Hey Texas girls! Don't want/need vaccinated against STDs? Too bad...

Snarky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:33:43

Quote from: Domino on Sat 03/02/2007 01:23:55
It is not about protecting girls from STD's, it is all about big business for these Pharmaceutical companies that make fortunes off their drugs. The more vaccines they dispense, the more money they make. They don't care about anything but the profit margin. They figure if they can require millions of girls to be vaccinated, then the more money they make. They don't actually care what the heck happens to you as long as their profit is in the black in the end.

But if these girls DON'T contract HPV and DON'T get cervical cancer because of this vaccine, then that means other members of Big Pharma sell less of their drugs.

Yeah, the drug companies want to make money, but because we make them compete against each other, they actually have to be better at making us healthier than the other drug companies in order to make that money. See? We're bribing them to do good! Quite ingenious...

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:34:12

Quote from: Becky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:15:36
It's not quite as simple as "don't want cervical cancer?Ã,Â don't have sex!" because whilst the MAIN way of transmitting HPV might be through sex, it's not the ONLY way.Ã,Â Worldwide cervical cancer is the 2nd most prevalent female cancer, in the US it is the 8th most prevalent.Ã,Â Why do you think it's very strongly recommended for women to have a pap smear once every five years after the age of 21, whether they are having sex or not?Ã,Â

Why does the issue of lifestyle even have to come into it?Ã,Â Surely we don't want people to die?Ã,Â Particularly when there is a preventative vaccine.Ã,Â HPV and cervical cancer can be contracted any number of ways, why does it become an issue -just- because intercourse is one of the main ways it can be contracted?Ã,Â What about cases of rape?Ã,Â Whoops!Ã,Â Those women wanted to stay abstinent, and now they've gone and contracted HPV.Ã,Â I'll say it again, would you be against a HIV vaccine?Ã,Â But the main way it's spread is through sex right?Ã,Â So only those who have sex should have to go and seek it?Ã,Â Ã,Â

Do you actually agree with ANY forms of vaccination?Ã,Â Because it seems by your logic that we shouldn't have any forms of compulsory vaccination at all, because the government is interfering in our lives!Ã,Â

I believe the circumcision preventing STD transmission was refuted pretty quickly, actually.

QuoteYou don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.
But you might walk down the street and get raped.

You can get cancer REGARDLESS of whether or not you have sex. Ã,Â That's partly what makes the mandatory vaccinations so rediculous. Ã,Â It's not going to make you immune from cancer. Ã,Â

Pap smears? Ã,Â Keyword: Recommended. Ã,Â (Not required.)

The rape issue is more complex than that. Ã,Â You can get ANY STD through rape, not just this one. Ã,Â Let's say the rapist is carrying syphillis. Ã,Â What then? Ã,Â

We don't want people to die, that's true. Ã,Â But in the end, it is THEY who must take responsibility for their health. Ã,Â Hypothetical situation: Ã,Â Dude eats McDonalds three times a day, gets plugged up and dies. Ã,Â Do we forbid EVERYBODY from eating fast food because of this?

Yeah, I agree with many vaccinations. Ã,Â Tetanus, meningitis, ruebella, and many more... Ã,Â Some are highly contagious, and can infect you through far little than the act of sex. Ã,Â The risk is higher for innocent bystanders to be infected.

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:36:25

Quote from: Becky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:33:19
I am FAR more frustrated about the lies and ignorance spread around the concept of vaccinating against a deadly cancer that just because it happens to be contracted through sexual intercourse, makes it not needed to be compulsory.Ã,Â

You can't contract cancer. It isn't contagious.

Snarky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:37:12

I see no reason why we should not make all vaccines mandatory, when the cost to society of treating that disease is greater than the cost of vaccination.

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:40:59

I wasn't talking about all cancer. I was specifically referring to cervical cancer. Here is a quick lesson on how it works: HPV causes Cervical Cancer. HPV is a virus that can be transmitted through sex (alongside other things), therefore, you can contract it. HPV encourages anomalies in cervical tissues, causing cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV

And most STDs are more easily treatable than cervical cancer induced by contracting HPV.

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:44:18

Yes, and the pollutants in our air can cause all kinds of diseases, and defects, including cancer. So how about mandatory gas masks for everybody! That way the corporations can keep spewing tons and tons of pollution into our world every year and everybody is happy.

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 01:46:44

The government should just hand out boat loads of condoms to males. Then there would be no reason for the vaccine. Safe Sex is the Best Sex.

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:48:08

Quote from: Domino on Sat 03/02/2007 01:46:44
The government should just hand out boat loads of condoms to males. Then there would be no reason for the vaccine.Ã,Â Safe Sex is the Best Sex.

omg, but condoms aren't effective in total disease prevention! Next up: Mandatory castrations.

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 01:48:21

Here's a quick lesson on how it REALLY works: Your government doesn't care whether or not you get cancer and die horribly... Actually no, let me rephrase that... they want you to get cancer and die slowly so they can get money from the hospitals that will bill you an arm and a leg for the rest of your (short) life. You go to your state representative and try to get them to make the vaccine mandatory in your area. If they have nothing to gain from it, they won't care.

and Raggit: start a company that makes such masks and work out some kind of monetary arrangement with Mr. Bush, and that won't be so farcical...

Becky · Sat 03/02/2007 01:49:43

I'm done with this pile of slippery slopes, straw men, and conspiracy theorists.

Ghormak · Sat 03/02/2007 01:49:50

Grasping for straws, Raggit? You're coming across as if Mandatory HPV Vaccination killed your family and pets.

Pesty · Sat 03/02/2007 01:50:54

Jesus, you people are willfully ignorant.

Becky wins this thread.

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 01:53:01

Ghormak,

Naw, mandatory HPV vaccinations haven't killed my family and pets. Ã,Â Yet... wait till they find out it causes some other disease.

More seriously, I'm upset about this because it is such an obvious you-scratch-my-political-back-I'll-scratch-your-corporate-back manuever, and it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

Like I said in the beginning: Ã,Â Where will it end? Ã,Â How far will the government go to make us "safer?"

Adamski · Sat 03/02/2007 01:56:56

Quoteand it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

The people who are getting vaccinated against a particularly nasty form of cancer? Why is this bad again?

Domino · Sat 03/02/2007 01:59:12

It is just a waste of time. People get FLU shots before winter and still end up getting the FLU, and sometimes even worse. This vaccine might not even work.

Pesty · Sat 03/02/2007 01:59:36

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 01:53:01
Ghormak,

Naw, mandatory HPV vaccinations haven't killed my family and pets. Ã,Â Yet... wait till they find out it causes some other disease.

More seriously, I'm upset about this because it is such an obvious you-scratch-my-political-back-I'll-scratch-your-corporate-back manuever, and it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

Like I said in the beginning: Ã,Â Where will it end? Ã,Â How far will the government go to make us "safer?"

Who cares what the cause of it is as long as women are less likely to get cervical cancer?

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 02:01:59

Look up Merck's history. Lawsuit after lawsuit for negligence involved in the death of users of almost all of their drugs. Look up Gardasil. It's still in the testing phases. So technically, the girls these drugs are being forced on are guinea pigs...

I'm willfully ignorant? Fine. Call Bush, the governor of Texas, and Merck's CEO so I can kiss all their asses and join the club of the informed.

Raggit · Sat 03/02/2007 02:05:29

Quote from: Adamski on Sat 03/02/2007 01:56:56
Quoteand it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

The people who are getting vaccinated against a particularly nasty form of cancer? Why is this bad again?

Because, once again, this is a sexually transmitted disease, not something you can catch if somebody else in the room sneezes. Ã,Â This is another case of the government saying, "Okay, it's possible that the girls out there are going be at a higher risk of cervical cancer if they sleep with the wrong guy. Ã,Â Therefore, let's assume all girls are at-risk whores and force them to get this shot, conviently manufactured by Merck."

It is not wrong if the girls VOLUNTEER to be vaccinated against HPV, but to force them is wrong, in my view.

It's like the seatbelt thing: Ã,Â You're going to assume everybody is a bad driver and force them to wear a seatbelt. Ã,Â But even that is more acceptable than the shot, because OTHER bad drivers around you can put you at risk, as well as road conditions, etc.

Helm · Sat 03/02/2007 02:07:19

QuoteTherefore, let's assume all girls are at-risk whores

The goverment ain't assuming anything. You're the one making that value judgement right there.

I am not for any sort of mandatory anything when it comes to one's own health. But you're being ridiculous and taking a moral highground in a topic that doesn't have a strong moral strain to beging with.

Whores?

esper · Sat 03/02/2007 02:09:13

Yeah, Becky was right when she said girls could get it from rape (then again, it was also true that the rapist could have any number of STD's)... I've been on this the whole time because the drug isn't GUARANTEED to vaccinate anything... It's still undergoing a test phase. No one has any idea what the long term side effects of the drugs will be. And, like I've said, Merck is less than reputable.