(Massachusetts) Patrick seeks $72m hike in health aid (includes Gardasil coverage)

[Bill McBlueState]

Governor Deval Patrick announced yesterday that his budget would dramatically increase public health spending next year, adding $72 million to strengthen disease prevention services and provide universal state coverage for three new immunizations for children, including a vaccine to help protect girls from the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

...

According to the governor's office, the money would provide ... 72,126 girls between the ages of 9 and 18 with a human papilloma virus vaccine, which helps prevent sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

...

Angus McQuilken, vice president for public relations and government affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, praised Patrick for proposing universal access to the vaccine.

"Gardasil is the first vaccine that can actually prevent a form of cancer," he said. "This vaccine is an important step forward for women's health, but it will only achieve its potential if it's available to every woman who needs it."

---

full article in the Globe

[R_M]

1. So long as it's optional.

[depakid]

2. Why all this worry about optional?

Bunch of libertarian non-sense. This needs to be on the vaccine schedule for all school kids of a certain age- like other immunizations are, starting with 6th grade girls.

[R_M]

3. GOD DAMN IT!

I do NOT want to be a guinea pig for anything new. As AX10 said, there are extremists on both sides of the aisle.

We mandated the small pox and polio vaccines because those diseases were killings blocks up blocks of children deliberately. Cancer is NOT doing this!

:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[depakid]

4. There you go again with the "guinea pig" meme

and listening to people who have no understanding of the science and procedure- but are out to spead misinformation and fuel unfounded paranoia. The vaccine has been thoroughly tested over many years on a large number of women. The results are sound and the conclusions represent widespread international consensus among the world's scientists.

This of course is not an issue in other western countries. Only in America would so many people deliberately choose to (and advocate) exposing one's children to the risk of a preventable disease that causes cancer.

[R_M]

5. Give it a break.

Anyone brings that needle near my arm, I'll break it. PROMISE!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Ah

Afraid of needles?

[R_M]

8. I do NOT want this vaccine!

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Obviously.

I'm trying to figure out why.

[R_M]

12. Leftists are just as bad a rightists.

You say that the whole "mandate" thing is "bunk", yet you refuse my right to reject this vaccine. :wtf:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3134777&mesg_id=3135400

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. LOL

:rofl:

[depakid]

34. You can refuse it all you want-

However, if reason wins out, you (or your daughter- and later all kids) won't get into school without showing proof of immunization. This isn't a new idea, BTW- and comments like yours show just how necessary it is to protect the public health.

When I went back to grad school, I had to show either proof of a valid rubella vaccination or a titer showing that I already had immunity. Funny, I didn't find that intrusive- and didn't lay out foolish libertarian arguments as to why "I" should be exempt.

BTW: The issue is long since settled.

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated.

The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination:

This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned."'

With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society.

The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts_brief.htm

[R_M]

37. Cervical cancer kills 4000+ each year..

therefore the vaccine should be mandated, the Flu kills 50000+ each year and there should be no mandate for that vaccine? Really makes alot of sense! :crazy:

[mhatrw]

65. This is an issue among all who consider GARDASIL's

high cost and unknown risks vs. its limited and unproven benefits compared to using condoms and getting an annual HPV screening exam.

[AX10]

67. Remember DES? Three cousins of mine are...

infertile because of it. Long term affects are a reality.

[mhatrw]

72. Not in Big Pharma La La Land, it seems.

"If the FDA doesn't reject, we must all inject!"

[AX10]

73. Good one!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Again with the "must" misconception.

What's the deal with that?

:shrug:

[mhatrw]

87. What's the deal with pretending that "mandatory" means "voluntary"?

If it actually does, why not just call it "voluntary" and end the entire controversy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. I'm not the one making an issue out of it being optional.

I'm not the one pretending it's anything but optional.

[mhatrw]

94. If you want it to be optional, why do you say "mandatory"?

Is this newspeak or something?

"War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Mandatory is optional."

Doubleplus good!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. I'm not saying mandatory.

I'm saying opt out.

If I said "mandatory" in the past, I did so because I assumed everybody would interpret that as "opt out." I did not suspect people to be so disingenuous and deceitful as to claim I was for anything more than "opt out."

Now that that's cleared up. Why are you continuing to perpetuate the mistaken notion that anybody's for anything more than "opt out?"

[mhatrw]

106. How about just saying "opt in" instead?

Voluntary = "opt in"

Choice is good.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Opt out is better.

For reasons stated below. Did you read them?

Opt out is just as much "choice."

[mhatrw]

134. And if this vaccine turns out to have worse risks than benefits?

What do you tell the kids whom you injected by policy default?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. Well then I'll eat my hat.

But I'm not worried about that. Since contrary to wild conspiracy theories, the vaccine's been adequately tested.

[mhatrw]

139. Wild conspiracy theories? You mean like Vioxx?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=14467

[AX10]

140. DES, DPT...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. No.

Like Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ef73d21d-c8aa-4dd6-bc4f-22b8aa44af10&k=50365

Vioxx is working against your argument. Why would Merck want to push a product that's not been adequately tested? They lost huge on Vioxx and would want to do everything in their power to prevent it from happening again.

[depakid]

84. I reckon you also reject the British MHRA, Health Canada and

the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA).

To name but a few.

I guess EVERYONE around the world lives in Big PhARMA La La land. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

92. Yes, this group of anglo nations is perfectly trustworthy when it comes

to putting public health ahead of corporate health!

I mean, three out of these four made up the Coalition of the Willing! How much more trustworthy can you get?

Speaking of Australia: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pap-smear-warning-on-new-vaccine/2007/02/24/1171734074106.html

A new anti-cancer vaccine may end up causing more deaths from the disease. Doctors say there is a widespread misconception that the vaccine stops women from requiring regular Pap smears.

"That will be an absolute disaster," says Professor Lloyd Sansom, chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which was responsible for adding the anti-cancer vaccine Gardasil to the national immunisation register late last year.

Cervical cancer screening saves 80 per cent of deaths from the disease. "This vaccine will not save that many," Professor Sansom says.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. Anglo nations? What about the Franco nations?

Specifically, France?

:rofl:

[depakid]

100. Or the World Health Organization

They're definitely in the pockets of big PhARMA.

[depakid]

112. Sounds like a case for public health education.

In the US, the misconception could be alleviated by mandating that the corporate media and the cable companies do more public service announcements in return for their lucrative licenses.

Instead of packing the airwaves with deceptive infomertials, the FCC could look at their logs and compel them to put public health programs on in their place that would be produced by reputable organizations.

The national cancer society, for example. Or the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I f they decline- fine them- or yank their licenses at renewal time.

Problem solved.

[mhatrw]

127. Education is great. Propaganda is not. Compulsion is even worse. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Who said anything about compulsion?

Ironic that you mention propaganda though.

[depakid]

137. I sense

irony impairment....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

62. Indeed.

Cancer is completely benign. It never killed anyone. It's just misunderstood.

[mhatrw]

69. Well, cervical cancer obviously is misunderstood by the loud

promoters of GARDASIL.

There is currently no hard clinical evidence that GARDASIL reduces overall cervical cancer contraction or mortality rates. None whatsoever.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. There's hard proof...

That gardasil is effective against HPV. And that HPV causes cancer.

This is like saying that the smallpox vaccine doesn't fight smallpox. Just the virus that causes smallpox.

:crazy:

[mhatrw]

109. No, it is not at all like that.

GARDASIL is has been proven effective against just 4 of about 36 high and low risk HPV strains.

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/hpv/doc_against_HPV.shtml

OBGYN Questions HPV Vaccine Gardasil

I am writing in response to the recent Committee Opinion 344 Published in the September issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I have several concerns regarding Gardasil. First, the Gardasil’s product insert states their endpoint is the prevention of "High Grade Disease", this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) which are "immediate and necessary precursors" for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.1 The MAXIMUM 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.2 Claiming this vaccine prevents cervical cancer, with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is inappropriate.

The vaccine only "protects" against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 15 "high risk" HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.

According to ACOG, “The vast majority of women clear or suppress HPV to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.”3 Seventy percent of women clear the virus spontaneously after 18 months and 90 % clear the virus after 2 years.4 Vaccinating children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy may only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease, including the cervical cancer which the vaccine is supposedly preventing. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster.

The likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II with expectant management is 40%.5 This beats Gardasil’s reduction of CIN II-III of only 39% in the “general population impact group” which is where most people would currently fall.6 This includes “all subjects who received at least one vaccination (regardless of baseline HPV status at Day 1.”7 Since ACOG does not currently recommend serologic testing for HPV before vaccination this will be the endpoint from here out. In this case, "first do no harm” rules. ...

Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.

[mhatrw]

61. Why all this worry about if it IS optional?

Seriously. The vaccine's very first clinical tests are less than 5 years old, and the vaccine was approved by the FDA less than 9 months ago.

Medical studies show that girls can wait until age 15 to get vaccinated without seriously compromising any of this vaccine's putative protection against cervical cancer. We have no evidence that this protection lasts over 5 years. If your girls are abstaining from sex until age 17, then a vaccination at 16 is much even better than one at 11 or 12 -- even assuming the best about GASDASIL in terms of risks and efficacy.

So what's the big rush? Why not take a few years to analyze the side effects and efficacy of this vaccine on millions of girls whose parents want it before trying to force it on the millions of girls whose parents don't? I mean, you and yours don't have to have sex with the unwashed (or unvaccinated) masses. So why the big rush?

[AX10]

63. Thank you for showing up.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Are you saying that it's not optional?

[mhatrw]

95. I'm saying that if it is optional, why is it called "mandatory"?

How about just calling it voluntary and avoiding the controversy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Why be disingenuous?

Tetanus vaccines are "mandatory." That is, it's mandatory that all schools require the vaccines, except for people who opt out.

Are you against that?

[mhatrw]

111. No. Tetanus vaccinations have been around since the 1920s.

How can that be reasonably compared to a vaccine that was just approved by the FDA less than nine months ago?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. How long is a long enough wait for you, mhatrw?

Give me a number.

[mhatrw]

121. Let's wait until there is a SHRED of evidence that GARDASIL actually

reduces cervical cancer rates among the vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated US female population when the populations are controlled for HPV screening, condom use and number of sex partners. By that time (6 to 10 years down the road, if ever), we should know something about the long term health effects of giving million of 11 and 12 year old girls three injections of GARDASIL.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. Six to ten years down the road, eh?

So in six to ten years down the road when Gardasil has proven efficacy, with a proven safety record, then you'll be in favor of opt out programs, eh?

Let's see, six to ten years. That's only, what, 24,000 to 40,000 dead women? And besides, they're probably women of loose moral values anyway.

:crazy:

[depakid]

131. Let's wait to see how many tens of thousands more women suffer and die

due to the paranoid and irrational agenda's of people who refuse to accept the validity of medical science.

[mhatrw]

136. Sorry to burst your fundamentalist bubble, but science is not black and white.

Get back to me about the "tens of thousands more women suffering and dying" when you have a SHRED of hard clinical evidence that GARDASIL actually saved a single one of them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

138. The science is rather clear on this.

I don't know what Creationist crystal therapy alternative science journal you read, but Gardasil will save thousands of lives every year.

And every year it gets delayed, you're condemning thousands of women to a horrible, agonizing death.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. It's always been optional.

The whole "mandatory" issue is bunk.

[R_M]

9. I call BULLSHIT!

All of you people were screaming in favor for this vaccine to be mandated. Now you are backing off?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. No one's ever been in favor of forced vaccination.

It's always been optional.

The idea that it's mandatory is just a load of tin foil nonsense.

[R_M]

14. You suddenly forgot about those threads where your minions were...

orgasming Rick Perry's executive order to mandate this vaccine?
:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Rick Perry's program was always optional.

I realize that the anti-vaccine people aren't sticklers for facts, but sheesh.

[R_M]

16. Then why is there an "opt out" option" instead of an "opt in" option?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. So that more people get the vaccine.

Like tetanus shots.

[R_M]

18. And why does the government use the term mandate?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Why do you use the term mandate?

[R_M]

20. Because Depakid (your side) used the term!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=128966&mesg_id=129949

"depakid (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-05-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Unfortunately without a mandate
People will get drawn into the anti-vaccination crowd's bogus libertarian or "moral" arguments, some of which can be seen (repeatedly) on these and other threads.

And if its bad here, imagine what the Freepers and their ilk are saying....

Bottom line is that we have a serious and preventable disease that people no longer have to risk catching. That should be enough for anyone- but as we can see, it's not."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Is that why you're using it?

So you're describing it as forced vaccination without an opt-out option because depakid used it once in a different context? Really?

Because I thought you were fearmongering.

[R_M]

22. You are skirting around the question.

Depakid has been the STRONGEST advocate on this board.
The context is the same. "Different context"??? This is the same context.

You said the "mandate" issue is "bunk", though you appear to still defend it when it comes to one of you buddies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Are you suggesting that depakid...

is suggesting that the government force vaccinations?

[R_M]

24. That's what it sounds like.

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, than it should be obvious, it is a duck.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Funny that you mention "quacks."

But it seems clear to me that you're intentionally misintrepting Depakid's post. Because you realize you've lost the argument.

That said, it's irrelevant what Depakid intended. There's no public call for forced vaccinations.

So why are you upset over this vaccine?

[R_M]

26. You are now attacking me because you have nothing left.

I support Patrick's plan for vaccines. I do NOT support Rick Perry's plan.
Patrick wants it to be voluntary, Perry does not.

Funny that you mention "quacks" too.
Also, it is interesting who you suddenly want to ignore Depakid's intent.
Seems that your side is backing down for some reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I'm attacking you?

While you're attacking Depakid, who isn't even here to defend himself?

Perry's plan is optional, just like Patricks.

Are you against tetanus vaccination as well?

[R_M]

28. I got one of those. You see, we are not anti-vaccine...

we are just against mandating that this particular (gardisil) vaccine be given. I have fully supported the polio and smallpox vaccine because those diseases were killing millions of people. Cervical cancer is not an epidemic, but many on the left would say that the common cold is an "epidemic" too...so....
As for Depakid, he chose to leave.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml

The U.S. death toll surged fourfold from 16,263 in 1976-77 to 64,684 in 1998-99, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Flu deaths now average about 36,000 a year, up from 20,000 in previous estimates, the CDC said.

More people die each year from the Flu than from cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. But you're not against mandating this vaccine....

are you? Since nobody is forcing it.

That argument doesn't hold water.

So you still haven't explained yourself.

As for pathology, HPV most certainly is an epidemic.

[R_M]

30. Cervical cancer is NOT an epidemic.

HPV does NOT always equal cervical cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. No, but HPV is an epidemic.

An epidemic we can put an end to. Saving the lives of thousands of women every year.

No thanks to the kooks.

[mhatrw]

80. How can GARDASIL possibly put an end to the HPV epidemic?

It only protects against 4 out hundreds of HPV strains for an unknown period of time.

[R_M]

32. I have made no attacks against Depakid, I simply used his...

thread prove to you his position. That position is the same as others who are pro-mandate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Are you familiar with the term "strawman?"

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

[R_M]

35. This is not a strawman, it is a fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. It is a fact...

that Depakid supports forced vaccinations?

Why don't we ask him?

[R_M]

38. Not "forced", but "mandated".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. As in Perry's program.

Which is optional.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. LOL.

And you're in favor of the mandated opt in program.

Sheesh. What are you even trying to say any more?

[depakid]

40. Unfortunately, you don't know what mandates I referred to

Has to do with with getting into schools- and there are ALREADY mandates in place for quite a number of immunizations.

Of course, there's not much sense in pointing that out, since you'll likely respond with more libertarian paranoia.

Perhaps we should just quarantine you! ;-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Of course this is semantics...

over the legalistic term "mandate" and the colloquial "mandatory."

But at least we can put the issue to bed over this being about mandatory vaccinations.

[depakid]

43. Americans just amaze me

This is such a non-issue in other Western countries.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Yeah, other Western countries...

take better care of their mentally ill.

:rofl:

[AX10]

50. Funny that you should speak of the "mentally ill".

But what can I say? There are many around here who worship Hugo Chavez. He is no saint I would not have voted for him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. OH MY GOD!

Chavez!

How long until Clinton's penis is brought up?!

:rofl:

[AX10]

54. Clinton was one Hell of a President, I have no problem with that...

do you? Do you have some "fascination" with his "penis"?

:D

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. Obviously we have some catching up to do in the US. n/t

[mhatrw]

83. Maybe you should limit your kids to having sex with other Big Pharmabots?

That way none of the bad American parents who distrust Merck and the rest of Big Pharma based on their long track records can possibly hurt them!

[AX10]

86. bad should be in quotation marks...

because the poster might not "get it".

[R_M]

44. "Semantics"?

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. You might want to check your dictionary.

I myself am in favor of a mandate on an opt-out public vaccination program.

[R_M]

42. Your friend is wrong than. You are for mandates.

Also, I am intrigued how the left suddenly loves the government for their pet projects but hates it for other things.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. You think so?

Because it looks to me like Depakid's agreeing with me.

[depakid]

47. ???

That was a very strange comment... Hmmm.

The public health (or education) is hardly a "pet project," and in fact, if you look through history, you'll see that protecting the population from the spread of preventable disease is one of the oldest and most legitimate rationales for government.

Your posts show us all why that's so.

[AX10]

49. Again, you are showing just how blinded you are by Science.

You will never concede one inch that science can be flawed.
The reality here is that we are not going to come to an agreement on this one.
I have had several vaccinations. This one I do not want (at this time).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Once again you're blinded by puritanism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=279581#279814

Sorry, AX10, but women of "loose moral standards" deserve health care too.

[AX10]

53. Your smear is just that.

Because I don't oppose this vaccine. I support Patrick's plan. The same plan exists in South Dakota and Washington State. Yes, that's right, dark Red "anti-abortion" South Dakota is making Gardisil available free of charge to any woman who wants it.

Also, I find nothing wrong with one opting to have moral standards.

I also expect you to give me a BS response to this post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. It's right there for everybody to see.

That's what it always boils down to.

Cervical cancer is God's cure for loose women.

[AX10]

56. And here is the BULLSHIT answer.

I support that all vaccines be made readily available, free of charge to the patient. You will ignore that because you want to smear anyone who does not agree with you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Are you expecting to be taken seriously?

After all this?

[AX10]

58. After all of what?

Why should I take you seriously?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Well, let's see...

1. Hugo Chavez

2. "Loose morals"

3. "Mandatory"

4. "Not tested enough"

5. "Not an epidemic"

6. Merck conspiracy

... I think the only thing that's missing is chemtrails and the four-sided harmonic timecube.

[AX10]

60. Because you don't agree with me.

I see.

[depakid]

66. Science is just a method

for the pursuit of verifiable facts.

Emotional arguments or non-sequiturs, on the other hand don't pass muster- and no matter how "appealing" they may seem, will never gain worldwide consensus- as the facts about this (and other vaccines) have.

[AX10]

68. Your scientific conclusions versus other scientific conclusions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. There's scientific disagreement...

and then there's pseudoscience.

[AX10]

71. We have a scientific disagreement here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. No, we don't.

We've got science, and then pseudosceintific conspiracy theories.

[depakid]

75. Other "sciences???"

You mean like Phrenology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

or the "dismal science" of economics?

Seriously though- back to the OP, I think everyone agrees that making vaccinations "free" to patients (especially childhood vaccinations) would be a profoundly good idea.

For example, when some British friends of mine visited Thailand last year, they just went into their GP and asked "what vaccinations do we need?" He looked up the schedule, and they got their jabs.

Kinda nice to know that not only will they not get sick, but that they won't be bringing nasty diseases back to the Island that could spread among the general population.

[mhatrw]

74. Then why not make it opt in? You would then get rid of the issue.

Isn't that basically why Merck stopped (publicly) lobbying for this?

[depakid]

78. No, that wouldn't get rid of the issue

because too many Americans would refuse to do the rational thing and protect their kids- or protect other kids and the rest of us by building up herd immunity and ridding the population of an endemic and actively propagating disease.

[AX10]

81. Because you for mandating it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. We're for an opt out program.

Why are you against it?

[depakid]

98. I simply advocate placing it on the immunization schedule that parents

already have to show before their kids can enter schools- or that adults need to be admitted to colleges.

That said, if a parent refused to vaccinate or was allowed to opt out for irrational reasons- and their kid(s) got sick- and perhaps permanently harmed, it's entirely reasonable to consider that a form of child neglect, not unlike failing to use a child seat, or purchase bike helmets, or allow a child to become morbidly obese without seeking treatment.

I would also add that in the event of a virulent pandemic, there aren't any constitutional problems with compelling the general population to get vaccinated. That's unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities. Sure would be less intrusive than quarantine, don't you think?

[AX10]

99. We are for an opt in program.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Well then what's all this nonsense about "mandatory?"

Smells like bullshit to me.

[AX10]

103. That's what the current flawed law says.

I don't want this vaccine to be "mandated" but optional. That is all there is to it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. No, AX10...

This Texas/Perry thing is optional.

Always has been. That's all there is to it.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

107. It's a perfectly valid frame

Not sure what else encouraging people not to vaccinate their kids against preventable diseases might be called, considering that there's worldwide scientific consensus on the matter.

[AX10]

110. The vaccine has not been proven over the long run term.

You know that.

Now stop going such levels.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. Real doctors and scientists disagree with you.

So how long would enough be for you?

[AX10]

119. Certain Doctors and Scientists agree with you and certain ones..

with me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. How long, AX10?

Answer the question?

[AX10]

122. When you answer my question regarding the mandates.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

124. I answered your questions.

I'm in favor of an opt-out program.

Now answer mine.

[depakid]

118. The efficacy of the vaccine has been thoroughly tested with large "n's"

as have potential side effects- which is why despite your repeated protestations, there's a worldwide scientific consensus.

Whether in 10 years people may need a booster is irrelevant to whether girls need protection today.

[mhatrw]

132. So not saying "How high?" when Big Pharma says "Jump!" is

child neglect?

In your perfect world, would you have each and every kid strapped down for every "officially" recommended injection the day these recommendations became official regardless of their and their parents' beliefs, behaviors, health issues and previous medical experiences?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. Letting a kid get a disease...

because of looney ideas about vaccines strikes me as neglect.

Like those Jehovah's Witnesses who don't let their kids get blood transfusions.

[mhatrw]

113. So, the problem comes down to not enough sheep to fully immunize the herd?

How about limiting yourself to sex with other Big Phamasheep?

What is wrong with that solution?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. Why is it always about sex?

Seems to be a real hang up.

[AX10]

142. You see, if you didn't have sex with everyone you met...

you would greatly reduce your chances of getting various STD's. Also, please use a condom. There is nothing wrong with being careful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Because opt out is preferable.

It's a safety net. Like with the tetanus vaccine.

People who don't care about the issue, or lazy, or too busy or what have you end up getting the vaccine with their annual physical, or school vaccinations, or whatever.

So what's a good reason for not making it opt out?

[mhatrw]

105. How about if we make women "opt out" of annual HPV screenings?

That would save a lot more lives than GARDASIL, even in the best case scenario for the new and largely untested vaccine.

[depakid]

108. At least you might consider being honest

This is NOT a "largely untested vaccine."

I reckon that you know that... but have some other agenda to pursue.

[mhatrw]

116. It is largely untested on it targeted population. It is completely

untested in terms of long term side effects and long term efficacy. Finally, it is completely untested in terms of claims that it will significantly reduce cervical cancer contraction or mortality rates vs. annual HPV screenings.

[depakid]

126. That's untrue- and also utter sophistry

that defies rational analysis.

Though I'll have to say, it's typical of the anti-vaccine crowd to try to obfuscate matters to deter otherwise reasonable but yet uninformed people from seeking immunizations for themselves or their children.

It's sad really, to watch Americans- especially on DU, resort to such measures.

[sarcasmo]

90. I would be willing to be that this Governor also has Merk stock.

Just a hunch.

[Bill McBlueState]

123. Find out and let us know.

That would be interesting if he did.

[mcscajun]

143. Locking

Unfortunately, this topic has become a flame-fest.

Sincerely,
mcscajun
DU Moderator