Amen, Jennifer. Although, nuts though we may be
, we know full well that there is no money to be made in educating people. A drug company will only start to educate if NOT educating costs them money, as is the case with the tobacco industry.There’s no good reason to oppose the life-saving powers of chastity. It protects body and soul.
I can appreciate the argument made that abstinence education may be unreasonable and that this vaccine is needed for “health issues”. I disagree but that is something that can reasonably be discussed.Amen, Jennifer. Although, nuts though we may be
And I appreciate the correction someone made, one has only to be unchaste, not promiscuous, to get any STD.
Ok, I have read a bunch, thought a bunch, prayed a bunch – I don’t think the issue here is the vaccine itself – the issue is “MANDATED FOR ATTENDANCE” – that is where I take great issue – say nothing about morals, values, etc – if you take that off the table, just look at this as parental rights issue. MMR, Whooping cough, etc. – ok, those are things my kid could get/give while in school; I can see saying “if you’re going to send your kid here, they need to be vaccinated against these things, b/c we don’t want 45 cases of measels or whatever; highly contagious, hard to contain” – got it. Then it’s my choice to vaccinate or choose somewhere else to send my kid – I can see that “for the good of the whole” thing; may not agree with it, but I can certainly see it.
Exactly my point!! Mandated vaccines are established to protect students from diseases transmitted through casual contact (sneezing, touching), so what is the rationale for the HPV vaccine based on the evidence? I understand that non-sexual transmission is possible, and the risk is of this is unknown.HPV? What exactly is my child going to be doing at school that could spread HPV…hmmm? If the school is doing it’s job, this isn’t an issue of “protecting the other kids from something my kid could be spreading, or vice versa” – there is NO reason to mandate it for attendance; the only reason they’re doing that is so they can try to eradicate the prevalance of the disease, and this is the fastest, most cost effective way to ensure mass vaccination; make it a requirement for something that (almost) everyone does; school. it’s economics, plain and simple. what’s the age group recommended? where are kids during that time? ok, lets mandate it for there and then – boom, done, problem solved (they think). In theory it makes sense from a strictly “how do we” standpoint; but everything is simple “in theory” - forcing parents to vaccinate against something that has nothing to do with school attendance to gain the RIGHT to said attendance…well, it sure aint scottish, and if it aint scottish…
Not only a virgin, a chaste man with no history of sexual contact (skin-to-skin).
I don’t understand why more women aren’t very angry about this.
This does vary by state.
Not just a virgin… a man who has had no sexual activity since the virus is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact.
Right because who wouldn’t want to prevent cervical cancer.
Exactly. If I haven’t been clear about this, I apologize. I don’t think anyone, myself included, is necessarily against vaccination nor for cervical cancer.
You know, this is about the third thread that I’ve seen on this board with the same type of subject.
It is my understand that it is in clinical trials for boys. I think it is just a matter of time before it is approved.
You are right, you don’t have to be sexually active to contract HPV. It is only theoretical though that it can be contracted via an inanimate object.
Who benefits from being kept in the dark about these issues? Certainly not women and children. Interesting.
Maybe because they have done the research and know more about it than you do. There are over 100 strains of HPV and only 13 are connected to cervical cancer. This vaccine is “thought to prevent” 4 of them. It may not even work on those 4. It is lauded as “preventing cervical cancer for life” and that is an unbelieveably brazen lie. Based on the manufacturers information, at the very best, if everything goes perfectly (as it NEVER does), it MIGHT reduce the chance of getting the disease from 4 of the 13 possible sources. Couple that with the generally poor record of vaccines which have caused all sorts of horrible side effects that are suppressed by the drug companies and the media and you have an incredibly irresponsible decision to force parents to expose their children to a potentially dangerous and completely unnecessary drug just so someone else can make billions, that is right, BILLIONS of dollars.
“Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus.”I’ve heard that the shot needs to be given before girls reach puberty. What is the reason for this?
