Journal pudge's Journal: Another Reason to Homeschool 42
I know this is old news, I just never got around to it before.
Texas is requiring 11-year-old girls in public schools to get a vaccine that only lasts three years as far as we know, that prevents a disease you can only get through sexual contact, that costs $360 per person to administer.
If I were a Texas parent, I'd be pissed off as both a parent and a taxpayer. I have absolutely no reservations in saying that this is merely the result of a FUD campaign to make money for the pharmaceutical companies. This action is simply not warranted by the facts, scientific and otherwise.
Most girls do not become sexually active until they are age 14 or later, at which point the science says this vaccination may no longer be effective anyway -- Merck and the governments involved don't readily let you in on that little secret, and in fact Merck lies on its website about it by falsely claiming girls will be protected later if they take it now -- and further, we don't know what the side effects may be for giving a repeat treatment later. So if you are going to require it, considering the cost, why not wait until a much more significant number of the girls would actually be at risk? Giving it to these girls this early could be harmful, because it may prevent them getting the vaccine later when they actually need it.
I shudder for these ignorant parents who trust their government and go along with the vaccination when their daughters are in sixth grade, only to find out they contracted the cancer this vaccine was supposed to prevent later, when they were seniors in high school.
It should come as no surprise that the main body suggesting this as a mandatory requirement is Merck, the company that makes the drug. If they actually provided it only to people who were at risk, their profits would pale in comparison to if it were made mandatory, especially in huge states like Texas. And yeah,
Governor Rick Perry, who created the requirement, said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio. I think he means apart from the fact that polio is spread through casual contact and human papillomavirus is only spread by a penis being inserted into a vagina.
You cannot get this virus through casual contact. You can't get it from someone else forgetting to wash their hands. You can only get it because you chose to have sex, or because someone forced sex upon you.
In the former case, if you are responsible enough to have sex, then you're responsibile enough to take precautions (including taking the vaccine voluntarily, if you so choose). In the latter case, why not just require all girls to wear chastity belts? That would prevent even MORE diseases! Hell, we don't need doctors, just locksmiths!
There's no way in hell I would let the government force this on any children of mine. The governments of this country keep giving me more and more reasons to homeschool.
HPV vaccine? (Score:2)
What science says this? Its a vaccine. It will protect them for life. And protecting girls from HPV means protecting them from cervical cancer. A pretty big deal, and a good move in my opinion. The $360 of the cost of the vaccine will save alot of money in pap smears later on.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It won't. There will still continue to be a regular check because doctors AND the manufacturer wouldn't want to get sued by people for thinking that they were cancer-proof. No money saved at all. Somebody has to pay for the treatment and in this case it is the taxpayers.
Others will be pissed off because they will think that the pap smear is rendered obsolete. When they come down with cancer after skipping the tests
Re: (Score:2)
at which point the science says this vaccination may no longer be effective anyway
What science says this? Its a vaccine. It will protect them for life.
Oh jeez, I am pulling my hair out here. No. Vaccines do not last for life. Some do, of course. But measles, tetanus, pneumonia, and and flu vaccines do not last your whole life (and yes, the flu mutates, but even for the exact same strain, a flu vaccine does not last a long time).
So does Gardasil last for life? Nobody knows. Merck's tests only covered three years so it's just a guessing game. We'll get a better idea eventually, of course, but right know we simply do not know.
And protecting girls from HPV means protecting them from cervical cancer. A pretty big deal, and a good move in my opinion.
So why not just give th
Re: (Score:2)
As for chastity belts, the object here isnt to stop people having sex, but an attempt to cure cervical cancer, so I dont really see them as relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
What smallpox? I bet the luddites complained when they were handing out the vaccines for that.
Perhaps, but since smallpox is passed through casual contact and these HPV strains are not, how is that relevant?
As for chastity belts, the object here isnt to stop people having sex, but an attempt to cure cervical cancer, so I dont really see them as relevant.
Because the object is to prevent disease, and the chastity belt will do that better than the vaccine will. The object also is not to have adverse side effects like joint pain and lack of consciousness, but those can happen with Gardasil.
I think what you're saying is that the chastity belt is too drastic considering the risk involved; that there are other less drastic methods for controlling th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Setting the maximum speed limit to 5 mph on all roads would prevent a lot of deaths. Who should decide if this is a fair trade or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Saying the study only covered three years, and the immunization is only good for three years is a straw man.
No, you've got it backward. Saying that "the immunization is only good for three years is a straw man" is a straw man, since I never said it. Read again. What I said is that it only lasts for three years as far as we know (although I could also say five years, as some data suggests it lasts that long, too). And that is totally accurate.
So far indications have shown that the virus that this is protecting against do not mutate much over time, and thus the vaccination should be good for the life of the immunized.
No. That is not how immunizations work. Lack of effectiveness over time is not due merely to mutation. The studies done flat-out conclude only that the vaccine is go
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about straw men...
You make is sound that if someone gets HPV that they WILL get cancer -- that they WILL require hospitalization -- that they WILL require chemo/oncology/etc... so wrong.
Maybe you should become aware of some background statistcis...
- About 3500 women are expected to die this year of cervical cancer -- in the US. The vast majority of those were women who were
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, as I said earlier, it could last 20 years. Or a lifetime. We just don't know, and Merck lies when it says it will protect girls later if they take it early, because they simply do not know that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the same way the tetanus vaccine protects against tetanus for life and doesn't need to be given every ten years?
It means, apparently, protecting them for a while - in this case, from the age of 11, well before most of them will get any benefit from such protection. Don't assume vaccines always protect for
Re: (Score:2)
This is not entirely true. There are many (like around 100) varients of HPV -- and about 90% of cervical cancers which can be traced back to an HPV infection are caused by a small number of them (HPV 19, 16 and 25 to be exact). The HPV vaccines only protect against the most common. The others are still correlated to later cancer rates -- just smaller numbers of them.
Further, there's a substantial amount of cervical cancer which do
Re: (Score:2)
There are many (like around 100) varients of HPV -- and about 90% of cervical cancers which can be traced back to an HPV infection are caused by a small number of them (HPV 19, 16 and 25 to be exact). The HPV vaccines only protect against the most common.
Sadly, tt's actually only about 70 percent.
Lastly, the vaccine is ineffective for those who have already contracted HPV.
Happily, no [google.com]:
Don't get me wrong... I'm all in favor of the HPV vaccine. I am NOT in favor of it being compulsory.
Right. I have no problem with people taking it. I have a problem with i
Re: (Score:2)
No... you misread my 90%... or I didn't make it clear... of the cervical cancers that are linked to exposure to HPV -- around 90% are linked to a small number of HPV strains.
That's 90% of your 70%. Not 90% of all cervical cancers.
Sadly, that's not entirely accurate. Read this [medscape.com].
I really don't agree with you here (Score:2)
The vaccine has been demonstrated to protect for at least 3 years. In the comments, y
Re: (Score:2)
All of that sounds like great reasons to take the vaccine. But none of it justifies having us centrally vote on the subject (or worse, have a monarch decide for us).
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccine is given before the children become sexually active on purpose. You pick a young enough age to make sure even children who start having sex VERY young are protected. If you shifted vaccination later, a small percentage of teenagers will not have any protection, having been exposed to HPV, and the vaccine would not be effective. Therefore, there are strong science reasons for vaccination before sexual maturity.
Not necessarily true. I addressed this above, but basically, the vaccine in tests has been 100% effective at preventing cancer even after exposure to HPV. More study is needed (just like more study is needed to know if the vaccine lasts longer than five years).
The vaccine has been demonstrated to protect for at least 3 years. In the comments, you say actually, it is probably 5 years. Might I suggest a further piece of science? If a vaccinee is exposed in those 3-5 years, their protection is re-established, since their immune system, already primed, undergoes clonal expansion to combat the virus and recedes, once again generating the memory cells that the original vaccine created. So if exposed, and protected, the vaccinee has their protection 'reset'.
We don't know that. Could be. But so what? If they are not exposed, then they do not have their protection reset, and they become vulnerable; and that's not so bad, except that we do not know when and if they become vulnerable. If indeed the v
Parents CAN opt out (Score:2)
But the bottom line: Parents can opt out.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the costs of the vaccine far exceed the benefits, and King Perry decided to correct this "problem" by distorting and socializing the market. Thanks, mein Fuhrer Perry!
Not satisfactory. A system where schoolchildren have prayer, but can "opt out" is not satisfactory. A system where spammers harrass me, but I can "opt out" is not satisfactory. A system where by default I
Re: (Score:2)
I will be opting out, my daughter will not get this vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not disagreeing with those reasons, nor the objection of this being an executive order as opposed to a bill passed by the legislation (not that I would particularly like it if it came from the State Legislature...)
Re: (Score:2)
Requires? RTFEO (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
See the Executive Order:
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/ex orders/rp65 [state.tx.us]
that notes: "the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care" and provides an opt-out procedure.
You only quote half of it. I can only opt out for "conscientious objection" reasons. My reasons are not ones of conscience, but of science and reason. The reward does not justify the risk for my children. I suppose I could lie on the form, but I won't do that, because that IS a matter of conscience for me. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Me thinks you doth protest too much. I showed you the entire executive order. You have not even seen the form you find it impossible to fill out in good conscience. And you claim that after evaluating the scientific risk versus reward, that it is not a matter of conscience to protect your daughter based upon your conclusion, yea or nay. It obviously is a matter of conscience whether you prefer your daughter to be exposed to a risk of innoculation and a decreased
Re: (Score:2)
Me thinks you doth protest too much. I showed you the entire executive order. You have not even seen the form you find it impossible to fill out in good conscience.
So? The EO is clear. It is only for conscientious objection. This may change, but until it does, we can only go by the EO.
I won't adress your bullshit about how my objections areally are conscientious objections, because they are, well, bullshit.
But these are statistics only, so the question always becomes, "Do you feel lucky?"
Luck has nothing to do with it.
And you skip the whole point of my post, which is that this is not required. NOT REQUIRED. So please stop saying that it is required.
Um. Stop lying and saying it is not required. Apparently you did not read the executive order. It will be mandated (except for the limited opt-out procedure): "The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt r
Hundreds of reasons to be pissed off :) (Score:2)
Yes. And pissed of as a former believer in democracy, as opposed to monarchism. At least when democracy practices this kind of tyranny, everybody voted on it. I don't know if either of my twins are girls yet, but if they are, King Perry seems to think that they are part of the state militia, which he is authorized to command.
Indeed.
No shots, no school. (Score:2)
BTW I think the HPV vaccine should be mandatory for boys AND girls, since men get it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but men can be carriers for HPV which causes it. Also some versions of HPV can cause other problems.
And I, in my entire lifetime, have never been at any risk whatsoever to contract any of the viruses or problems that this vaccine protects against. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for requiring me to take it, except the Nanny State reason that I should take it because that's the only way to make sure everyone else takes it too. And that reason defies liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not prevent a known killer (cervical cancer) with a vaccine that has few to no side effects? I know it's horrible to imagine one's kids ever having sex, but it happens, so why not be prepared?
BTW I think the HPV vaccine should be mandatory for boys AND girls, since men get it too.
First, it is not true there are no side effects. There are immediate effects from getting the vaccination, and there are other side effects that occurred in testing which have not been ruled out due to other complicated factors; according to the tests, there is a danger of fairly severe side effects.
So the question is, why would I allow my child to take the risk in the first place, and why would I want to pay the cost? For some kids, the reward might be far greater than the risk. For my kids, it is the
I appreciate the link to the Merck site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I would love information that shows they are lying. A source would be great. Thanks.
I already linked to it, and specifically stated what the lie was: "falsely claiming girls will be protected later if they take it now." I shall quote it directly: [I]t's important that you talk to your daughter's doctor or healthcare professional about getting her vaccinated with GARDASIL now -- not later. You'll be helping to protect her future from cervical cancer and genital warts even before she is old enough to worry about them.
That means, if I may paraphrase a bit, that if they take it early, they
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing with you. I am interested in information about this stuff.
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I wasn't clear. Do you have a link to a source that says that the vaccine only lasts for 5 years?
I never said it only lasts for five years; rather, I said we do not know it lasts for longer than five years (and even there, the evidence is not very strong that it lasts that long). The evidence simply doesn't justify saying it lasts any longer. And here is one link. [google.com] You can Google for "Gardasil five years" and get more links.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unknown if "boosters" will be required after some period of time or not. It's also not goi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this argument should even center on duration of the vaccine's effectiveness. I think it should stay solely economic.
I disagree, for two reasons.
First, duration matters because we are pretending that we know we are actually protecting people that we may not be protecting. Giving it to a kid who is nine years old (as Merck recommends) may not protect them at all when they decide to have sex in high school later on, at 14, 16, etc. So we could be putting children in danger by giving them a false sense of security. If the goal really is to protect your children, then the best available science says you should wait until
Re: (Score:2)
What we know is that it lasts at least 5 years -- and that the FDA has approved it.
How much LONGER is in question. I think it's silly to vaccinate a 9 y/o who may no longer benefit from protection by the time she may become sexually active. It's silly to list extreme examples as reasons why to something SHOULD be done. On that we completely agree, I'm sure.
I think it should be "
Re: (Score:2)