DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Texas requires schoolgirls to get vaccinated.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/02/2007 08:18:43 PM · #26
I'm really confused here...is the OP refusing the vaccine because of politics or medical reasons?
02/02/2007 08:25:50 PM · #27
Originally posted by BeeCee:

I'm really confused here...is the OP refusing the vaccine because of politics or medical reasons?


I'm kinda confused about that myself.
02/02/2007 08:33:06 PM · #28
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

I'm really confused here...is the OP refusing the vaccine because of politics or medical reasons?


I'm kinda confused about that myself.


Ditto your ditto.
02/02/2007 08:36:01 PM · #29
I have 3 adult daughters. I told them to get the vaccine if they had the oppurtunity. I think to not take advantage would be ludicrous.

State mandated? It's been done before, measles, polio etc. So what's the big deal.

I strongly object to having my taxes (I happen to live in Texas) go for something provided by only ONE provider (Merck). The single provider in fact has ties to the governor of the state. Sounds like Texas politics as usual to me.

02/02/2007 08:39:07 PM · #30
Way too much government here.
02/02/2007 08:40:56 PM · #31
Regardless the reason, he and others that are leery of the vaccine or the reasons behind it, owe it to their daughters to do the research and find out the facts for themselves. HPV is more common than some might think and it may not be as urgent for men to learn about it. But know this, while it may not effect men to the extreme levels that it can women, they can carrie it and pass it on without having a clue. And while, HPV can be as simple as just an annoyance to some women, depending on the strain, it can be life threatening to others. Why put your daughters at risk if they don't need to be. Just my thoughts.....
02/02/2007 08:52:44 PM · #32
I'm a cervical cancer survivor. Clean now for 9.5 years. Now I can get health insurance.

If there had been a vaccine 20 years ago neither me or my only sister would have gotten it. I didn't have to have a full hysterectomy (yet, I'm still at risk for reccurance.) My sis was caught earlier so little permanent damage for her.

I don't care how GOOD of a parent you are, you will not stop your daughter from having sex when she wants to. You can potentially stop one of the side effects of it by allowing the vaccine. My parent's didn't stop me or my sis, but they sure scared both of us from ever wanting kids. At the time is was not known that HPV was an STD, only suspected.

I do have to mention that I would like the mandantory vaccine better if it were older (been around longer) and offered by more than only one company. HPV is way too common. A vaccine is a good idea and think of how much better testing is than when the polio vaccine first became available and mandatory.
02/02/2007 09:02:06 PM · #33
OK,

I'm sorry that I have recommended that others do not do this, after all you are all adults.

Political or medical, someone asked (a few of you)?

I do not believe that benefits outweigh the risk. Facts that I base my belief on - can't point them out. Inputs: Vioxx, MMR and its alleged connection to autism in the US, daily dose of FDA scandals, current state of medicine that to me looks geared towards avoiding lawsuits and pushing different drugs more than trying to talk to patients and understand the cause of the issue.

My perspective is limited. I do not pretend to know the whole truth. But, from what I know, I refuse to comply as long as I legally can do that. When I can no longer do that legally, I'll find another place where I can do that.

In the meantime, my heart goes to Sher, Alan's wife and others affected. I understand that this would have been perfect for them if existed a few years ago. I am just not ready to accept this vaccine as ultimate and benign solution.

As for Jenesis, her question "why put your daughter at risk if she does not have to be at risk" - exactly explains my position: I think that the taking the vaccine is a greater risk than not taking it.

Unfortunately for some, (and I do not know if it is for me or for those that get the shot), only the future will show who was at a higher risk.

Cheers!

-Serge

02/02/2007 09:05:05 PM · #34
Originally posted by scarbrd:

While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.


When isn't there a political angle? If you're in favor of vaccines in general shouldn't the only question be does the druge work?
02/02/2007 09:10:38 PM · #35
I wonder if there were such feelings of mistrust when the Polio vaccine, which eventually totally eradicated the Polio virus, was introduced in 1955?
02/02/2007 09:13:48 PM · #36
Originally posted by srdanz:

As for Jenesis, her question "why put your daughter at risk if she does not have to be at risk" - exactly explains my position: I think that the taking the vaccine is a greater risk than not taking it.

Unfortunately for some, (and I do not know if it is for me or for those that get the shot), only the future will show who was at a higher risk.

Cheers!

-Serge


I totally understand that. That's another way to look at it. It's so hard when it comes to our children, when we only want the best for them and to keep them as safe as possible and shield them from all that we can. And lets face it, vaccines can be scary. Hopefully, the future will show good safe results for the vaccine as it could be a lifesaver for so many. I guess those of us who have had an experience with the virus. either personally or via loved ones and friends, are just so hopeful that this is a good thing as not to wish anyone would have to go through what some have. But that really goes with any kind of sickness, virus, cancer, etc. I meant no disrespect Serge. :-)
02/02/2007 09:14:26 PM · #37
I think the mistrust stems to the company that is producing the vaccine. They have been involved in a number of lawsuits regarding other drugs that they produced.

Even if there are studies out there that offer the proof being asked for, who sponsored the study. If it's the drug company then the study is suspect.
02/02/2007 09:14:41 PM · #38
I don't know about in Texass, but here in California (yeah, yeah) GeneralE pointed out to me that:

"To meet California's school entry requirements, children entering kindergarten will need a total of five DTP (diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis) immunizations; four polio immunizations; two MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) immunizations; three hepatitis B immunizations; and one varicella (chicken pox) immunization. Students entering seventh grade must show proof of three hepatitis B shots and a second measles (or MMR) shot."

I was just diagnosed as having Tuberculosis yesterday. As you'll notice, the vaccine for TB isn't on that list. Now...if I had gotten the shot, whould I have to undergo 9 months of daily antibiotics and possibly isolation? Chances are NO. Not all of the government is out to get you...a very slim percentage(jk) is actually doing thing to help you live longer. Now, if you want to be Darwinistic, I'm sure you can think of someone in your family who would not be here today had they not been treated by modern medicine. Prevention is the best treatment. Think about that before letting your you daughter be exposed to a very common virus.

Btw, I'm TERRIFIED of getting shots, but I'm still going to sit like a good girl thru all 3 of the HPV shots. The risk is too high.
02/02/2007 09:21:54 PM · #39
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I think the mistrust stems to the company that is producing the vaccine. They have been involved in a number of lawsuits regarding other drugs that they produced.


I understand the mistrust of Merck, but this is a VLP (hollow virus-like particles) vaccine, it's nothing but proteins.
02/02/2007 09:39:05 PM · #40
I simply don't follow the logic of NOT getting the vaccine. How is vaccinating against a disease with potentially lethal effects a bad thing?

What if your daughter were raped and got HPV that way? As if the trauma of being raped, along with all of the possibilities for other venereal diseases, including AIDS, you would also have the specter of HPV and cervical cancer hang over her head. I just don't understand how you could NOT protect your daughter from that possibility.
02/02/2007 10:00:35 PM · #41
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I simply don't follow the logic of NOT getting the vaccine. How is vaccinating against a disease with potentially lethal effects a bad thing?

What if your daughter were raped and got HPV that way? As if the trauma of being raped, along with all of the possibilities for other venereal diseases, including AIDS, you would also have the specter of HPV and cervical cancer hang over her head. I just don't understand how you could NOT protect your daughter from that possibility.


OK, nothing new to say, just to repeat what I think (with emphasis on I )

I think that the risk of vaccine is greater than the risk of getting raped or getting a cervical cancer. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm ready to live with the consequences as long as I make decisions about my underage children. Once they become of age, it's their choice.

By the way, TBC-related question. Wye doesn't USA give BCG to people? Someone mentioned that there is no vaccine against TBC. I was vaccinated (received BCG), and now every time I have to do something in public, since I am foreign born, I have to take the PPD test that naturally comes back positive. Then I go to X-ray machine, get my healthy dose of X rays, just to prove that the positive reaction is because of TBC antibodies I carry. Some doctors understand and accept that, but bureaucrats look at me as a disease carrier, just because someone on this side of the ocean decided that TBC is not valid.

So, it's not perfect anywhere, why explicitly trust anything?

Fotomann asked about Polio in the 50s. I do not know, I wasn't there. Every case is unique, and cannot be compared. But I understand that there are cases of polio today, that could be prevented by vaccinating children, and I am for that vaccine wholeheartedly. Hats off to Bill, Melinda, and Warren for trying to fix that problem. But, that's off tangent, sorry I digressed.
02/02/2007 10:08:18 PM · #42
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.


When isn't there a political angle? If you're in favor of vaccines in general shouldn't the only question be does the druge work?


Does it work? Is it safe?

I not against the vaccine per se, I just find it at least interesting that Perry is pushing when he has a history of doing just the opposite in these matters.

With his connections to Merck you have to wonder if his interest is protecting the popualtion or lining his political coffers. If it is the latter, then how can we trust that he's done the due deligence on the subject.

I do think that politics can be a postive driver in such matters, depending on the politician. I don't think for a second that Rick Perry has the best interest of the people of Texas first and foremost on his mind.

02/02/2007 10:35:20 PM · #43
Originally posted by srdanz:


I think that the risk of vaccine is greater than the risk of getting raped or getting a cervical cancer.


I am really curious to read info on the negative effects of the vaccine. I've tried googling it, but unsuccessful. This isn't part of my argument, just curious. Any links?
02/02/2007 11:06:16 PM · #44
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


I am really curious to read info on the negative effects of the vaccine. I've tried googling it, but unsuccessful. This isn't part of my argument, just curious. Any links?


Unfortunately, my dear internet friend, it is not possible to point you to the readings. I have established my opinion based on the global influx of data I've received over the years, including personal tragedies of people allegedly affected by imperfect medications. (very small sample of earth's population, by the way.)

(I hate the word 'allegedly' by the way.)

Therefore, I accept only empirical proofs, based on my own criteria, and not the FDA's or any other countries equivalent for that matter. Not picking on the US here, trying to stay out of political aspect of it.

My original post did touch upon that, but my primary concern is my family and their well-being. This is the best I can do. Hopefully I will not wrong them. But I'm not changing my mind until I see the proof that I can accept.
02/02/2007 11:13:30 PM · #45
I think preventing cancer with a vaccine aimed at the HPV virus is a noble pursuit. This is not about sex, or wether or not a girl is going to catch the HPV virus. However according to statistics, it is epidemic.

I would think that the cancer research dept is very proud of this new discovery and wants some test subjects. These girls will probably be followed over the next 40 years to see if it works.

I have vaccinated my two older children, but my youngest is only partially vaccinated due to choices I made after some research. When are they gonna have a vaccine for Breast cancer? Will be interesting to see who protests that and for what reasons.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 23:14:36.
02/02/2007 11:19:21 PM · #46
Originally posted by srdanz:

Therefore, I accept only empirical proofs, based on my own criteria, and not the FDA's or any other countries equivalent for that matter. Not picking on the US here, trying to stay out of political aspect of it.

You only want to use a medication "proven safe" then? Who exactly do you want them to be tested on to obtain that proof?

BTW: Since HPV is a "communicable" but not "contagious" disease, I do NOT think it should be mandatory, for school admission or anything else.

And I share your suspicions about the barely-hidden politico-economic agenda underlying this decision.

What would make more sense would be for the state to declare that it will pay for anyone who WANTS to get the vaccine, because that probably would represent a net economic gain vs. paying for cancer treatment of the indigent.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 23:23:08.
02/02/2007 11:34:38 PM · #47
Originally posted by GeneralE:


You only want to use a medication "proven safe" then? Who exactly do you want them to be tested on to obtain that proof?


I could not resist this opportunity for a layup:

<sarcasm>I think that there is a plenty of subjects now that it is mandatory. I just have to sit and wait for 10-15 years to see the results. </sarcasm>

Seriously, I would really like to see medicine take the direction of understanding the causes and driving towards the prevention of certain diseases, and not only to alleviate the consequences of those. I understand that this vaccination is geared towards this goal, but unfortunately I do not believe that the way in which it is being pushed on people is correct.

What do I recommend? Voluntary participation by well-informed people, with clearly outlined risks and potential benefits as well as the known side-effects.

I also agree that vaccination against non-contagious diseases shall not be compulsory. Fortunately, we have the right and means available to us to fight such statutes successfully.

respectfully,

-Serge
02/02/2007 11:38:55 PM · #48
Originally posted by srdanz:



What do I recommend? Voluntary participation by well-informed people, with clearly outlined risks and potential benefits as well as the known side-effects.


You mean like the 11,000 women who were already tested as part of the completed clinical trials all over the world? This vaccine isn't some concoction just off the lab bench. Like all vaccines before they become approved by the FDA and CDC, it's been in clinical trials for years, with thousands of people vaccinated and followed up on before a company can even approach the FDA with a request for approval.

How many people need to take it, and how long does a product have to be on the market before you would consider it safe enough? Automobiles kill 40,000 people every single year, just in the US. Do you drive?

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 23:40:33.
02/02/2007 11:44:48 PM · #49
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

While I'm in favor of vaccines in general, there is a political angle to this one.

Rick Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck who makes the vaccine. Merck has spent a ton of money trying to get this mandated in several states, Texas is the first.

Merck donates heavily to Perry and his projects. You don't have to be a math whiz to connect the dots. Perry is also a so called "Christian Conservative", he opposes abortion rights and stem cell research. His usual recommendation for preventing STDs in abstinence. I can respect that position, however futile it is, but it doesn't jive with the mandated vaccine to prevent STDs in young girls. I wonder how his conservative base will feel about him mandating vaccines to prevent STDs in 11 and 12 year old girls?

If you don't know Rick Perry now, you probably will soon. He's on the short list of possible VP candidates for the GOP in the next presidential election.

Just my 2 cents.


When isn't there a political angle? If you're in favor of vaccines in general shouldn't the only question be does the druge work?


Does it work? Is it safe?

I not against the vaccine per se, I just find it at least interesting that Perry is pushing when he has a history of doing just the opposite in these matters.

With his connections to Merck you have to wonder if his interest is protecting the popualtion or lining his political coffers. If it is the latter, then how can we trust that he's done the due deligence on the subject.

I do think that politics can be a postive driver in such matters, depending on the politician. I don't think for a second that Rick Perry has the best interest of the people of Texas first and foremost on his mind.


It really is too bad that this politcal stigma has been attached to something that could be so life changing. I again, don't agree that it should be made mandatory mainly because of the reason GeneralE already brought up, that it is communicable and not contagious. This just increases peoples suspicions behind the motives of the people enforcing the mandates. Sad really.... I'm sure there have been many tests and studies run on women who want nothing more than to find a cure but I'm guessing it's only been over the last 10 or so years which really is not too long.
02/02/2007 11:55:42 PM · #50
It is interesting to see the attitudes and acceptance that kids are going to have sex before they are married. Self-fulfilling prophesy? Neither me nor my wife had sex before we were married, and we're not freaks in any sense of the word! My wife has no fear of ever having cervical cancer. If everyone had such assurance, there would be no need for PAP smear tests. That's right, you or your lady friend are being tested annually for an STD.

In the anonymous health and lifestyle survey that the Nebraska Public Schools have high school students fill out, they report close to 65% viginity. That's high school. That's far from the 95% failure rate of abstinence claimed by someone else in this posting. Abstinence has been a growing trend all across the country over the past several years, so it's not just a matter of "hicks in the sticks". The CDC estimates that 9700 new diagnoses of cervical cancer will be made this year, and there are 300 million people in the US. If 95% of people 12 and up were having sex, wouldn't the prevalence be substantially closer to 100 million?

I think you underestimate the integrity and potential of our children to make smart choices when they are properly informed and there is a relationship of open communication. The fact that parents are so afraid to talk about sex, and to let their kids "figure things out themselves" or learn what they need to know from Desperate Housewives or whatever the prime-time sex-show du jeur is this season, jades the kids' understanding of what real relationships are about. I'm not so naive to believe that all teens with open communication with their parents are perfect moral judges, but just assuming that they are going to have sex no matter what is just condescending.

I'm not saying that the vaccine is bad, all the clinical trials show that it is effective and very safe, and it will be available to my patients and I'm prepared to give them the facts, just as I am prepared to give information and facts about abstinence. I believe there is a greater degree of separation between us and the monkeys than some others do when it comes to self-control and moral decisions. Don't give up on them! The vaccine should be available, but it certainly isn't a requirement.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:39:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:39:50 AM EDT.