HPV Vaccine: Mandatory?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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/

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by centaur532

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

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by blueangel

"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:

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

At least there are no ridiculous .org links in this post.

Even if it does contain completely wrong info.

What info is "completely wrong?"

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

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]

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]

Originally Posted by jubilance1922

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.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jubilance1922

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.

Right. It's not like kids are using condoms to protect against HPV and cervical cancer. They're thinking about pregnancy, AIDS, Chl., Ghon., and those other diseases. A lot of them probably don't even know what HPV is, because it's never talked about. A vaccine against HPV will not change their sex habits, because frankly, I don't know if young people really cared about it that much in the first place.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

Macallan has a crush on me. He follows me around like a little puppy dog. I think it's so cute!

[GeekyPenguin]

I think Vioxx was GREAT - I would have had to give up a lot of activities were it not for Vioxx. Celebrex was not as good at all.

I'm getting the vaccine.