Vaccinations

[kriz]

What people need to realize is that this is a vaccine for an STD!!! They don't mention that because people don't want to think about their 16 year olds having unprotected sex. What about safe sex? Oh no, let's not even talk about it, let's try to make it mandatory for all young girls to be given these shots. Geez.

I totally agree with you there, snivelingchild. It's interesting that most people assume that ALL teens must have lots of sex very early. I think it's important to evaluate and discuss before a series of shots (and pills) are given.

[snivelingchild]

So in their interest to make money, true of any business, they spend billions of dollars on sham testing procedures (concocted just for show) guaranteed to clear their drugs as being safe, even though they know they are quite possibly dangerous and will kill/harm the women and children of their own country/family once released (or they simply don't know/care). That makes sense.



That's great news! Since the doctors and scientists of the CDC, FDA, FSA, and other regulatory agencies entrusted to protect our society gain their "knowledge" as to the safety of a drug/food/medicine simply by taking the manufacturer's word for it (based on these sham tests they do), I guess there's no longer any need to kill animals anymore doing safety testing. They can just make up the data instead. Hurray!

You completely misinterpret EVERYTHING I just said. I feel like I'm wasting my time to try and take the 5 spare minutes I have at the moment to try and quickly summarize my thoughts when you aren't even going to understand them anyway. (At least not in the ways I mean) Sorry I don't have all the free time in the world to explain to you my words, since it usually takes 5 posts just to explain what I meant in the first one.

[Enchantress]

I consider part of safe sex to be not having sex with someone until you have both been screened for STDs, unless neither of you had any previous partners. Putting on a rubber DOESN'T mean you're having safe sex in the least.


That would mean that if my potential sexual partner did turn out to have HPV (which approximately 80% of women in the UK do have, I don't know the statitics for men, but as most women catch HPV of men and most women don't have very many sexual partners, I assume the percentage must be quite high there too) I couldn't have sex with them, protected or otherwise, ever. Either that or I could sleep with them anyway, rendering having ourselves screened for HPV pointless and risking contracting a virus that could potentially kill me when there is a vaccination against it.

[Quantum Mechanic]

I hear Bob was fired and then murdered. See he had threatened to go public with the truth that their organization's entire existence was based solely to lull the general public into a false sense of security so that the drug industry can peddle their poisons and mind control drugs on all of us.:rolleyes:

That's the biggest thing that gets to me..if this was really the case, why no one has come forward? There's so many people, and it's not all just CEOs and the like, there are researchers and people who aren't on so much the business side of things - why wouldn't any of them say anything?

[Mahk]

Although she seems to think I've misconstrued her overall meaning, I must admit that I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil (which helps prevent girls/women from contracting HPV type 16 and 18, together responsible for 70% of cervical cancer, the 5th leading cause of cancer death not to mention genital warts and other forms of cancer) should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government; unlike air borne diseases that threaten schoolchildren simply from attending school, sex is optional, but attending school is for the most part compulsory.

As for my own hypothetical teenage daughter who insists "But I don't like boys, or girls for that matter, and will never have sex so I don't want the shot and if for some odd reason I change my mind later in life I'll simply have all my sex partners tested fist." *loud buzzer* Nope. You're getting the shot, young lady, and you're going to wear your safely belt too, like it or not.

"But Dad, if I'm careful not to be in a car accident there's no need for the safety belt!" Oh, puh-leez.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sniv, I'm sorry if I misconstrued your words and that I snapped. Perhaps instead of taking my post as addressing you, which I must admit I was initially attempting to do, instead it should be taken as my thoughts about the people who think the vaccination/medical industry is morally corrupt and out to get us. NOT YOU.

If I seemed a little nasty it was because I was lashing out at them. Sorry if I was taking it out on you.:o

[snivelingchild]

That would mean that if my potential sexual partner did turn out to have HPV (which approximately 80% of women in the UK do have, I don't know the statitics for men, but as most women catch HPV of men and most women don't have very many sexual partners, I assume the percentage must be quite high there too) I couldn't have sex with them, protected or otherwise, ever. Either that or I could sleep with them anyway, rendering having ourselves screened for HPV pointless and risking contracting a virus that could potentially kill me when there is a vaccination against it.

I never said that no one should get vaccinated. I said everyone should weigh the risks/consequences for themselves, on an individual basis, the way it SHOULD be for ALL vaccines.

Mahk, how about letting your hypothetical daughter choose for herself? Or can she be mature enough to decide when to have sex, but not mature enough to decide for herself? (Yeah, I know, millions of kids make bad decisions, but so much of this is parenting. Hopefully Mahk will raise his fake child to respect themselves, and he will have many, many honest, open talks with them about when to decide to have sex, and whatnot. Come on, go with it.)

[Mahk]

She get's to pick her boyfriends/girlfriends, music, sexual activity, drug use, etc (within limits), but as for wearing a helmet to ride a motorcycle, a safety belt to drive a car, or an anti HPV shot to interact freely with humans, I get to choose these sorts of things while she's 9-12 years-old, not her. She can sue me in court if she doesn't like it but I'm pretty sure I'm going to win.;)

[Mahk]

oops, duplicate post removed

[Ruby Rose]

I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government... sex is optional

But that's precisely why universal compulsory vaccination is the right choice here - it completely neutralises any moralistic or judgemental aspect of the transmission of the disease. In a nutshell: cervical cancer kills, the vaccine doesn't. The fact that currently one known route of contracting the disease is HPV, and currently we know that one route of transmission for HPV is sexual intercourse is something of a red herring because our society still makes negative judgements about women's sexuality.

It would be wrong to put any young person or any parent in a position to have to be making a judgement about the entire life experiences and sexual choices of a woman when she is a 9 year old child - or even when she is 14 - instead, by vaccinating everyone, no-one has to say "Is she going to be the kind of girl who will?" or "Does she come from a family where her parents might now or in the future hold different views about sexuality than she does and she feels more comfortable concealing details of her sex life from her parents?" or "Will she ever in her life have unprotected sex with anyone including her life partner?". If everyone's covered, it's not about sex any more.

[Gorilla]

Mahk, how about letting your hypothetical daughter choose for herself? Or can she be mature enough to decide when to have sex, but not mature enough to decide for herself? (Yeah, I know, millions of kids make bad decisions, but so much of this is parenting. Hopefully Mahk will raise his fake child to respect themselves, and he will have many, many honest, open talks with them about when to decide to have sex, and whatnot. Come on, go with it.)

i don't think it is just down to parenting. you could have the best parents in the world but you still might not want to share the details of your sex life with them. i don't think any girl can tell how her life is going to pan out at the age when the vaccine needs to be administered for it to be effective.

i agree with what Ruby Rose said above.

[herbwormwood]

I consider part of safe sex to be not having sex with someone until you have both been screened for STDs, unless neither of you had any previous partners. Putting on a rubber DOESN'T mean you're having safe sex in the least.

I would like to politely point out that your opinion is a minority one..you are of course entitled to it.

For any sexually inexperienced people reading this forum, the facts are that most sexually transmitted infections are made much less likely to be transmitted by the practice of safer sex.
Anyone who has been involved in sexual health enducation will always use the term safer sex rather than safe sex, for obvious reasons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/enjsex_safersex.shtml

Condom use not only reduces risk of unwanted pregnancy, but also provides one of the best ways of reducing transmission of all sexually transmitted diseases, including the one under debate).
:thumbsup:

[Mahk]

Ruby Rose, you make a very compelling argument. I'm not 100% certain what to think. It is a difficult issue for me because I see two different rights in direct opposition to each other:

A) People have the right to insist that the general population does their best to keep contagious diseases at bay, including the use of compulsory vaccinations, so we all may move about society freely and not be afraid to send our kids to school.

versus

B) People who believe in things I think are complete poppycock like fairies, gremlins, god, ghosts, Bigfoot, and "Gardasil causes autism and death" (or whatever they think it causes) have a right to believe as they do.

As you might know from other threads, I vehemently fight for the freedom of religion even though I myself have none. I see this hysteria against vaccinations similarly to a religion. Even though I personally only care about "right A", I feel compelled to stand up for people who care about "right B" even though in my book they are delusional.

[bradders]

I do believe in universal vaccinations (wishing they were vegan) but not in forcing people to have them. There is a bit of a fear/ reality imbalance though such as the autism claims and the mmr jab (falsified research that pretty much only said could and link, which are just corollary not proof) and has been discredited since. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3308485.ece

[snivelingchild]

It is delusional just to want to stay away from vaccines because it seems unnecessary??? WTF??

I'm sorry, you can't force me to put ANY substance into my bloodstream, even if it is equivalent to a placebo! I have the right to have an abortion, but not refuse medication?!? I don't necessarily think vaccinations have bad side effects, but I'm still not taking ANYTHING tested on animals and the like unless necessary!!! I don't even take pain killers for my migraine, but I'm stepping on your rights because not getting vaccinated MIGHT mean I get sick (even though vaccinations are not 100% and do not last a lifetime) and pass it on to you? This is why I want to live out in the woods away from all people.

I mean, yeah, I might walk out the door today and get raped. I'm not taking a vac on that chance. Frankly, I'd have a million worse things to worry about than HPV. If I was truly scared of getting raped all the time, I'd wear one of those things that latches on to a man's penis is he penetrates me. Wearing something in my vagina all the time, awesome! I still couldn't do that on my period. There are no guarantees in life. I think people forget that in this vastly disconnected world we live in where anything in a hallmark card is possible, and life can be perfect. What ever happened to nature and natural selection? If I die, and didn't do every possible thing I could have to prevent it, so what? I take some precautions, but I base my decisions on what I see the most need.

Should we force girls on birth control at age 12, because it is so likely they will have sex under whatever circumstances? It's just like a seatbelt or airbag, right?

[bradders]

with this vaccine I think it should be voluntary and to the point where there is an in school programme, like the bcg but that at a certain point it has to be the teenager's decision and the teenager should be able to get the vaccine or refuse it without parental consent .

[Ruby Rose]

I mean, yeah, I might walk out the door today and get raped. I'm not taking a vac on that chance. Frankly, I'd have a million worse things to worry about than HPV. If I was truly scared of getting raped all the time, I'd wear one of those things that latches on to a man's penis is he penetrates me.

Should we force girls on birth control at age 12, because it is so likely they will have sex under whatever circumstances? It's just like a seatbelt or airbag, right?

With complete respect to you, Sniv - you, as an adult, have every right to decide exactly whether you want to be vaccinated or not. That's not really the point - and the HPV vaccination isn't going to be offered to us, so it's not really something we have to make a personal decision about. (So we can save our money on the vagina bear traps!) And so it's really not personal, it's a theoretical discussion.

For me, the issues really on the table here are:
a) There is a disease which can kill which has a 'lifestyle' transmission factor. There is a vaccination which can negate this factor. Vaccinating girls under 9 is, you're right, a "seatbelt and airbag" approach, the underpinning rationale for which is that as a parent (or as a child making the decision for herself) you don't need to make any judgement about the child's lifestyle choices under all circumstances for her entire life. If as a parent you opt your child out of vaccination, you are making a moral judgement on her behalf about her future (unknowable) lifestyle/choices.

b) All medications are currently animal tested in order to be legal. Vaccines no more or less than other medications. For some/all (debatable point as the information is mixed) vaccinations there is an addition animal component/'ingredient'. Is vaccination "worse" than taking other medications - i.e. is preventing illness as morally okay as curing an illness after it has been contracted?

[Ruby Rose]

with this vaccine I think it should be voluntary and to the point where there is an in school programme, like the bcg but that at a certain point it has to be the teenager's decision and the teenager should be able to get the vaccine or refuse it without parental consent .
As I understand it, the effectiveness of this vaccination relies on the girl being vaccinated before she becomes sexually active. Whilst I fully understand and respect that there are plenty of women here on this forum, and in the world at large, who do not become sexually active until late teenage years or beyond (and I applaud their maturity in so doing - to be honest, I wasn't among them), statistically speaking many teenagers are becoming sexually active prior to the point in the curriculum where sex education is taught. In effect, you would be relying on the entire current pre-teen population of the countries who have the vaccine having an amazing sudden upswing of maturity and insight: to be able to fully relate their current feelings and behaviours to all the possible twists and turns her future might take. No more "invincible youth" effect, in the way that young people who smoke or eat burgers all the time don't currently fully take on board the impact this will have on their health in later years. I think your position is liberal, but untenable in this situation. :rolleyes:

[snivelingchild]

As for B, that's why I say not to take medication unless there is no good alternative. I don't need a pain killer for my migraines, so I just deal with it. It's just pain. I would take meds to save my life, but only if it's not too intensive. I wouldn't take an organ transplant or want to be kept alive by machines, or anything like this. I just don't see a vaccine (which is never 100%) for something you can take many steps to avoid, as necessary. That's me. If you want to take it, fine. You want it for your daughter? I personally wouldn't do it if my daughter didn't want it, but that's me. I'm against legislation to make it mandatory. Plus, the vac is available to women of all ages, so it is an issue with me is someone thinks I am stupid for not getting it, because I could be raped or something. Yeah, I know it wasn't said like that, but those points were mentioned.

Edt: Okay, didn't know the above. I thought it was for all ages.

I still stick by my guns that making a 9 year old girl take a vac against an STD is like putting her on birth control before she is sexually active, and not giving her a choice.

[bradders]

As I understand it, the effectiveness of this vaccination relies on the girl being vaccinated before she becomes sexually active. Whilst I fully understand and respect that there are plenty of women here on this forum, and in the world at large, who do not become sexually active until late teenage years or beyond (and I applaud their maturity in so doing - to be honest, I wasn't among them), statistically speaking many teenagers are becoming sexually active prior to the point in the curriculum where sex education is taught. In effect, you would be relying on the entire current pre-teen population of the countries who have the vaccine having an amazing sudden upswing of maturity and insight: to be able to fully relate their current feelings and behaviours to all the possible twists and turns her future might take. No more "invincible youth" effect, in the way that young people who smoke or eat burgers all the time don't currently fully take on board the impact this will have on their health in later years. I think your position is liberal, but untenable in this situation. :rolleyes:

I think somewhere around the age of 10 or 11 is a good time for sex ed and the vaccine shortly after

[Ruby Rose]

It's a good position, Sniv - and really interesting to talk about. (And I think Mahk is pretty upfront that he sometimes makes a bit of an overstatement for effect - no offence to you either, Mahk! - so I can see where his remark would have felt personal and a dig for you).

It's so interesting to tease out those tiny differences between us as vegans as to our personal 'lines in the sand' about what is "practical and reasonable". My position is exactly as valid as yours - and I'm so delighted that we have the freedom to talk about our lines... that we don't live in societies where our rights and choices as women about our health, sexuality and reproduction are largely in our own hands.

Like you, I try and avoid medications where there's an alternative - and sometimes the alternative is just putting up with it (though I suspect I'm more of a wimp than you are!). For me, I don't think preventative medicine is worse than reactive medicine - in fact, if I think about it, I probably have some sense that it ultimately prevents more medication/treatment being carried out if the person were to contract the disease. I'm also aware that my feelings about vaccination are coloured by my experiences in my work with people who are living with the results of diseases for which there are now vaccines - I guess I'd just like everyone to live long and prosper! (And we won't come and disturb you in the wood unless you invite us to come and party :) ).

[Ruby Rose]

I think somewhere around the age of 10 or 11 is a good time for sex ed and the vaccine shortly after
I completely agree! Now in terms of practicality, 11 would be the first year of secondary school, 10 would be the last year of primary school. If you give Sex Ed when children are the "big fish" in the school pool rather than the "minnows" at the bottom of the next school, I suspect (though I have no evidence) that it would encourage them to feel mature and 'grown up' - which is exactly the approach you'd want for Sex Ed. But I'm still not confident that every girl that age would be able to make an appropriate choice for herself about vaccination. What do you think?

It's the same age that the rubella vaccination is given to girls too.

[bradders]

I think on the question of prevention v treatment the old phrase "why sell 1 cure when you can sell 1000 palliatives" is really relevant. If people are vaccinated then there is less need to treat them afterwards, less human suffering from the diseases and vastly reduced transmission/ infection risks even for those unvaccinated. This means that in the end there would be fewer medicines required and as a consequence reduced use of animal testing and use in medicine.
It does make more sense to lock the door rather than try to get your things back after you have been burgled.

[bradders]

I completely agree! Now in terms of practicality, 11 would be the first year of secondary school, 10 would be the last year of primary school. If you give Sex Ed when children are the "big fish" in the school pool rather than the "minnows" at the bottom of the next school, I suspect (though I have no evidence) that it would encourage them to feel mature and 'grown up' - which is exactly the approach you'd want for Sex Ed. But I'm still not confident that every girl that age would be able to make an appropriate choice for herself about vaccination. What do you think?

It's the same age that the rubella vaccination is given to girls too.

I think it should be towards the end of primary school (around the age when physical maturation begins) and that there should be some time for it to 'sink in' but that it should be before there is any real likelyhood of sexual activity.

[kriz]

Although she seems to think I've misconstrued her overall meaning, I must admit that I agree with Sniv in that a vaccination such as Gardasil (which helps prevent girls/women from contracting HPV type 16 and 18, together responsible for 70% of cervical cancer, the 5th leading cause of cancer death not to mention genital warts and other forms of cancer) should probably not be a compulsory vaccination as stipulated by the government; unlike air borne diseases that threaten schoolchildren simply from attending school, sex is optional, but attending school is for the most part compulsory

This is where I agree, too - as a vegan I only want to take medication and vaccines that are absolutely necessary. Airborne diseases are almost impossible to control, unless we opt to home-school, not take public transportation etc. I'm sure there will be many more vaccines coming out on the market in the near future which will prolong our lives, but that doesn't mean we should jump on every single one, or?... I will carefully select which one applies to my life at the time, if I'm at risk for a certain disease through my job or life situation. I believe it's required in schools and certain jobs for a very good reason, and I have always complied.

I'm not completely anti-vaccination (neither is Sniv as I understand), but I believe we should have a choice in most cases, especially when it comes to STD and cancer prevention.

[Ruby Rose]

I still stick by my guns that making a 9 year old girl take a vac against an STD is like putting her on birth control before she is sexually active, and not giving her a choice.

I can completely see that you're uncomfortable with the age issue - and the way you've phrased it here, it's suggesting that in some way a vaccination at 9 is giving a child the "go ahead" to be sexually active at 9. :eek: I suppose, for me, it seems perfectly normal to believe that a girl of 9 will survive into adulthood, and as a grown woman is likely to be sexually active at some point in her life. So to me, it's nothing like putting a child on birth control, because it's nothing to do with the child's current experiences (I bloody well hope). From this perspective, it's a bit hard to see what choice would be taken away from the person - unless, the right to contract cervical cancer as an adult? :confused: