80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But hey, it's Perry, he's a shit governor.
I don't like him. I voted 3rd party this time around.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But hey, it's Perry, he's a shit governor.
martha said:If we call it what it is: A CANCER vaccine, then will these people shut up?
The MAXIMUM of the median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. Claiming this vaccine "prevents cervical cancer", with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is ludicrous.
Liesje said:Well, 80s, I can agree with the objection that it hasn't been around long enough to say for sure, but for something that's gotten so much publicity, I'll assume it does what it claims as long as I am aware of what it DOESNT do. It has never claimed to prevent 100% of cervical cancer, not even close.
On the other hand though, knowing this makes me MORE inclined to support it being required for younger girls, so they get the vaccine before they even consider exposing themselves.
BonoVoxSupastar said:Most vaccines had objections at first, in fact most meds period had objections at one point.
80sU2isBest said:
I don't understand how you can say on one hand that it hasn't bee around long enough to know if it's safe and yet on the other hand support it being required?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Do you know the history of other vaccinations?
80sU2isBest said:
I don't understand how you can say on one hand that it hasn't been around long enough to know if it's safe and yet on the other hand support it being required?
80sU2isBest said:
Do you?
Devlin said:I wouldn't do it. I actually don't get the flu vaccine for this very reason. In the off chance I actually get the flu, I'll survive it. It's called using your head.
Devlin said:Yes, I do. And my point still remains: since very few of the 100 types of HPV actually cause cancer, there's no point in the vaccine. Just like the flu vaccine is pointless, as there are, oh, scads of types of flu. HPV isn't going to kill you, and it's as common as the cold. Why add unnecessary vaccines when it isn't really going to be all that helpful? I don't see any use in running to get a vaccine against something that odds are, isn't going to do anything to help. Sure, it probably isn't harmful, but geez, if it's just there for the long-shot maybe-possiblity, what's the point?
Devlin said:Unfortunately, I've probably already /had/ all those vaccs, as a baby.
Devlin said:Unfortunately, I've probably already /had/ all those vaccs, as a baby.
But my point is that we can't know that there aren't any hardmful side effects. A small number of people were studied for a small amount of time.Liesje said:No, it doesn't protect you 100%, but if insurance is going to pay for it and there are no harmful side effect, why would you pass?
Devlin said:And I repeat, I'm not against vaccines in general, I'm against having them mandated. And yes, I have seen people suffering from polio. I still would have preferred having the choice in which vaccines to take and which not to take, if any at all. Because I'm the type to ask if it's good for me, not be hysterically running for the nearest protective bubble every time something happens. This sounds a lot like the people who tell me, "Have you seen the person whose hand was mangled by the german Shepherd?" to convince me not to become a vet tech, forgetting I /was/ the person whose hand was bitten by a German Shepherd. I have the scarring to prove it - and surprisingly, I lived, without antibiotics, no less. Not saying the bite was all that severe, mind - and I know a bite's far different from polio, so spare me. Just pointing out that not everything is as dangerous as polio. And not everyone is going to die of everything.
Devlin said:And I repeat, I'm not against vaccines in general, I'm against having them mandated. And yes, I have seen people suffering from polio. I still would have preferred having the choice in which vaccines to take and which not to take, if any at all. Because I'm the type to ask if it's good for me, not be hysterically running for the nearest protective bubble every time something happens. This sounds a lot like the people who tell me, "Have you seen the person whose hand was mangled by the german Shepherd?" to convince me not to become a vet tech, forgetting I /was/ the person whose hand was bitten by a German Shepherd. I have the scarring to prove it - and surprisingly, I lived, without antibiotics, no less. Not saying the bite was all that severe, mind - and I know a bite's far different from polio, so spare me. Just pointing out that not everything is as dangerous as polio. And not everyone is going to die of everything.
Devlin said:And I repeat, I'm not against vaccines in general, I'm against having them mandated. And yes, I have seen people suffering from polio. I still would have preferred having the choice in which vaccines to take and which not to take, if any at all. Because I'm the type to ask if it's good for me, not be hysterically running for the nearest protective bubble every time something happens. This sounds a lot like the people who tell me, "Have you seen the person whose hand was mangled by the german Shepherd?" to convince me not to become a vet tech, forgetting I /was/ the person whose hand was bitten by a German Shepherd. I have the scarring to prove it - and surprisingly, I lived, without antibiotics, no less. Not saying the bite was all that severe, mind - and I know a bite's far different from polio, so spare me. Just pointing out that not everything is as dangerous as polio. And not everyone is going to die of everything.
Liesje said:
People are checking into this. You can see just by the responses in this thread. We have all been sharing information. Nobody's running to their doctor in hysterics. I asked mine about it the other day, because I was there anyway and she brought it up first.
Liesje said:As long as there are no risks getting the vaccine, why not?