Originally Posted By gadzuux Thanks. The reason I asked is that I threw a major hissy fit about fifty posts back because the original post had been whittled down by the admins and crucial info about opposition by christian conservatives had been removed. But it's all still at the link provided.
Originally Posted By woody >>You didn't answer my question<< I did. I said the other vaccines are not in the same category.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>You didn't answer my question<< <I did. I said the other vaccines are not in the same category.> How so? Measles, polio, whooping cough, tetanus... all are different types of diseases with different vectors and means of spreading, and different diseases' vaccines also work in different ways. What makes this one "in a different category?"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And I'll ask again specifically: <If we have a vaccination that will without question save thousands of lives a year (as Autopia Deb eloquently illustrated), why NOT use the same paradigm that we currently use for measles, which still leaves the ultimate decision up to the parents?> And "this disease is different" doesn't suffice as an answer. HOW is it different that the current vaccination paradigm doesn't make sense? I'm pretty sure cervical cancers kills more Americans every year than measles, so it can't be that... so what is it?
Originally Posted By barboy Dabob, nicely worded! You might consider a career in law. I am very curious as to how one is going to rebut/answer that one.
Originally Posted By woody It didn't take me long to figure out measles, polio, and whooping cough are highly contagious diseases where young kids can be exposed at a young age. At a school, you don't want an epidemic. I learned that tetanus cannot be spread from person to person and not indirectly through a virus like cervical cancer. However, tetanus is a disease and not a cancer, and it is quite treatable. The most obvious aspect of tetanus is its symptoms. Seeing young kids get spasms isn't the way to go. Perhaps that's why vaccinations are required. This leads to cervical cancer. The vaccine will only be of value for adults who may get exposed to HPV at an older age. There are no immediate benefits for kids. That's my explanation of how the vaccines for these diseases are in a different category. >>And "this disease is different" doesn't suffice as an answer. HOW is it different that the current vaccination paradigm doesn't make sense? I'm pretty sure cervical cancers kills more Americans every year than measles, so it can't be that... so what is it?<< To answer your new question since you couldn't get the other one to your liking, if you want to reduce the amount of deaths, I suppose the vaccine paradigm should include cervical cancer vaccine. However, I had to find if there are not any non-mandatory vaccines. ------------- <a href="http://www.dph.gov.mv/food/epi.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dph.gov.mv/food/epi .htm</a> "Non-mandatory vaccines such as Vercela, Typhoid, Meningitis, yellow fever, Cholera is also available at a cost for those who wish to use these services." --------- So there you have it. These are serious life threatening diseases that have vaccines, but are non-mandatory. Something else to think about. More parents are opting out of vaccines due to infant death. ------- <a href="http://www.korenpublications.com/content/3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.korenpublications.c om/content/3.htm</a> "Although the cause of crib death is officially classed as “unknown†disturbing reports have emerged over the years challenging that position. Independent researchers from different countries noticed that babies die of crib death during that period when they receive DPT shots. The reports, buried in journals and ultimately ignored, were termed “coincidence†by medical authorities." "As if on cue, news arrived from an unexpected quarter. Along with many European countries, Australia made childhood vaccination non-mandatory. When half of the families opted out of the vaccine programs SIDS (crib death) dropped by 50%! " ---------------
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < This leads to cervical cancer. The vaccine will only be of value for adults who may get exposed to HPV at an older age. There are no immediate benefits for kids.> I hate to be the one to break it to you, but millions of kids don't wait till they're adults to have sex. I don't remember the latest stats, but it's something 50% by the time they're 18 (i.e. by the time they get through high school). And even those that do wait eventually grow up and will receive the benefit of not getting cervical cancer. < "Non-mandatory vaccines such as Vercela, Typhoid, Meningitis, yellow fever, Cholera is also available at a cost for those who wish to use these services." So there you have it. These are serious life threatening diseases that have vaccines, but are non-mandatory.> Okay, but there hasn't been an outbreak of any of those diseases in the US, AFIAK, in many decades. They would seem to be valuable for Americans traveling to certain places overseas, but not much of a problem for anyone staying here. That's not so for cervical cancer, which still claims thousands of American women a year - something that hasn't been true of yellow fever for a long time. <Something else to think about. More parents are opting out of vaccines due to infant death.> No one ever suggested giving this vaccine to infants. Look, I see a case that could be made for not giving this vaccine as an expense issue (though my guess is that it would save us money as a country long term with the reduction in having to treat cervical cancer later), and for treating it like one of the more esoteric yellow fever-type diseases and available at an extra cost. I suppose a cold-blooded cost/benefit analysis could be done that concluded the x-thousands of deaths per year didn't justify the expense of giving it measles-like vaccine status. That's the only argument against that makes any sense to me, unless you'd like to make another. But what started this thread was the stated reasons of the conservative groups that giving girls this vaccine could lead to them having sex. That seems silly to me if you give it to them along with other shots at an age when sex is not on their radar screens.
Originally Posted By woody >>I hate to be the one to break it to you, but millions of kids don't wait till they're adults to have sex. I don't remember the latest stats, but it's something 50% by the time they're 18 (i.e. by the time they get through high school).<< Yes, of course, and people are making it quite clear about that. I can blame the liberals for making sex seem permissive. The reason for making it mandatory or non-mandatory is about how kids are affected since they are going to school. Even so, kids are not getting cervical cancer. And even adults who get HPV are not resigned to the fact that they will get the cancer. >>Look, I see a case that could be made for not giving this vaccine as an expense issue ... That's the only argument against that makes any sense to me, unless you'd like to make another.<< I have made another argument, YOU FAIL TO LISTEN. Kids are unlikely to get cervical cancer and adults who have HPV are unlikely to get it too. It really depends on the circumstance. Surely you can't argue another point that I think should be MORE persuasive to the conservatives. Let's get cervical cancer deaths down to zero. Let's try it out and see if it works. Perhaps there could be a compromise with limited trials in areas where cervical cancer are more pervasive. Let's see if the value of broad treatment in a limited geographic area works. There could be more education. Although kids won't get the immediate benefit and outbreaks are NOT an issue, the benefits of the vaccine on the health of women should make it a priority of pediatricians everywhere. This is really just the beginning.
Originally Posted By woody I don't mean to say in my previous post that I'm in favor of broad treatment. I think there should be screening from trials. I think there is much we don't know so any talk about mandatory vaccination is premature.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes, of course, and people are making it quite clear about that. I can blame the liberals for making sex seem permissive." Am I reading this right? You're blaming liberals for teens having sex???
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No, I'm blaming liberals for making sex seem permissive." Got proof? Sex has seemed permissive ever since people started doing it. Do you think sex before marriage is a recent phenomena? Teens having sex? Remember the Roaring 20's? You can trace the modern day attitude to at least that far back, and a lot more. Sounds like you just want to blame liberals for something. Not everything you don't like or approve of was caused by the big, bad liberal.
Originally Posted By ecdc "You can trace the modern day attitude to at least that far back, and a lot more. Sounds like you just want to blame liberals for something." Yup. It's just sheer ignorance to look back on the good ole' days as if they were somehow different. What's different (or at least used to be) is the shame factor. I do historical research and spend plenty of time reading old newspapers, particularly from 1890-1920. I got news for you - the headlines were just as sensational and just as much "debauchery" was going on. The Army did a study during WWII and found that over 60% of soldiers were not virgins, and their average age was between 18-22. It's a time honored tradition that each generation has to think the next one is rampant with laziness and sin, but it's never quite panned out.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I hate to be the one to break it to you, but millions of kids don't wait till they're adults to have sex. I don't remember the latest stats, but it's something 50% by the time they're 18 (i.e. by the time they get through high school).<< <Yes, of course, and people are making it quite clear about that. I can blame the liberals for making sex seem permissive.> Well, SPP and ecdc answered nicely on that one. I'll just add that here in 2006 the rate of teen pregnancy tends to be higher in red states than in those big bad liberal blue ones. <The reason for making it mandatory or non-mandatory is about how kids are affected since they are going to school.> I really don't know what you're getting at here. <Even so, kids are not getting cervical cancer. And even adults who get HPV are not resigned to the fact that they will get the cancer.> No, but it does kill thousands of women a year. And some of them picked it up when they were still teens. >>Look, I see a case that could be made for not giving this vaccine as an expense issue ... That's the only argument against that makes any sense to me, unless you'd like to make another.<< <I have made another argument, YOU FAIL TO LISTEN. Kids are unlikely to get cervical cancer and adults who have HPV are unlikely to get it too. It really depends on the circumstance.> Okay, that's an argument, but not a very good one. Kids (and adults) are unlikely to get tetanus too, but we give 'em the shot. <Surely you can't argue another point that I think should be MORE persuasive to the conservatives. Let's get cervical cancer deaths down to zero. Let's try it out and see if it works. Perhaps there could be a compromise with limited trials in areas where cervical cancer are more pervasive. Let's see if the value of broad treatment in a limited geographic area works.> Perhaps. Although I don't think any area of the country has a tremendously greater incidence of cervical cancer than others. <There could be more education. Although kids won't get the immediate benefit and outbreaks are NOT an issue, the benefits of the vaccine on the health of women should make it a priority of pediatricians everywhere.> Okay. But I guess the argument is: should this just be something that pediatricians recommend (for a fee, if they bother to do it, IF the kids go in to see them - and there are millions of kids whose families don't have insurance who rarely if ever see a pediatrician), or should this become part of the standard vaccination protocol?
Originally Posted By barboy "liberals for making sex seem permissive." woody, I'm on board your train with this one. Loose sex/multiple partner sex/unconventional sex/fornication are far more associated with liberal views compared to conservative ones. This most definitely does not mean that those who vote Bush, support Culters, Savages and Hannities don't practice fornication. So your word "seem" is very much appropriate because after all we are talking about perceptions more so than reality.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And to follow this "train" to its logical conclusion ... anyone who engages in sex outside of marriage deserves whatever they get, right? Be it cancer, HIV/AIDS, STDs, pregnancies - they were irresponsible and hence need to take the responsibility for their own actions. Compassionate conservatism strikes another blow.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I know an innocent boy who is a victim of this disease, he will have to experience all the milestones of his life without his wonderful mother. I'm not saying the vax should be manditory, but it should be available to anyone who wants it for themselves or their daughters.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The "mandatory" status ensures accessibility for a much larger percentage of women and girls. And included within the mandatory status is the "opt out" option, just as with all other vaccines.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By woody >>Well, SPP and ecdc answered nicely on that one. I'll just add that here in 2006 the rate of teen pregnancy tends to be higher in red states than in those big bad liberal blue ones.<< They didn't answer nicely. They gotten carried away and didn't answer my point. It is a simple fact that kids are having sex. It is another fact when sex is promoted via the liberal media and liberal morals. You're the one who cited some interesting stats. And now you're saying the Blue States are less "blue" than the Red States. I'm sure you'll also say society doesn't happen in a vacuum and you said basing treatment on geographic location won't work. Is that right? I thought you might say the Red States deserved it more than the Blue States, but you didn't. >>Okay. But I guess the argument is: should this just be something that pediatricians recommend (for a fee, if they bother to do it, IF the kids go in to see them - and there are millions of kids whose families don't have insurance who rarely if ever see a pediatrician), or should this become part of the standard vaccination protocol?<< There should be a checklist of treatment where parents get informed of the vaccine. However, making it mandatory suggest government interference where there isn't an societal emergency is going too far. I think as a matter of policy, it isn't necessary to enforce non-emergency treatment. As for insurance, let's not ask for univeral health insurance.
