GreekChat.com Forums
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   HPV Vaccine: Mandatory? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=84470)

Drolefille 02-05-2007 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1394637)
You don't even need to have sex in order to get HPV. The people who do "everything but" sex are just as able to get HPV. You don't need actual intercourse to transmit HPV.

What is also scary is that there's no real testing available for men, so men don't even know that they're carrying it.
Exactly. And it's terrible to think about it happening to you or your children, but rape, molestation, etc. all happen. Even if HPV is the least of your worries in that situation, it's at least one thing you don't have to worry about.

The only reason I'd want this to be mandatory is that I'm afraid a lot of parents are taking the "my kids will have sex" tact... and avoid getting their kids this shot. My guess is that statistically these parents are the ones that kids are NOT going to openly talk about sex with and thus will not get the shot when they're ready to be sexually active. I do agree that it's probably too early in this medicine's life to require it.

PeppyGPhiB 02-05-2007 01:42 PM
I didn't say sex was the only way to get HPV, I said it is the leading cause. It is.

I just saw on the Today show that parents in Texas will be able to opt out of the vaccinations if they have reason. Religious beliefs and "parental beliefs" were two examples cited.

AlphaFrog 02-05-2007 01:44 PM
If they can opt out due to "parental beliefs", then to me, it's pretty much "highly suggested" not "mandatory".

33girl 02-05-2007 02:37 PM
But the thing is, the parents have to submit something and have it approved. Many parents are too lazy to do this. There are already parents who opt out of other kinds of vaccines because they (they personally, not their religion) don't believe in it and they're still considered mandatory.

Drolefille 02-05-2007 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1394812)
But the thing is, the parents have to submit something and have it approved. Many parents are too lazy to do this. There are already parents who opt out of other kinds of vaccines because they (they personally, not their religion) don't believe in it and they're still considered mandatory.
If they're really concerned about the vaccine and/or its effect on the promiscuity of their children, etc. wouldn't they go through that trouble? Again, I tend to agree that this was a little early to require it, but if parents are doing their jobs they have the opportunity to say no.

<sarcasm>And if parents aren't doing their jobs, the kids should probably be vaccinated for anything and everything anyway. </sarcasm>

AlphaFrog 02-05-2007 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1394816)
<not sarcastic>And if parents aren't doing their jobs, the kids should probably be vaccinated for anything and everything anyway. </not sarcastic>
I agree.

33girl 02-05-2007 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1394816)
If they're really concerned about the vaccine and/or its effect on the promiscuity of their children, etc. wouldn't they go through that trouble? Again, I tend to agree that this was a little early to require it, but if parents are doing their jobs they have the opportunity to say no.
That's what I said. I just believe when it comes down to it, the majority of parents will say "whatever" and let them get the vaccine. We had the odd parent in our elementary school who was anti-fluoride tablets too. It's the same principle.

Drolefille 02-05-2007 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1394835)
That's what I said. I just believe when it comes down to it, the majority of parents will say "whatever" and let them get the vaccine. We had the odd parent in our elementary school who was anti-fluoride tablets too. It's the same principle.
Gotcha, I just read you wrong :D

PoohsHoneyBee 02-06-2007 10:58 PM
i'm so scared now! i wish i had read all this yesterday. the doctor told me the only side effect would be on my arm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1394441)
Here is a news release I received from the NVIC which outline concerns over this new vaccine by a vaccine safety group. I've bolded a few of the more interesting passages.

Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs

VIENNA, Va., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Vaccine
Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed
consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate
the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all
pre- adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine
laws.

In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use
recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of
consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a
separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private
pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the
Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their
daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher.

"At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private
pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two
to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series.
The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks
of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost
all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual
pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

Between July 2006 and January 2007, there have been 82 reports of
adverse events filed with VAERS following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and
boys ranging in age from 11 to 27 years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the District of Columbia. All but three of
the reports were for adverse events which occurred within one week of
vaccination and more than 60 percent occurred within 24 hours of
vaccination.

"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are
neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN,
Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness,
temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction
of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands
and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during
what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

VAERS reports also indicate the doctors are administering GARDASIL to
girls and women at the same with Tdap, DT, meningococcal (Menactra),
hepatitis A, and other vaccines, even though the Merck product insert
states that, with the exception of hepatitis B vaccine, "Co-administration
of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied." There is no publicly
available information about how many of the 9 to 15 year old girls in
Merck's pre- licensure clinical trials received GARDASIL simultaneously
with hepatitis B vaccine.

Although approximately half of all families in the U.S. select a
pediatrician in private practice to provide their children routine care,
including vaccinations, children can receive government subsidized reduced
cost or free vaccinations in public health clinics through the Vaccines for
Children program if they cannot afford to pay for vaccinations administered
by private pediatricians. NVIC's survey of four private pediatric practices
in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. found that parents could be
charged anywhere from $525 to $930 for three GARDASIL shots depending upon whether the child was a first-time or current patient. Costs for the
vaccine plus an administration fee ranged from $140 to $275 per shot with
an additional office visit charge that fluctuated between $35 and $185
depending upon whether a nurse or doctor saw the child.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. and
most persons naturally clear the infection from the body without symptoms.
However, many years of chronic HPV infection is associated with a higher
risk of pre- cancerous changes in the cervix that can lead to cancer unless
diagnosed and treated promptly. High risk factors for chronic HPV infection
include smoking, long-term use of oral contraceptives and co-infection with
HIV, herpes and chlamydia. There has been a more than 70 percent drop in
cervical cancer deaths in American women since the 1950's due to routine
pap smears and nearly all cervical cancers can be prevented with regular
pap smear screening and treatment.

In its product manufacturer insert, Merck states that "Vaccination does
not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening. Women who receive
GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care." Merck also states that "The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established."

For more information about HPV infection and GARDASIL safety, including
NVIC's five-page report on GARDASIL adverse event reports to VAERS as well
as a direct link to VAERS reports, go to NVIC's website at
http://www.nvic.org.

kddani 02-06-2007 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoohsHoneyBee (Post 1395636)
i'm so scared now! i wish i had read all this yesterday. the doctor told me the only side effect would be on my arm.
I would hope that you'd trust your doctor over something some random person cut and paste onto a message board from a HIGHLY biased source.

blueangel 02-07-2007 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1395638)
I would hope that you'd trust your doctor over something some random person cut and paste onto a message board from a HIGHLY biased source.
So now I'm "random?" :D

Highly biased? Did the NVIC "make up" the numbers that were in the news release?

Trusting doctors? How many people trusted "their doctor" and were perscribed Vioxx? Bextra? Fen phen? Redux? Rezulin? Seldane? Posicor? Duract? Hismanl? Raxar? Propulsid? Lotronex? Baycol?

And... have you heard of the Swine Flu vaccine??? Hundreds of Americans died as a result of the innoculation. Others suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome as a result of the shot.

To put this all in perspective... A quote from Dr. Raymond Woosley, (a candidate for FDA commissioner):

"I think Americans need to recognize that every time they put a pill in their mouth, especially a new pill that they've never taken before, it's an experiment. When a drug goes on the market, only about 3,000 patients have ever been given that drug. We will never know all the toxicity that can occur, especially the one in 10,000 or the one in 20,000 that can be seriously harmed. Our detection of that will only happen after the drug is on the market and exposed to huge numbers of patients."

Consider that Gardisal has only been out for seven months. Wouldn't you rather take a wait and see approach?

macallan25 02-07-2007 01:38 AM
^Would you mind digging into my private life and public records for a second?

........I forgot something about myself.

kddani 02-07-2007 07:08 AM
I've had the vaccine, have you?

AlphaFrog 02-07-2007 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by macallan25 (Post 1395692)
^Would you mind digging into my private life and public records for a second?

........I forgot something about myself.
If you were here in Charlotte, I would literally shake your hand.

UGAalum94 02-07-2007 08:19 AM
Highjack:

Ummmm, Seldane. . .

Seldane may be a bad example of a dangerous drug because most problems with it had to do with its interactions with some antibiotics as opposed to the drug itself.

Seriously, it was the best antihistamine EVER as far as I'm concerned, and it's general removal from the marketplace was a bad thing overall. Although Allegra is supposed to be the same drug, I never really got relief from allergies with Allegra; I don't know why.

As far as the other drugs you listed, Blueangel, I see your point. On the other hand, it seems that a vaccine would have more limited impact. Can you think of any vaccines that have caused problems?

ETA: I can see the reference to the Swiss Flu vaccine, now. When I first read your post, I was distracted by the reference to sweet, sweet, Seldane that it eclipsed everything else.

Where can I read more about this? Hundreds of deaths sounds like a lot, but not compared to how many people died of Flu. How many people were vaccinated?

KSigkid 02-07-2007 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1395638)
I would hope that you'd trust your doctor over something some random person cut and paste onto a message board from a HIGHLY biased source.
Absolutely - I was talking yesterday about how it has almost become the thing to do to ignore doctor's advice. I can understand getting a 2nd opinion on things, or doing a little research, but at the end of the day I would hope people would listen to their physicians. There's a reason why people aren't just out there self-medicating and doing surgeries on street corners.

AlexMack 02-07-2007 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1395747)
Absolutely - I was talking yesterday about how it has almost become the thing to do to ignore doctor's advice. I can understand getting a 2nd opinion on things, or doing a little research, but at the end of the day I would hope people would listen to their physicians. There's a reason why people aren't just out there self-medicating and doing surgeries on street corners.
Internet doctors are the worst kind of people. Those people sit on their computers all day, looking up websites and diagnosing themselves then dragging all this research to their physician and demanding drugs for their 'diagnosis'. The internet was the simultaneous best and worst thing to ever happen to medicine. There's way too much information out there and in the hands of a layperson, it's dangerous.

33girl 02-07-2007 11:54 AM
My favorite quote on this is from somebody's LJ icon:

"If television's a babysitter, the internet's a drunk librarian who won't shut up."

Any time I've looked up a diagnosis online, I've become convinced that I'm going to die unless I bathe myself in bleach and eat nothing but brown rice. It's like the Brady Bunch episode where Peter had 2 pages of the medical book stuck together and thought he had sleeping sickness and was going to die. It's ridiculous.

33girl 02-07-2007 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1395718)
I've had the vaccine, have you?
What for?

AlexMack 02-07-2007 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1395786)
My favorite quote on this is from somebody's LJ icon:

"If television's a babysitter, the internet's a drunk librarian who won't shut up."

Any time I've looked up a diagnosis online, I've become convinced that I'm going to die unless I bathe myself in bleach and eat nothing but brown rice. It's like the Brady Bunch episode where Peter had 2 pages of the medical book stuck together and thought he had sleeping sickness and was going to die. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, it's easy to freak yourself out. Back when I had my mystery leg pain, all I could do was research on the internet because none of the doctors knew what was wrong.
Oh, and if you might have a serious chronic illness like MS, don't do research until you know for sure. Seriously, that funny shaped freckle looks like melanoma, your left arm feels funny and tingly so you're having an MI, You moved the wrong way suddenly the other day and now you have a disk herniation that needs surgery. Outside medical journals and reputable sites (I only trust http://www.medlineplus.gov, webmd.com is run by drug companies) there's a lot of biased shit to wade through.

blueangel 02-07-2007 12:38 PM
Alphagamuga:

You can do a Google search on Swine Flu Vaccine to read . Here is an interesting article from a doctor who opposed the vaccine:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kalokerinos13.html

More than 500 people are estimated to have been paralysed from the Swine Flu vaccine.. and estimates of anywhere from 50 to 500 people died as a direct result.

There was no swine flu pandemic. The government, as usual, jumped the gun.

KSigkid 02-07-2007 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1395786)
My favorite quote on this is from somebody's LJ icon:

"If television's a babysitter, the internet's a drunk librarian who won't shut up."

Any time I've looked up a diagnosis online, I've become convinced that I'm going to die unless I bathe myself in bleach and eat nothing but brown rice. It's like the Brady Bunch episode where Peter had 2 pages of the medical book stuck together and thought he had sleeping sickness and was going to die. It's ridiculous.
Absolutely - I had a heart condition that got repaired last year; it was semi-serious, but one of the first things my parents read about it said something like "leading cause of immediate cardiac arrest." That didn't exactly help their handling of the situation, and I ended up having hourly messages seeing how I was doing until they talked with my cardiologist.

Knowledge is power, and I understand the benefits of having access to this information, but I think sometimes things can go too far. At some point, you just have to trust your doctor (whether it's a 1st, 2nd or 10th opinion).

PeppyGPhiB 02-07-2007 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1395808)
Alphagamuga:

You can do a Google search on Swine Flu Vaccine to read . Here is an interesting article from a doctor who opposed the vaccine:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kalokerinos13.html

More than 500 people are estimated to have been paralysed from the Swine Flu vaccine.. and estimates of anywhere from 50 to 500 people died as a direct result.

There was no swine flu pandemic. The government, as usual, jumped the gun.
OK, this incident you're talking about happened in 1976 according to that link. Sorry, but medical research is handled very differently today than it was then, and a number of the companies doing vaccines today weren't even around then.

blueangel 02-07-2007 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1395850)
OK, this incident you're talking about happened in 1976 according to that link. Sorry, but medical research is handled very differently today than it was then, and a number of the companies doing vaccines today weren't even around then.
In what way is it handled differently today than it was then?

Why are you also discounting my other RECENT examples?
Vioxx, Bextra, Fen phen, Redux? Rezulin, Seldane, Posicor, Duract, Hismanl, Raxar, Propulsid, Lotronex, Baycol?

As far as being in business.. the company in question regarding Gardasil-- Merck-- has been around for more than 300 years.

Sanofi-- one of those licensed to make Swine Flu vaccine in 1976, is still in the flu vaccine business today.

AlexMack 02-07-2007 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1395868)
In what way is it handled differently today than it was then?

Why are you also discounting my other RECENT examples?
Vioxx, Bextra, Fen phen, Redux? Rezulin, Seldane, Posicor, Duract, Hismanl, Raxar, Propulsid, Lotronex, Baycol?

As far as being in business.. the company in question regarding Gardasil-- Merck-- has been around for more than 300 years.

Sanofi-- one of those licensed to make Swine Flu vaccine in 1976, is still in the flu vaccine business today.
I usually make it a point not to respond, but just a little tidbit of misinformation to be corrected. Merck has been around a little over 100 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by merck.com
Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting patients first. Established in 1891, Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to address unmet medical needs. The company devotes extensive efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reaching programs that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver them to the people who need them. Merck also publishes unbiased health information as a not-for-profit service
http://www.merck.com/about/

AlphaFrog 02-07-2007 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1395868)
In what way is it handled differently today than it was then?

Why are you also discounting my other RECENT examples?
Vioxx, Bextra, Fen phen, Redux? Rezulin, Seldane, Posicor, Duract, Hismanl, Raxar, Propulsid, Lotronex, Baycol?

As far as being in business.. the company in question regarding Gardasil-- Merck-- has been around for more than 300 years.

Sanofi-- one of those licensed to make Swine Flu vaccine in 1976, is still in the flu vaccine business today.
At least there are no ridiculous .org links in this post.

Even if it does contain completely wrong info.

blueangel 02-07-2007 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centaur532 (Post 1395870)
I usually make it a point not to respond, but just a little tidbit of misinformation to be corrected. Merck has been around a little over 100 years.


http://www.merck.com/about/
"The history of Merck & Co., Inc. can be traced back to Darmstadt, Germany, in 1668 when an apothecarty named Frederic Jacob Merck opened a chemical firm...."http://www.msd.com.hk/about_us/e_history_of_merck.html

blueangel 02-07-2007 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 1395871)
At least there are no ridiculous .org links in this post.

Even if it does contain completely wrong info.
What info is "completely wrong?"

AlexMack 02-07-2007 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1395873)
"The history of Merck & Co., Inc. can be traced back to Darmstadt, Germany, in 1668 when an apothecarty named Frederic Jacob Merck opened a chemical firm...."http://www.msd.com.hk/about_us/e_history_of_merck.html
From the same link:
Quote:
he history of Merck & Co., Inc. can be traced back to Darmstadt, Germany, in 1668 when an apothecarty named Frederic Jacob Merck opened a chemical firm. In 1891, George Merck began to establish his roots in the United States and set up Merck & Co., Inc. in New York, U.S.A. Originally started off as a fine chemicals suppliers, Merck & Co., Inc began its pharmaceutical research in the early 1930's.
They were in chemicals a lot longer than pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical research began in the 30's. Not that I know why this portion of whatever point you're trying to prove is relevant.

blueangel 02-07-2007 03:36 PM
Centaur.. I was responding to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1395850)
...and a number of the companies doing vaccines today weren't even around then.

UGAalum94 02-07-2007 06:05 PM
I think we should all just be aware of what is known, what the testing included, and make the best decisions we can with the help of our doctors.

While Blueangel's point about harmful "medicine" is worth considering (there have been FDA approved drugs on the market that did serious harm to people; it doesn't make sense to deny it.), I'm sure we can all think of vaccines and treatments that we are glad that we have access to.

I don't think any state has any business requiring this vaccine for school attendance, but I think if the vaccine can deliver on expectations, young women should get it before they become sexually active. Perhaps rather than spending money lobbying states to require the vaccine, Merck should focus it's advertising at teens and get states to subsidize it the cost at health departments.

texas*princess 02-07-2007 08:03 PM
Personally, if I were a parent and had a daughter, I would definitely have a talk with her but ultimately make the decision.

I realize we take tons of immunizations as children, but those have been around for a VERY long time.... and I feel like this one is still way too new for me to be comfortable with it.

Has it been tested for long term effects? How do we know this vaccine might cause other types of medical problems?

Based on a news story, the vaccine only guards against a very very small percentage of strains of HPV (I think the total number was something around 4 out of 28) and the medical field wasn't even 100% sure that those 4 (or whatever the number was) are the "main ones" that cause cervical cancer.

I don't like that Gov. Perry used his "exective order" before letting the people know what was going on and giving our elected officials a chance to speak for us. If that's what he's gonna be like, I only see him as another "W" if he truly is going to run for President like some reports say he might.

PeppyGPhiB 02-07-2007 08:04 PM
blueangel, I was not discounting the more recent examples you gave. I specifically replied (using the quote function) to your point about the swine flu.

Vaccines of today and in the future are largely based on bioscience/biotechnology, just as cancer treatments are, and biotechnology did not really start to take off until the past few decades as we've gained access to more complex technology and manufacturing techniques.

Please try to keep in mind that the vast majority of drugs and biotherapies approved in this country do wonders for people's health and quality of life. EVERY drug has side-effects, even the Tylenol people take for headaches. Aspirin, which actually helps the heart health of some people, can seriously harm others. Patients and their doctors must consider the benefits vs. risks in every medication they put in their body, and it's the truth that in most instances, the benefits outweigh the risks.

SmartBlondeGPhB 02-07-2007 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1394360)
HPV is scary, particularly for women who don't get to the gyno on a regular basis. There are no symptoms (well, aside from the strains that cause genital warts) and its not really detected until there's been a change in your cells that is seen on the pap and follow up testing. HPV itself isn't necessarily a huge deal, but that it can lead to much bigger issues (i.e. cervical cancer) its not something to mess around with.
I stongly agree with this statement and if I had kids, I wouldn't even think twice about getting them vaccinated.

SmartBlondeGPhB 02-07-2007 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1395850)
OK, this incident you're talking about happened in 1976 according to that link. Sorry, but medical research is handled very differently today than it was then, and a number of the companies doing vaccines today weren't even around then.
That was the first thing I noticed too. 30 years is a LONG time....

macallan25 02-08-2007 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel (Post 1395868)
In what way is it handled differently today than it was then?
Are you serious? Are you really going to argue over whether medical research has changed over 30 some odd years??? Its sounds like you don't think it has.

Bob Dole 02-08-2007 12:56 AM
I work at the capitol and this is all I hear about these days. I think the biggest reason that there is opposition to Perry's executive order is that a lot of right wingers think that the vaccine will promote premarital sex. A nice quote I heard in response to that was, "if we developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would we block it because it would promote smoking?". I'm sure this will reach the Texas Supreme Court and overturn the executive order, because technically the Governor is supposed to enforce the laws that the legislature makes, not create his own.

I hope it isn't overturned. One of the biggest reasons for it, is to force parents to educate themselves on this subject. It's ultimately the parent’s choice if the child is vaccinated or not.

jubilance1922 02-08-2007 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dole (Post 1396178)
I work at the capitol and this is all I hear about these days. I think the biggest reason that there is opposition to Perry's executive order is that a lot of right wingers think that the vaccine will promote premarital sex. A nice quote I heard in response to that was, "if we developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would we block it because it would promote smoking?". I'm sure this will reach the Texas Supreme Court and overturn the executive order, because technically the Governor is supposed to enforce the laws that the legislature makes, not create his own.

I hope it isn't overturned. One of the biggest reasons for it, is to force parents to educate themselves on this subject. It's ultimately the parent’s choice if the child is vaccinated or not.
Idiotic thinking. Kids aren't going to not have sex just cause you don't talk about it. They're just gonna have unsafe and unprotected sex cause no one has given them information.

AlexMack 02-08-2007 11:55 AM
Here is my take on this which I have thus left out because I am in the minority. I am not getting the vaccine. I am within the age bracket to get it but I have decided not to.

When I was 10 years old, I got my routine MMR vaccine. A day later I came down with an illness-we're not sure if it was rubella or not; either way it was a very bad reaction to the shot. I was off school for almost two weeks. I have never had a measles shot ever since. I have not had a meningitis shot. I have had Hep B. Since my bad reaction and because we have no idea what caused the reaction (which 1 in 100,000 people get) I am duly wary of new vaccines. I cannot afford another reaction to a vaccination when I don't know what caused the first reaction. While the vaccination is still voluntary, I'm not getting it.

This just goes to show that no matter how safe something is, someone somewhere will react badly. But this is no reason not to get the shot. If you've never reacted badly to a vaccine, I think you should get the shot. The good outweighs the bad for most people with this vaccination.

Also, BA, I believe you missed a drug. It wasn't well-publicized. Allegra-D was taken off the market. I took one dose of that drug and wound up in the emergency room at 3am, uncontrollable twitching, dizziness and racing heart. It took a liter of fluid to dispel the drug from my system. I heard of at least one other person with a reaction like that.

Drolefille 02-08-2007 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubilance1922 (Post 1396252)
Idiotic thinking. Kids aren't going to not have sex just cause you don't talk about it. They're just gonna have unsafe and unprotected sex cause no one has given them information.
Cosign that.

What is it with parents thinking that kids wouldn't figure this whole sex thing out themselves? Tab A goes into Slot B. It's not that complex and we've been doing it since before civilization. I'm pretty sure sex ed. isn't responsible for the re-discovery of sex in each generation.

Quote:
ere is my take on this which I have thus left out because I am in the minority. I am not getting the vaccine. I am within the age bracket to get it but I have decided not to.

When I was 10 years old, I got my routine MMR vaccine. A day later I came down with an illness-we're not sure if it was rubella or not; either way it was a very bad reaction to the shot. I was off school for almost two weeks. I have never had a measles shot ever since. I have not had a meningitis shot. I have had Hep B. Since my bad reaction and because we have no idea what caused the reaction (which 1 in 100,000 people get) I am duly wary of new vaccines. I cannot afford another reaction to a vaccination when I don't know what caused the first reaction. While the vaccination is still voluntary, I'm not getting it.

This just goes to show that no matter how safe something is, someone somewhere will react badly. But this is no reason not to get the shot. If you've never reacted badly to a vaccine, I think you should get the shot. The good outweighs the bad for most people with this vaccination.
I don't think you're in the minority with regards to your opinion. I'd never think about requiring this for someone with an unknown reaction to vaccines. I think it's a good thing to "require" it but leave a way out that requires a bit more effort.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.