevent contracting it from their future husbands (if he had it, because he made some mistakes in the past), or if they were assaulted by someone who had it.

However, they should not be forcing this vaccine on young preteen girls. They do not even know all the risks yet and what would happen if the vaccine turned out to have harmful side effects? I also do not think the government should interfere with our lives like that. What about people who oppose vaccines in general? What about people who are skeptical of this vaccine?

This decision should be left to the parents, not any political body.
 
Every state in the union, with the exception of Mississippi and West Virginia allow parents to exempt their children from any and all vaccinations for religious reasons. Some states also allow for philosophical exemptions. This means that as long as you get the waiver from the state, your child can continue to attend public schools, regardless of his vaccination history. If there is an outbreak of a disease children are vaccinated against, the school can refuse to allow the unvaccinated children to attend- but only until the outbreak is controlled.

It is in the best interest of every parent, regardless of whether they vaccinate or not, to make sure that these exemptions are protected. The people of Mississippi and West Virginia now have to fight to regain the right to decide what is best for their children.

Vaccinations are a suprisingly emotional issue for people. Without getting into the “should we” or “shouldn’t we” debate, I urge every parent to make sure they are truly giving informed consent to their children’s doctors. Find out what the diseases do. Find out how common they are. Find out what the mortality rate is in this day and age. But also find out what goes into each vaccination. Find out what the adverse reactions may be. Find out how long protection is given from the shot, and what happens when that protection runs out. As parents, we have been entrusted by God with the amazing blessing of children. It is our responsibility to our Creator to make sure that we’re not doing something to our kids without thinking, critically analyzing, researching, and most of all, praying about it first.
 
I saw in the news about vaccination for HPV for all girls entering 6th grade. I believe this just became mandatory in Texas and is being considered in other states. I am in agreement with what the Catholic Bishops said in Texas. While the vaccination is not immoral in itself, they think that parents need to make that decision, not the state. Since the diseases they wish to protect against are those contracted through sexual contact (or the ones they are stressing are), I think good Christian parents who teach their children about chastity and the evil of fornication have every right to oppose the HPV vaccine as a mandate.

I heard that if parents oppose the vaccine (wish they can do), they cannot send their children to public school. So technically the parents will be forced to either homeschool or send their children to private school, which is not possible for many parents due to money or employment needs.
In Texas, at least, parents can opt their daughters out of the vaccine. You just need to state that you are “philosophically” opposed which is a lower standard than the “religious” exemption that you need for other vaccines. You cannot be kept out of a public school (in TX) for refusing the vaccine.

My problem with this vaccine is many-fold but the two big issues (for me) are:

1: The vaccine is being targeted to girls entering 6th grade in order to “catch” them before they are sexually active. This will be seen by the girls as some kind of protection. If it was given in early childhood, along with all of the others (measles, mumps, etc), I would be less opposed.

2: The pro-vaccine forces are touting this as the vaccine to prevent cancer. This is blatantly false. The vaccine prevents some of the strains of the HPV virus which cause some of the cases of cervical cancer. It does nothing to prevent infection by the other HPV strains or to prevent cervical cancer from other causes. Why are they lying?

This is on top of the whole issues of it being tested only on a very limited population so far, the link between Merck and the TX government and the (possible) abuse of executive privilege issues.
 
I read an article recently that they are considering a vaccine for those over 26, since the current one is recommended for 9 - 26. I think maybe if a woman was able to remain a virgin until marriage, maybe getting the vaccine before she married would be fine.

The current vaccine is being targeted at girls as young as 9! That’s a little young. I don’t think a 9 year old would understand what its for.

Plus, does the vaccine last for life after getting the three shots? Or does it need to be renewed a few years later?

Also, don’t forget that the Vaccine is not a substitute for a yearly Pap exam. I’ve started getting that yearly, even though I am not “active”.
 
The current vaccine is being targeted at girls as young as 9! That’s a little young. I don’t think a 9 year old would understand what its for.
If you think that’s bad, consider that newborns are routinely vaccinated against Hepetitis B, which is passed through drug use and unprotected sex. The largest demographic striken by this disease is IV drug users and prostitutes. Try explaining to a newborn how this disease is transmited. 😉

Go figure.
 
Here in Kansas, when it came out in the media that the vaccine’s manufacturer, not any health care professionals, was behind the bill mandating the vaccine’s use, and the manufacturer had contributed to the legislators that introduced and were pushing the Bill, the issue died in the Legislature.
 
In Texas, at least, parents can opt their daughters out of the vaccine. You just need to state that you are “philosophically” opposed which is a lower standard than the “religious” exemption that you need for other vaccines. You cannot be kept out of a public school (in TX) for refusing the vaccine.

My problem with this vaccine is many-fold but the two big issues (for me) are:

1: The vaccine is being targeted to girls entering 6th grade in order to “catch” them before they are sexually active. This will be seen by the girls as some kind of protection. If it was given in early childhood, along with all of the others (measles, mumps, etc), I would be less opposed.

2: The pro-vaccine forces are touting this as the vaccine to prevent cancer. This is blatantly false. The vaccine prevents some of the strains of the HPV virus which cause some of the cases of cervical cancer. It does nothing to prevent infection by the other HPV strains or to prevent cervical cancer from other causes. Why are they lying?

This is on top of the whole issues of it being tested only on a very limited population so far, the link between Merck and the TX government and the (possible) abuse of executive privilege issues.
Corki, you really should get your facts straight. Even if it is only one strain (which is not the case) of the human papilloma virus which is associated with cervical cancer, that is enough reason to vaccinate. Sex crazed? Yes, but I think it’s the Church.

Read on…
HPV Infection
Almost all strains of HPV that infect the anogenital tract are capable of causing abnormal cervical cytology.[11,22,23] A clear causal relationship has been established between HPV infection and cervical cancer, and HPV is found in nearly 100% of cervical malignancies worldwide.[2,24] This link is the highest attributable fraction ever identified for a specific cause of a major human cancer worldwide.[22,24] The latency period between initial HPV exposure and development of cervical cancer may be months to years. Although rapid progression is possible, average time from initial infection to manifestation of invasive cervical cancer is estimated at up to 15 years.[9]

Genital HPV strains are divided into two groups, based on their oncogenic potential and ability to induce viral-associated tumors. Certain strains termed “high-risk strains” (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68) are associated with intraepithelial neoplasia and are more likely to progress to severe lesions and cancer.[25] Of these, HPV 16 and 18 are the most carcinogenic and most prevalent.[3,8,22] HPV 16 is the predominant strain in almost all regions of the world, with the exception of Southeast Asia, where HPV 18 has the highest prevalence.[12,22] HPV 16 alone accounts for more than 50% of HPV infections, and it is estimated that almost 20% of American women are infected.[8,22,26] High-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions are most commonly associated with HPV 16 and 18, yet these strains are also frequently found to be the etiologic factor in minor lesions and mild dysplasia.[3]
 
I think maybe if a woman was able to remain a virgin until marriage, maybe getting the vaccine before she married would be fine.
Yes, she can control whether she exposes herself to the virus, but she can’t control her husband’s behavior, who might pass HPV to her after sleeping around.
I don’t think a 9 year old would understand what its for.
Of course, children are routinely vaccinated for several diseases at younger ages than that. Its enough for them to know that it will help them from becoming sick.
Also, don’t forget that the Vaccine is not a substitute for a yearly Pap exam. I’ve started getting that yearly, even though I am not “active”.
Good point!
 
Yearly pap smears are fine, but if you have been exposed to the virus, the lesion may not show up for a year or two. And once you have it - you have it. Pap smears are not preventative; they alert the woman to problems. The vaccine is preventative.
I don’t endorse mandatory vaccination. But I think a parent who refuses to vaccinate should be required to sign a waiver with the Dept of Health in their area as an historical record.
 
drug lobbyists have lots of cash to pay a lot of legislators large payouts in exchange for passing laws that will make use of their product mandatory.

it’s not about sex or disease, it’s about profit.
Cash… Money…

follow the green and you’ll find a trail that goes straight back to the pharmaceutical companies.

when they say its not about the money… it’s most DEFINATELY about the money.
 
drug lobbyists have lots of cash to pay a lot of legislators large payouts in exchange for passing laws that will make use of their product mandatory.

it’s not about sex or disease, it’s about profit.
Cash… Money…

follow the green and you’ll find a trail that goes straight back to the pharmaceutical companies.

when they say its not about the money… it’s most DEFINATELY about the money.
Excellent point.
 
I don’t endorse mandatory vaccination. But I think a parent who refuses to vaccinate should be required to sign a waiver with the Dept of Health in their area as an historical record.
What good is that going to do? :confused: I’m sure that would also be protected as private information, so I guess anyone who might want to take that under consideration, couldn’t find out anyway, except by the person that is responsible making it available for them to know. I’m sure the default position is for the party that is concerned about, in their records if it’s not written down, it wasn’t done. (Unless it needs to be in consideration for a fairly immediate medical intervention.)
 
What good is that going to do? :confused: I’m sure that would also be protected as private information, so I guess anyone who might want to take that under consideration, couldn’t find out anyway, except by the person that is responsible making it available for them to know. I’m sure the default position is for the party that is concerned about, in their records if it’s not written down, it wasn’t done. (Unless it needs to be in consideration for a fairly immediate medical intervention.)
It’s an acknowledgement of responsibility for a potential outcome.
In the not too distant future, health insurance providers will be able to deny claims if the patient had the opportunity to avoid a condition but didn’t. This will apply to any disease where a scientifically proven prevention methodology is available.

Daughters who have been denied the vaccine also have a right to know that their parents had made that decision, particularly if they become infected prior to the age of 18 after which they can legally seek out the vaccine on their own.
 
Pro-abortionists say the government should not dictate what women should do with their bodies.

Now, mostly the same people, want to dictate bodily intrusion in the form of a required vaccine.
 
It’s an acknowledgement of responsibility for a potential outcome.
In the not too distant future, health insurance providers will be able to deny claims if the patient had the opportunity to avoid a condition but didn’t. This will apply to any disease where a scientifically proven prevention methodology is available.

Daughters who have been denied the vaccine also have a right to know that their parents had made that decision, particularly if they become infected prior to the age of 18 after which they can legally seek out the vaccine on their own.
In that case, it would probably be up to a parent or someone acting in that role, to prove they had the vaccine. If you cannot prove it you didn’t do it, unless they change the privacy laws, then that might work.

If an agency wants to cover itself, in that case they would want a refusal order signed at best, or written down in a report it was refused. Thats about the only reason why one might want a signed refusal order.
 
I just noticed this:
Even so, state legislatures should require that all young girls be given this vaccine, which protects against a virus that causes some 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer in the United States each year — and 3,700 cancer deaths.
I don’t know why but I had the impression (maybe from Merck’s ad campaign?) that cervical cancer was like the new breast cancer. Ten thousand cases a year – less than four thousand deaths? I am not making light of anyone’s suffering but I’m sure there are bigger health problems that this money could be spent on.
Spending the money on more effective anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns in schools would save more lives but wouldn’t profit and big pharmaceutical company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top