Gardasil or Jesus?

[Justforfun000]

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=62761

Now I can somewhat understand the cautionary reason given in the article below regarding the newness of the vaccine, even though I still believe it warrants its usage. It's too positive in its potential.

But what the fuck is this "for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs"? What goddamn religious beliefs could they possibly trump out that the Bible would SPECIFICALLY say against protecting yourself from STI's? These assholes are just trying to demand a right to moralize their daughters lives by risking their bodies.

It's absolutely reprehensible. I've actually read some statements from parents more or less saying that their daughters shouldn't be promiscuous in the first place, and so shouldn't need the vaccine and this will only "encourage" young people to have sex. My God these people are unbelievably fucking stupid. "Encourage"? Since when did ANY teenager need to ENCOURAGED to have sex???

They would play games with their offsprings lives that could place them at serious risk for cancer just because they are worried they might play around early or too much???

I'm not sure if I'm blowing this out of proportion, I don't have any kids myself, but I'm sorry, this just seems incredibly wrong to me.

What if the girl becomes raped? What if her monogamous partner happens to HAVE the risk factors? 'What if' a MILLION things that would be completely WORRY FREE if she had this vaccine?

What if this world could take people"s religious beliefs and shove it up their ass along with where they have been keeping their common sense?

I have a question about "right to religious belief" that I was thinking about, but I'm going to start a new thread.





Texas Lawmakers Send Letter Asking Gov. Perry To Rescind Executive Order Mandating HPV Vaccination For Girls Entering Sixth Grade
13 Feb 2007

Thirty-two Texas lawmakers on Thursday sent a letter to Gov. Rick Perry (R) reiterating their plea for him to rescind an executive order that would mandate vaccination against human papillomavirus for girls entering the sixth grade, the AP/Dallas Morning News reports (AP/Dallas Morning News, 2/9). Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline's HPV vaccine Cervarix in clinical trials have been shown to be 100% effective in preventing infection with HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases. FDA in July 2006 approved Gardasil for sale and marketing to girls and women ages nine to 26, and CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices later that month voted unanimously to recommend that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the vaccine. GSK in April plans to file for FDA approval of Cervarix, and it expects approval by the end of this year. Perry on Feb. 2 signed the executive order, which will affect approximately 365,000 girls annually. Perry said that parents who do not want their daughters to receive an HPV vaccine "for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs," will be able to opt out of the requirement. Under the executive order, girls and women ages nine to 21 who are eligible for public assistance will be able to receive Gardasil at no cost beginning immediately. Perry spokesperson Krista Moody said the state would increase funding for existing health programs by $29.4 million annually to help cover the cost of the vaccine for low-income women and girls (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/6).

Letter, Bills, Reaction
Perry's order "usurped the legislative process," the letter -- signed by 31 Republican representatives and one Democratic representative -- said, adding, "While philosophic differences will dictate where our beliefs fall, no Texan would willfully abdicate their voice in the Legislature to a single office of their government" (AP/Dallas Morning News, 2/9). According to the Dallas Morning News, at least 26 of the 31 Texas senators also have signed a letter to Perry asking him to withdraw the order. The governor as chief executive officer of the state has constitutional ability to issue directives, Perry spokesperson Robert Black said. He added that lawmakers have the right to modify or rescind an executive order through legislation (Hoppe, Dallas Morning News, 2/8). Several bills have been filed this week to overturn Perry's order and to prevent the vaccine from being required for a student's admission to school, the San Antonio Express-News reports. Rep. Charlie Howard (R) has introduced a bill (HB 1115) that would block Perry's order (Elliot, San Antonio Express-News, 2/7). Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R) has introduced a duplicate bill (HB 1098) that would overturn the order, and state Sen. Jane Nelson (R) on Wednesday asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) to issue an opinion on the legality of Perry's order (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/8).

Editorial
"Gardasil may well be the huge medical breakthrough it appears to be," but "a rush to make it mandatory, less than eight months after FDA approval, could have detrimental consequences," a USA Today editorial says. The "cientific uncertainty" of Gardasil, the lack of public education about the vaccine and HPV being a sexually transmitted infection can "spark an anti-vaccine backlash that would result in fewer girls getting immunized against cervical cancer and other diseases," according to USA Today. "With more public education and real-life experience, these qualms may soon be overcome, and the vaccine may well deserve to be included on lists of required immunizations," the editorial says, adding, "For now, however, making [the vaccine] mandatory is premature." Sometimes, "promotion of a medical advance can move too fast for its own good," the editorial says, adding that the HPV vaccine "ought to be available at an affordable price to everyone who wants it after consulting with a doctor" (USA Today, 2/9).

Opinion Piece
"The executive order ... will help stop the spread of [HPV] and prevent cervical cancer in young women" and as "governor of Texas, I will do everything in my power to protect public health," Perry writes in a USA Today opinion piece. "Though some might argue that we should wait several years before requiring the vaccine, I believe such a delay unnecessarily risks the lives of young women," he writes. According to Perry, parents and guardians still will have the "final word" in deciding whether to vaccinate their children, and a "full debate will take place" before implementation rules are adopted in 19 months. If "Texas legislators want to debate and pass a different vaccine law, there is nothing standing in their way," Perry writes, concluding, "This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life" (Perry, USA Today, 2/9).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=62761

[Spetulhu]

Sex is BAD! Obedience is GOOD! Just tell your children to say NO!

There is no rational explanation for this behavior. It's no different than not strapping in your children while driving since "you're not going to get into an accident". Some parents don't tell their children about guns because they don't want anything to do with those themself. Hello? Nasty old perverts won't offer my children candy if I don't tell them to not go anywhere with unknown people.

It's the superstitious belief that evil won't knock on your door if you don't think about it. Head-in-the-sand approach to life.

[Raw Shark]

I've actually read some statements from parents more or less saying that their daughters shouldn't be promiscuous in the first place, and so shouldn't need the vaccine and this will only "encourage" young people to have sex.

How many kids in sixth grade would even ask what HPV stands for and involves, let alone look the meaning up, if they just casually told them they were getting yet another vaccine? Okay, not you guys back then, but how many kids currently living in a fundie household? Problem solved.

[Justforfun000]

How many kids in sixth grade would even ask what HPV stands for and involves, let alone look the meaning up, if they just casually told them they were getting yet another vaccine? Okay, not you guys back then, but how many kids currently living in a fundie household? Problem solved.

The problem is how do you convince the fundies of this?

[Broomstick]

Article URL: [url]But what the fuck is this "for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs"? What goddamn religious beliefs could they possibly trump out that the Bible would SPECIFICALLY say against protecting yourself from STI's? These assholes are just trying to demand a right to moralize their daughters lives by risking their bodies.

I'm going to address just this aspect.

To begin, there ARE some religions that are anti-vaccine. Not just anti this vaccine, but against all of them. I kinda hate bringing up the Amish, but I'm using them again.

I don't pretend to understand their reasoning, and I certainly don't agree with it, but basically the Amish are against vaccines, lightning rods, insurance and the like. I gather they see it as second-guessing God or something. At least they've been quite consistent in this for several centuries. Since they're willing to accept the consequences of their choices - they rebuild a building burned down by lightning out of their own funds, for example, impose quarantines where appropriate, and pay cash for medical treatment required by illness - without imposing on the larger community I say let them go about their way. Particularly in this instance - although extra-marital sex does occur among the Amish from time to time it's pretty damn rare and not a community with a high rate of STD's. Allowing them to skip the HPV vaccine is consistent with past practice in their case and puts few people at risk.

And, while I don't agree with the thinking, other religions that are anti-vaccine and have been consistently so could probably be skipped. We're not talking about smallpox, and immunizing the rest of the herd should leave us all OK. I'm not sure the net benefit would outweight the kicking and screaming that would occur if we forced their kids to get shots.

HOWEVER - Bible-thumpers who enthusiastically embrace other vaccinations should NOT get a free pass on this one. No picking and choosing, thank you very much.

[Justforfun000]

I don't pretend to understand their reasoning, and I certainly don't agree with it, but basically the Amish are against vaccines, lightning rods, insurance and the like. I gather they see it as second-guessing God or something. At least they've been quite consistent in this for several centuries. Since they're willing to accept the consequences of their choices - they rebuild a building burned down by lightning out of their own funds, for example, impose quarantines where appropriate, and pay cash for medical treatment required by illness - without imposing on the larger community I say let them go about their way. Particularly in this instance - although extra-marital sex does occur among the Amish from time to time it's pretty damn rare and not a community with a high rate of STD's. Allowing them to skip the HPV vaccine is consistent with past practice in their case and puts few people at risk.

That's a reasonable point to a degree. I still think they should simply alter the way they interpret their religion to a more pro-active stance though. Did not the Bible say "SUBDUE the earth"? This in itself implies adversity and struggles that we would have to fight against. I think it's more then reasonable to expect some of these challenges to be other organisms living off of us like parasites.

It'd be so easy to run with these sensible interpretations of the Bible. I don't understand why they would wish to hold themselves back from self-empowerent. Ah well. It still bothers me in regards to children however. It really is a national health issue, and even though the odds of risk exposure may be extremely low in this case, you are comparing a relative protection value of 100% to at least SOME risk of cancer that will ultimately hurt someone along the line.

Still, what can you do? The reality is the religious still have a lot of power in their muscles when they choose to flex it.

[Molyneux]

Article URL: [url]But what the fuck is this "for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs"? What goddamn religious beliefs could they possibly trump out that the Bible would SPECIFICALLY say against protecting yourself from STI's? These assholes are just trying to demand a right to moralize their daughters lives by risking their bodies.

I'm going to address just this aspect.

To begin, there ARE some religions that are anti-vaccine. Not just anti this vaccine, but against all of them. I kinda hate bringing up the Amish, but I'm using them again.

I don't pretend to understand their reasoning, and I certainly don't agree with it, but basically the Amish are against vaccines, lightning rods, insurance and the like. I gather they see it as second-guessing God or something. At least they've been quite consistent in this for several centuries. Since they're willing to accept the consequences of their choices - they rebuild a building burned down by lightning out of their own funds, for example, impose quarantines where appropriate, and pay cash for medical treatment required by illness - without imposing on the larger community I say let them go about their way. Particularly in this instance - although extra-marital sex does occur among the Amish from time to time it's pretty damn rare and not a community with a high rate of STD's. Allowing them to skip the HPV vaccine is consistent with past practice in their case and puts few people at risk.

And, while I don't agree with the thinking, other religions that are anti-vaccine and have been consistently so could probably be skipped. We're not talking about smallpox, and immunizing the rest of the herd should leave us all OK. I'm not sure the net benefit would outweight the kicking and screaming that would occur if we forced their kids to get shots.

HOWEVER - Bible-thumpers who enthusiastically embrace other vaccinations should NOT get a free pass on this one. No picking and choosing, thank you very much.

Sorry to be confrontational - but fuck the Amish. Lightning rods and insurance are one thing, but vaccines are another story entirely - they affect the immunity of the general population.

You have NO right to practice your religious bullshit if it puts me and mine in danger.

[Surlethe]

Sorry to be confrontational - but fuck the Amish. Lightning rods and insurance are one thing, but vaccines are another story entirely - they affect the immunity of the general population.

You have NO right to practice your religious bullshit if it puts me and mine in danger.

If you and yours are allowed to and do get vaccinations, then how the fuck is letting the Amish not receive vaccination going to endanger you and yours?

[Surlethe]

As for the OP, this reminds me of the economically conservative thinking that has infused the religious right recently. The 'deterrence' argument against HPV vaccinations reminds me of the argument against airbags in cars: if all cars had, say, nails driven through the wheel instead of airbags that deploy in wrecks, you wouldn't have nearly as many accidents.

[Molyneux]

Sorry to be confrontational - but fuck the Amish. Lightning rods and insurance are one thing, but vaccines are another story entirely - they affect the immunity of the general population.

You have NO right to practice your religious bullshit if it puts me and mine in danger.

If you and yours are allowed to and do get vaccinations, then how the fuck is letting the Amish not receive vaccination going to endanger you and yours?

The more people not vaccinated, the greater the probability that a variant of the disease in question will develop a vaccine-resistant form, and render the vaccine useless. Un-vaccinated individuals can become infected and serve as a breeding ground for new and nastier forms of the pathogen in question.

[General Zod]

Sorry to be confrontational - but fuck the Amish. Lightning rods and insurance are one thing, but vaccines are another story entirely - they affect the immunity of the general population.

You have NO right to practice your religious bullshit if it puts me and mine in danger.

If you and yours are allowed to and do get vaccinations, then how the fuck is letting the Amish not receive vaccination going to endanger you and yours?

The more people not vaccinated, the greater the probability that a variant of the disease in question will develop a vaccine-resistant form, and render the vaccine useless. Un-vaccinated individuals can become infected and serve as a breeding ground for new and nastier forms of the pathogen in question.

So. . .how does this harm you and your family if they have vaccines against a given disease again? There's always going to be a given percentage of the population who don't get a vaccination to a particular disease for whatever reason. And viruses will mutate regardless of vaccinations.

[Broomstick]

Sorry to be confrontational - but fuck the Amish. Lightning rods and insurance are one thing, but vaccines are another story entirely - they affect the immunity of the general population.

You have NO right to practice your religious bullshit if it puts me and mine in danger.

If you and yours are allowed to and do get vaccinations, then how the fuck is letting the Amish not receive vaccination going to endanger you and yours?

The more people not vaccinated, the greater the probability that a variant of the disease in question will develop a vaccine-resistant form, and render the vaccine useless. Un-vaccinated individuals can become infected and serve as a breeding ground for new and nastier forms of the pathogen in question.

That would certainly be true for easily spread through casual contact or airborne diseases -- but HPV requires fairly intimate contact. Given the Amish custom of avoiding contact with outsiders, and their low rates of STD's (due to their sexual customs), I'm not sure forcible vaccination is worth the effort here.

Now, if you were talking about flu or smallpox or something else along those lines it would be a different story, although historically the Amish have been willing to submit to extended quarantine in such instances, which can also effectively halt the spread of disease.

Barring a sudden uptick in Amish rapists infected with HPV the risk involved with not vaccinating them is pretty damn minimal. Our efforts would be better spent on, say, vaccinating MEN against HPV, particularly the homosexual community, since it's not good for them, either.

There are always a certain pool of people who aren't or can't be vaccinated. People on immune-suppressing treatment, for example. And the pool of those people is growing, since most of them would have simply died a hundred years ago instead of living fairly normal lives. I forget the percentage range, but you don't actually have to vaccinate 100% of people to eliminate or severely restrict disease. And while such circumstances can lead to disease vectors developing resistance, it also tends to select for less virulent forms of the disease. After all, if the disease kills its host before it can reach another one that's the end of the genetic line, isn't it?

I can condone (although not really approve) granting a pass to people who live in enclaves with minimal outside contact, like the Amish. I can't condone skipping the vaccine in mainstream Fundies because their kids don't leave in isolation from the larger world, however much their parents want to believe that is so.

[Molyneux]

If you and yours are allowed to and do get vaccinations, then how the fuck is letting the Amish not receive vaccination going to endanger you and yours?

The more people not vaccinated, the greater the probability that a variant of the disease in question will develop a vaccine-resistant form, and render the vaccine useless. Un-vaccinated individuals can become infected and serve as a breeding ground for new and nastier forms of the pathogen in question.

That would certainly be true for easily spread through casual contact or airborne diseases -- but HPV requires fairly intimate contact. Given the Amish custom of avoiding contact with outsiders, and their low rates of STD's (due to their sexual customs), I'm not sure forcible vaccination is worth the effort here.

I was speaking in more general terms; sorry if it didn't come across that way.

Now, if you were talking about flu or smallpox or something else along those lines it would be a different story, although historically the Amish have been willing to submit to extended quarantine in such instances, which can also effectively halt the spread of disease.

See, there's something useful that you neglected to mention.

[Justforfun000]

See, there's something useful that you neglected to mention.

So now it's her fault?

lol. No, she's god a point. Considering they truly ARE quite isolated, I suppose exceptions could be reasonably made.

[Molyneux]

See, there's something useful that you neglected to mention.

So now it's her fault?

lol. No, she's god a point. Considering they truly ARE quite isolated, I suppose exceptions could be reasonably made.

Fault doesn't matter - if I'd known that they voluntarily quarantine themselves, I wouldn't have brought it up. Point conceded.

[PainRack]

Fault doesn't matter - if I'd known that they voluntarily quarantine themselves, I wouldn't have brought it up. Point conceded.

impose quarantines where appropriate

She did:D

I think this is a failure in marketing stragety though. Instead of focusing on the STD aspect, shouldn't people be more concerned with the cervical cancer?

[Junghalli]

Their logic is actually pretty easy to follow if you look at it from their point of view. Their daughters will be more afraid to have premarital sex if they aren't vaccinated. It's the same logic as wanting to ban abortion - I'd be much more afraid to have premarital sex if abortion was illegal. As far as these people are concerned anything that makes people afraid to have premarital sex has to be good. Sure, there's a chance that they'll get have premarital sex anyway and get the disease, but they don't care. As far as these people are concerned it's better to put your daughter at an elevated risk of dying of cancer than at an elevated "risk" of having premarital sex. Their belief system is that nothing is more important than living according to what they believe is God's laws, and that includes human life.

Scary, but true.

[The Spartan]

*snip fear of sex*

That's a good point, but they're not applying this logic consistantly or else they'd be railing against the Hepatitis vaccine. Not surprising really.