Required STD shots worry some parents - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-17-2007, 11:06 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Which is it? Civil liberties or science?
No kidding.

As a 13 year old, I would have chosen the vaccination. Since there is no law banning kids from being sexually active at this age, they should have access to this vaccine.

Parents are required to vaccinate/test kids for a lot of things. There is always going to be that slightest element of risk. For example, my brother almost died of staph infection as a newborn baby b/c of the PKU test (poking a baby w/ a needle).
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 11:06 PM   #107
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:57 PM
And why is choice so important to you now? It wasn't so important in another recent thread.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-17-2007, 11:10 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


You know if adult women want to make adult decisions that's cool, but to impose this by law onto the parents of girls in the sixth grade is just overstepping civil liberties.
Why is this suddenly a case of civil liberties? The state already imposes a number of vaccines, like dPT, on parents of much younger children. The state imposes MMR vaccines on children despite some possible correlation with autism. Why is there not an outrage about those?

To be honest, this civil liberties argument seems like a total red herring.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 09:20 AM   #109
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
And why is choice so important to you now? It wasn't so important in another recent thread.
Leave it alone martha, no need to bring that into here.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 10:44 AM   #110
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Ok.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 10:45 AM   #111
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
And why is choice so important to you now? It wasn't so important in another recent thread.
I am for choice, but just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 10:54 AM   #112
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Do you have a choice about other required childhood vaccinations?
Now answer this question.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 11:13 AM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:57 AM
My only concern with vaccinations is there is a perception that there is some preservative in them that causes autism. I just hate the thought that we have one vaccine that is causing a whole different set of problems.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 12:08 PM   #114
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Do you have a choice about other required childhood vaccinations?
No.
So let's just be good little boys and girls, and let the State "mandate" another one...
We are being asked to approve whether 9 year old girls should be required to receive this in order to attend school, even though cervical cancer is not a communicable disease.
I am not morally opposed to this vaccination, but a longer trial period for the younger age group seems like the responsible thing to do.
Also, this vaccine may give people a false sense of security since you're only like 60% 'protected', unlike the usual vaccinations, polio, etc. that fully protect you.

"Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months."
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 01:10 PM   #115
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl
No.
So let's just be good little boys and girls, and let the State "mandate" another one...
Actually, in California, parents can decline required vaccinations. Fortunately, not many do so, so we don't have many outbreaks of dangerous communicable diseases.


Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl
We are being asked to approve whether 9 year old girls should be required to receive this in order to attend school, even though cervical cancer is not a communicable disease.
Those websites you've been visiting haven't given you the whole story (as I suspected). The virus that can cause cervical cancer is indeed communicable. It may be that you need to visit other websites with a different agenda.

Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl
I am not morally opposed to this vaccination
I think maybe you are. You're protesting just a little too much that you're not.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 01:25 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
onebloodonelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,106
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


No.
So let's just be good little boys and girls, and let the State "mandate" another one...
We are being asked to approve whether 9 year old girls should be required to receive this in order to attend school, even though cervical cancer is not a communicable disease.
I am not morally opposed to this vaccination, but a longer trial period for the younger age group seems like the responsible thing to do.
Also, this vaccine may give people a false sense of security since you're only like 60% 'protected', unlike the usual vaccinations, polio, etc. that fully protect you.

"Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months."
If a parent has an objection to any vaccine that is required by schools, a form can be filled out and the child is exempt from getting the vaccine.

Cervical cancer itself is not a communicable disease, but the virus that causes many of the cases is, so why shouldn't we protect against the virus?

NO vaccine is 100% effective. The example you used, polio, is 70-90% effective in most cases, not that much higher than the HPV vaccine.

If I got this vaccine (I'm 17), I can tell you right now that it would not make me go out and have random sex with several different people. A vaccine won't give a false sense of security as long as a parent is doing their job and instilling some values in their children.
__________________
onebloodonelife is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 02:22 PM   #117
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by onebloodonelife

A vaccine won't give a false sense of security as long as a parent is doing their job and instilling some values in their children.
The false sense I'm referrring to is that the value of the vaccine should not be overstated. Women should still protect themselves.
This vaccine has not proven effective against all cervical cancers.
According to the medical community "it remains critical that women undergo regular screening even if they have been vaccinated".

The guidelines also state that:

Females as young as 9 years may receive HPV vaccination.
HPV vaccination is also recommended for females ages 13 to 18 years to catch up on a missed vaccine or to complete the vaccination series.
HPV vaccine is not currently recommended for women over age 26 or for males.
There is not enough data to recommend for or against HPV vaccination for women ages 19 to 26.

Source: w w w.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_44118.html
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 02:27 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


The false sense I'm referrring to is that the value of the vaccine should not be overstated. Women should still protect themselves.
This vaccine has not proven effective against all cervical cancers.
According to the medical community "it remains critical that women undergo regular screening even if they have been vaccinated".

The guidelines also state that:

Females as young as 9 years may receive HPV vaccination.
HPV vaccination is also recommended for females ages 13 to 18 years to catch up on a missed vaccine or to complete the vaccination series.
HPV vaccine is not currently recommended for women over age 26 or for males.
There is not enough data to recommend for or against HPV vaccination for women ages 19 to 26.

Source: w w w.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_44118.html

No one in this thread has refuted any of this information or attempted to convince people that the vaccine is more effective than it is. I guess I don't see why this information would make the vaccine a bad idea? So far I still have not seen any information saying the vaccine is risky or has harmful side effects, even for 9 year olds.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 02:27 PM   #119
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl
Women should still protect themselves.
Well duh.

What is your exact problem with this whole thing? You go 'round in circles giving too many excuses.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2007, 02:35 PM   #120
Blue Crack Addict
 
onebloodonelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,106
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


The false sense I'm referrring to is that the value of the vaccine should not be overstated. Women should still protect themselves.
This vaccine has not proven effective against all cervical cancers.
According to the medical community "it remains critical that women undergo regular screening even if they have been vaccinated".

The guidelines also state that:

Females as young as 9 years may receive HPV vaccination.
HPV vaccination is also recommended for females ages 13 to 18 years to catch up on a missed vaccine or to complete the vaccination series.
HPV vaccine is not currently recommended for women over age 26 or for males.
There is not enough data to recommend for or against HPV vaccination for women ages 19 to 26.

Source: w w w.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_44118.html
Okay, no one has said that women shouldn't protect themselves just because they got the HPV vaccine. And, I don't see anything wrong with the data you put up. So, what are you getting at?
__________________

__________________
onebloodonelife is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com