If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandateMerck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
JOHN wrote:
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Jeff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote:
JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandateMerck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. The reality is that many 11-year girls will soon be sexually active. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. And you have every right to decline the vaccine. Jeff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandateMerck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them credit for. ;-) This is not to say that I can't think of any reasons to be potentially wary of the vaccine (currently, we're in the Catch-22 stage of not knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don't see this as one of them. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. On that, I agree with you. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Beliavsky wrote: On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them credit for. ;-) This is not to say that I can't think of any reasons to be potentially wary of the vaccine (currently, we're in the Catch-22 stage of not knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don't see this as one of them. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. On that, I agree with you. All the best, Sarah --http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously posted From Medical news today "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School Year 'Too Soon,' Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to require middle-school age girls to receive Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug Lowy -- head of the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Cellular Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of the vaccine -- said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ HealthBeat, 6/20).' full story fair and balanced... Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...75047&nfid=rss... They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . Thanks Vince |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote: Beliavsky wrote: On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them credit for. ;-) This is not to say that I can't think of any reasons to be potentially wary of the vaccine (currently, we're in the Catch-22 stage of not knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don't see this as one of them. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. On that, I agree with you. All the best, Sarah --http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously posted From Medical news today "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School Year 'Too Soon,' Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to require middle-school age girls to receive Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug Lowy -- head of the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Cellular Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of the vaccine -- said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ HealthBeat, 6/20).' full story fair and balanced... Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...75047&nfid=rss... They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child? It can be a mandate if it isn't Mandatory. Look it up. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandateMerck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
... Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child? It can be a mandate if it isn't Mandatory. Look it up. True. What they are mandating is that parents act like parents and make a decision. Jeff |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
Beliavsky wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. Be sure to be listening and paying attention when your daughters tell you that they are about to have their first sexual experiences and want you to arrange for them to have the vaccine. I am sure that they will tell you, particularly as they go to a school where such activity does not ever take place. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandateMerck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, bigvince wrote: On Jul 11, 2:40 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote: Beliavsky wrote: On Jul 11, 8:25 am, Jeff wrote: JOHN wrote: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html Good job California. Of course, it is not a true mandate, because parents have the option of opting out of the life-saving vaccine. Requiring 11-year olds to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease conveys the message that they are expected to be sexually active at that age or soon after, and that is not a message I want conveyed to my daughter. I was vaccinated against rubella when I was eleven or twelve, and it wouldn't even have occurred to me to see this as a message that I was expected to get pregnant in the imminent future. I had the sense to grasp that this was something that was meant to protect me for life so that if and when I was pregnant at some undetermined far-off future point, I would be protected then. Kids have a lot more sense than we often give them credit for. ;-) This is not to say that I can't think of any reasons to be potentially wary of the vaccine (currently, we're in the Catch-22 stage of not knowing whether there will be long-term effects and not having any great way of finding out other than trying it out), just that I don't see this as one of them. A government mandate to be vaccinated against a disease which is not spread by casual contact in schools is an unwarranted intrusion into family life. On that, I agree with you. All the best, Sarah --http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell Even some who helped invent this vaccine are against mandating it. Concerns about safety effectivenress and other concerns. Previously posted From Medical news today "Requiring HPV Vaccination For School-Age Girls For Upcoming School Year 'Too Soon,' Researcher Says" 6/26/07 "It is premature to require middle-school age girls to receive Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil for the upcoming school year, Doug Lowy -- head of the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Cellular Oncology and one of the scientists responsible for the development of the vaccine -- said on Wednesday, CQ HealthBeat reports (Bartolf, CQ HealthBeat, 6/20).' full story fair and balanced... Thanks Vince link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...75047&nfid=rss... They say a mandate would mean about a billion a year in sales . Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Vince, how is it a mandate if ANY parent can exclude their child? It can be a mandate if it isn't Mandatory. Look it up. Vince has trouble with complex concepts like being able to opt out makes it non-mandatory. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
To soon to mandate HPV vaccine | bigvince | Kids Health | 0 | June 26th 07 08:30 PM |
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? | JOHN | General | 9 | March 13th 07 07:55 PM |
What is wrong with the HPV vaccine mandate in Illinois? | JOHN | Pregnancy | 9 | March 13th 07 07:55 PM |
MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS | Bryan Heit | Kids Health | 12 | July 7th 06 12:18 PM |
MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS | Bryan Heit | Kids Health | 0 | July 4th 06 11:59 PM |