California is on its way to becoming the first state to mandate Merck's GARDASIL vaccine for all 11 year old girls.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sb533.html

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.