Mandatory Gardasil Truth From Fiction Thread #1: "But It's Easy to Opt Out!"

[The Cleaner]

I don't have to tell you the vast amount of disinformation that is going on around here regarding the Republican Governor of Texas' decision to make Gardasil mandatory. One piece of misinformation is that it's easy to opt-out, and you can even do it online. But is that really true?

I'd like everyone to read this (MS Word) document straight from the horse's mouth. It outlines the exact process of writing a formal letter to request an opt-out affidavit from the State to be sent by postal mail to your home address (apparently Rick Perry claims one will be able to do this part via the Internet, but it's not operational yet, who knows when it will be), filling out the affidavit for every child, making an appointment with a notary public to have it signed and notarized, then sending back the form for approval and possible follow-up by telephone.

There's been much confusion over the definition of the term "mandatory." Mandatory means this: You have to do it. If you choose not to do it for religious or philosophical reasons, you must request and complete a formal opt-out affidavit from the State.

So you see, opting out is not as easy as some here would like you to believe.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Chemotherapy for cervical cancer isn't easy either.

:eyes:You equate those who don't want the vaccine signing a piece of paper as being hard or inconvenient. Let me tell you what is hard, those that want the vaccine but can't afford it who could suffer mutilating surgery and chemotherapy because someone like YOU didn't want to sign a piece of paper.
Spare me the theatrics.

[mondo joe]

3. Not to mention the process that may be required to enroll in an opt-in system.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Exactly.

This is getting to be beyond the pale. Everyday they post non-truths hoping they have worn the people who are actually doing their research down so that they can spread their lies and mistrust unabated.

[PLF]

15. That is different because those people want to take it.

You shouldn't have to file an affadavit with Rick Perry to not be injected with Merck's latest chemical.

There are always those people who want to live in a dictatorship.

The rest of us are going to fight to stop it.

[mondo joe]

17. LOL! So it's fine to make poor people jump through hoops to access medical care

but filling out a form is too much trouble for you.

Okay.

[PLF]

23. Typical bullshit, South Dakota is offering it for free, sans mandate.

Got anything better? I didn't think so.

[mondo joe]

26. And what is SD's enrollment process to get it?

Do you know?

[antigop]

33. That's not the point! N/T

[mondo joe]

35. It's not? The point of the OP was how oppressive it is to fill out a form.

Why is it no longer the point?

[antigop]

37. Yes to fill out a form TO OPT OUT -- not to apply for something n/t

[mondo joe]

39. So you don't mind an oppressive process to make poor people get access to vaccinations.

Got it.

Thanks.

[antigop]

44. nope that's not it == but nice try n/t

[mondo joe]

48. Which do you find more oppressive - filling out a form to opt out or filling out a form

to opt in?

[antigop]

52. HA! Nice try! n/t

[mondo joe]

53. No answer again. Thanks for proving my point.

[antigop]

55. No answer from you on Perry's anti-democratic mandate == thanks for proving my point! n/t

[antigop]

58. Keep it kicked! Get out the truth! Let people know! Thanks, PLF! n/t

[mondo joe]

73. I didn't see you ask me a question. If you have a question please post it, and

I will answer.

[antigop]

78. Why are people willing to give Perry a free pass on an anti-democratic move? n/t

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[mondo joe]

85. I don't know that it's anti-democratic because I don't know that the Texas constitution

does not give him the authority to do this.

If it is authoritatively shown that he has exceeded his constitutional authority I will oppose his action.

If he is within his authority, it is not anti-democratic.

So take the matter to court and let's get a decision.

[antigop]

87. Anti-democratic: NO debate/input/ vote from the lege -- yep. anti-democratic n/t

[mondo joe]

90. Your opinion is not authoritative. The question is does the democratically determined

state constitution give him this authority or not?

If it does, he is democratically authorized to do so.

If not, his order is not binding.

[antigop]

94. The question is -- why did Perry do a power grab and not involve the lege? n/t

[Horse with no Name]

93. The Texas Constitution provides that he can do this

As I said...this isn't anti-democratic...it is political.
This poster would serve themselves well to learn the difference, especially on a political board.

[antigop]

95. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground - why are people posting here against democracy? n/t

[mondo joe]

101. Who is opposed to democracy??? I've already said I support the democratically

determined constitution.

[antigop]

104. but you don't support democratically elected reps having input on health policy! n/t

[Bridget Burke]

136. Find a new line....

You aren't convincing anybody.

[antigop]

169. There are people questioning what PErry has done -- I'm doing a great job n/t

[Bridget Burke]

172. So start a thread that goes into the political ramifications.

And prove that what Perry did is not allowed in the Texas Constitution.

[rinsd]

137. Oh a point has been proven, just not the one you think (nt)

[antigop]

178. The point is -- Perry pushed this through w/o input/debate/vote from the Texas lege n/t

[PLF]

57. It's none of Rick Perry's and his little Merck lobby's business

[mondo joe]

60. None of the governor's business?

Oooookay.

[antigop]

62. because he doesn't have mandate to unilaterally dictate health policy! n/t

[mondo joe]

70. You said it's none of his business.

Changing the goal post again.

[PLF]

77. Just make the damn vaccine available a la South Dakota

and quit trying to defend Rick Perry and the big pharma lobby efforts to create a dictatorship.

[antigop]

83. Yes, thank you -- Perry's action is dictatorial n/t

[PLF]

72. Exactly, him and the lobby didn't want to let it go through the legislature.

Or even have the issue publicly discussed as is normally done in a viable democracy.

[antigop]

81. Exactly! They want health policy by mandate --unlaterally decided by Perry! How scary is that? n/t

[antigop]

61. Absolutely, PLF ! n/t

[pnwmom]

184. And you don't mind an oppressive process

to make poor people become the guinea pigs of a newly released vaccine. (Who do you think will have the most trouble dealing with the notarized affadavit?)

How many times have we heard about a new drug or vaccine (e.g., the rotovirus vaccine) whose adverse effects are only discovered AFTER the general release? This is a calculated decision that was made by the FDA to allow drugs to come to market sooner. The final stage of testing is done when the drug is released to the general public -- with doctors returning adverse effects reports as they occur.

Better to release the drug more slowly and not make it mandatory until we know what the real picture is -- on tens or hundreds of thousands of true volunteers, rather than millions of mandatory research subjects.

[pnwmom]

182. You don't need an notarized affadadvit to get any vaccine.

[antigop]

27. Thank you, PLF n/t

[PLF]

38. Sadly the little Merck minions have run out of straw men.

Every time the claim someone is trying to prevent access to the vaccine examples such as how they are doing it in South Dakota, New Hampshire, Washington, etc. are pointed to. At this point they crap in their pants and start accusing you of "hating women" or some other such inane bullshit. Thier playbook is exactly the same one the neocons used to scare people into supporting invading Iraq.

[antigop]

41. I know -- when they can't debate the issues they start the name-calling n/t

[mondo joe]

45. Because "Merck minion" isn't name calling.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

43. Okay, Moral Majority boy. NT

[antigop]

47. See? More name-calling they can't debate the issue n/t

[PLF]

51. They have no excuse for supporting Rick Perry's mandate when there are

perfectly viable counter options that are in place and working elsewhere.

The Merck goon squad has run out of straw men and they know.

[antigop]

54. And they hate it when we post the truth -- they really hate it n/t

[Horse with no Name]

59. How would we hate anything we haven't seen yet?

:shrug:

[antigop]

65. We haven't seen democracy at work here -- and you hate us for pointing it out! n/t

[Horse with no Name]

71. You are confusing "democracy" with "politics"

Very sad you don't understand the difference.
You have repeatedly posted your "arguments" from RW Congresspeople. I don't choose to go to their dens and read their tripe and I won't read it when it is dragged here. Sorry.
However...you have YET to answer the question WHERE in the TEXAS Constitution does it say what Perry did was illegal?
THIS TEXAS Constitution provides for what he did.
You want to change it?
Amend the Constitution.
But the Constitution outlines the rules of the Democracy in which we live.
He was within the Constitution...therefore, it was NOT un-democratic as you keep implying.
What is political? Yes. Very.
But he played within the rules of the Texas Constitution. By saying anything else it makes you a liar.

[PLF]

82. You are confusing freedom with fascism.

If you like mandates issued from on high, go live in Singapore. We've got a democracy to defend here.

[antigop]

86. Thank you for defending democracy, PLF! My vet father thanks you! n/t

[rinsd]

141. Yeah because PLF and yourself never called anyone names

:eyes:

[antigop]

160. Where did I call someone names? n/t

[rinsd]

165. You're kidding right?

Your entire series of posts implies that those who do not agree with you are somehow anti-democratic.

I also see you didn't defend PLF on that account.

And let's talk about the OP who is now on their 3rd anti-Gardisil tactic after their posts about BS RW front groups and studies were shot down.

[antigop]

168. Nope. n/t

[pnwmom]

181. No one has to fill out a notarized affadavit to get a vaccine.

[pnwmom]

180. And how would that be any different from getting any other vaccine?

[PLF]

7. Quit pretending that no midnight mandate equals no vaccine access.

Your bullshit isn't flying.

[mondo joe]

19. Quit pretending you're not a sock puppet.

:-)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[mondo joe]

28. LOL - since it's a bunch of Right Wing cover groups opposing the mandate we

can see who your employers are.

[PLF]

31. Whatever lobby boy.

[mondo joe]

34. LOL! Spoken like a true RW sock puppet.

[PLF]

46. Whatever lobby boy. Go ask Rick Perry for some more money.

[TZ]

116. why is it that anyone who disagrees with you

must be in the pay of Merck or Perry? I can pretty much say no one in this forum likes or agrees with Perry but there are sound arguments on both pro and con on mandating this vaccine. I happen to see both and before you start in no I don't work for Merck. I have many issues with the troubling links with Perry and possible kickbacks yet I think this is a very positive vaccine with some sound scientific reasoning for madating the use of it. So now am I a rw nutjub troublemaker because HORRORS I am open minded on the topic?:sarcasm: :eyes:

[antigop]

121. because of the way it was done -- that should be suspicious enough n/t

[antigop]

8. Democracy ain't always easy either --- sometimes it's messy n/t

[mondo joe]

14. Simple question: does the democratically determined state constitution give

the executive this authority or not?

[PLF]

18. Not according to Travis Co. District Judge Scott McCown:

Two legal experts have questioned the constitutional legality of Perry's executive order. In a Statesman opinion piece Wednesday, former Travis Co. District Judge Scott McCown said the state constitution authorizes the governor to administer the law, not make the law. "This principle is textbook civics," he wrote. "Making law is for the Legislature." McCown is now executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities. Similarly, Tuesday's Quorum Report quoted Austin attorney Buck Wood stating flatly: "There is no such thing as an executive order. It's made up."

[mondo joe]

21. Then the solution is simple - ignore the order.

If his order is illegal that will be easy.

[antigop]

30. No the solution is to stop PErry from the power grab -- GO TEXAS LEGE ! STOP PERRY!

n/t

[antigop]

20. I posted several articles --- did you read them? I guess not n/t

[mondo joe]

24. Guess you can't answer a simple question. Thanks.

[antigop]

29. The answer is in the articles I posted --- PLEASE READ THEM n/t

[mondo joe]

32. You can't just give the answer? I need to read your article?

Do you not KNOW the answer?

[PLF]

42. I already answered your stupid ass question.

[mondo joe]

50. I didn't address the question to you.

Your opinion has been considered.

[antigop]

67. But PLF did answer you -- you just ignore it n/t

[mondo joe]

75. Untrue. He gave me the opinion of two people.

Those opinions are considered but are not definitive.

[antigop]

66. I KNOW the answer and I posted the articles -- GO READ THEM! n/t

[mondo joe]

79. Please just point out where in the Texas Constitution it can be determined

that the executive does not have this authority.

[antigop]

89. already been pointed out IN THE ARTICLES n/t

[mondo joe]

91. Link please. I can't fish through all your posts.

[antigop]

96. Oh, please! Go look --- they have been posted before n/t

[antigop]

98. Keep it kicked! Get out the truth! n/t

[mondo joe]

100. I seriously don't have time to fish through all your posts. If you give me a link

I'll look.

[antigop]

102. sorry-- they're there --- I'm sure you can find them and google(tm) is your friend n/t

[mondo joe]

105. It's your case - you make it. NT

[antigop]

107. I already did Look them up n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. there's a great side effect of cervical cancer! no more periods!

of course, I don't have a uterus anymore either. I was lucky enough to have my kids when I was young, before the cancer struck. With more women waiting till 30-35 now, many will lose their chance to have children.

Frankly, getting a form notarized is no big deal, you have to do it when you buy a car. Nobody is buying cars because it's too difficult? :shrug:



:hug: you!

[Horse with no Name]

56. Hugs

:hug:
The "discussion" is getting out of hand.
I'm sorry you went through this.:(
I'd like to have no more go through it.

[TZ]

109. I thought my rant yesterday got this out of people's system

apparantly not.Sigh. I am looking into getting some really good first hand knowledge to help put an end to some of this hopefully:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

113. I have contacted one of the Australian researchers via email

and I am awaiting getting back the info on population trials.
Keep your fingers crossed.

[TZ]

119. don't think its the same

but my researcher friend happens to be Aussie too!! He wasn't involved in these trials though so its probably a coincindence.:)

[Horse with no Name]

120. Her name is Laura Clark.

That is where this vaccine started...makes sense to look there for answers.:)

[TZ]

122. yep

don't know Laura Clark (I was in a little different area of vaccines) but my friend gets really fired up on the science of vaccines especially adjuvents so hopefully I can get something useful there as well.

[pnwmom]

185. Lots of poor people don't own cars that are worth enough to

require an affadavit. Getting a notarized affadavit could be a very intimidating process.

Why should poor people have to bear the brunt of the immediate post-release phase of this drug, when anyone who receives it is in effect a research subject?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

195. I bought a car for $500 in AZ - had to get the title notarized

this process is far less difficult than applying for food stamps (10-12 page application + proof of income and bills.)

I just want the most girls and women to have access as possible. Look at it this way... A group of 100 women. 10 don't want it, but 90 do. Do you want to process 10 opt-out forms, or 90 applications? Seems like it would save a butt-load of money (which could be put towards more vaccine, instead of more people to process paperwork)

[pnwmom]

196. But they're talking about requiring it for 9 & 10 year olds who aren't sexually

active. Why not simply wait a year until more people have voluntarily had the vaccine and more is known about potential risks? There is no reason that I can see that we need to ramp up the use so quickly.

For example, my young relative, a college student, recently had the vaccine (unbeknownst to me or her mother). She filled out the paperwork correctly, including her medical history, and handed it to the nurse who gave her the shot. The nurse didn't read it however until AFTERWARDS. This was a major mistake because the young woman actually had a medical condition (and was taking medication ) that should have excluded her from receiving the vaccine. We're still waiting to hear from Merck what this may mean for her.

To me, this means that Merck should change their protocol so that the nurse directly asks the patient whether she has the excluding conditions. That way this mistake would have been avoided. By ramping up the use of the vaccine more slowly, problems like this can come to light (and be acted on) before similar mistakes are made with hundreds or thousands of other girls.

[mondo joe]

2. It's easier than a lot of things parents do as a matter of course.

More lies, distortions and exaggerations.

[AngryAmish]

5. "appointment with a notary public"?

What notaries only notarize via appointment? None that I ever heard of. Usually your bank does it free. Or a currency exchange does it for a buck. Or stop by any lawyers office and they do it free.

Yes, notarizing a signature is an insurmountable mountain. In fact I think it would be easier to crawl to Managua than do the impossible step of notarizing a document.

[Horse with no Name]

63. .....

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

186. Poor people often don't have a bank, or a lawyer, or extra money

to pay at a currency exchange. They won't bother. They'll just get the vaccine.

And a higher proportion of poor people will get the vaccine in the immediate post-release phase, when any recipient is effectively a research subject. Does that seem fair to you?

[AngryAmish]

190. Yes. But lets talk about the insurmountable hurdles if getting a document notarized

In living history only 7 documents have been notarized.

The first (and most famously) was the will of Adam Mossback. It was an eight year effort financed by the Swiss government. Over two thousand people were involved in this expedition and three freighters full of supplies - including collapsible canoes and cleft sticks. Once the will was finally notarized after all those years Mr. Mossback was greeted to a ticker tape parade in Geneva in June, 1968.

Thus, the Swiss won what had become known as "The Notarization Race". Many other governments had programs (though many abandoned it eventually) but only 4 governments acknowledge possessing notarized documents. These include the US (2), the former Soviet Union, France and China.

In May 12, 2006 Dick Rutan became the first private citizen to have a document notarized. From his ship known as "Notary One" he had an affidavit notarized to claim a $25 million N-Prize.

Or maybe these people who are opting out could just have the school secretary do it. Or at City Hall. And if you are in a poor neighborhood, the one thing you do have is currency exchanges.

[pnwmom]

193. School secretary? I've never known a school secretary who was a notary.

In any case, it's intimidating to anyone who hasn't done it before. Most people will take the path of least resistance and get the vaccine instead. That's why the govt is requiring it, obviously. But this means that lower income people will bear a disproportionate share of the research burden, as the drug is tested out on the general public in the final stage of its release.

[antigop]

6. So why do you have to file to opt out? Just don't have it done! n/t

[pnwmom]

187. Because if it's mandatory, day cares and schools will require it

without the opt-out form.

[PLF]

9. Nobody should have to get Rick Perry's permission to not take it.

The idea that you have to file an affadavit with the state to "opt out" is rediculous.

[antigop]

11. Absolutely! n/t

[mondo joe]

12. How do you feel about the mandatory hepatitis vaccination?

[pnwmom]

188. I regret that one of my children had it at age 10.

Ever since then, this formerly healthy child has had liver problems that the doctors cannot explain, even after dozens of blood tests and two biopsies.

What are the odds that a ten year old would have gotten Hep-B at that age? Practically nil. But now I have to live with the possibility that the vaccine I approved did real damage.

[antigop]

10. Thank you so very much for this important info n/t

[mondo joe]

16. What's the process to enroll in programs for low-income people to get subsidized

or free vaccinations?

[antigop]

22. Keep kicking it! Get the truth out! n/t

[antigop]

36. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Great quote from Upton Sinclair.

[ima_sinnic]

40. my .02 worth: I wouldn't trust Rick Parry with the life of my goldfish

let alone that of my child. He couldn't give a flying F**K less about whether your daughter contracts cervical cancer; his overriding concern is the profit margin of Big Pharma, which will ensure big campaign coffers--one hand washes the other--we all know that.

Knowing, then, that this is nothing but a legitimized free handout for Big Pharma--I would fight this tooth and nail after seeing my husband disintegrate after several years of taking an allegedly "safe" Rx for his symptoms of schizophrenia. He is now just about dead of severely advanced diabetes, with ulcers on his feet, deteriorating eyesight, and high blood pressure. Oh, sure he "won" in a class-action lawsuit against Eli Lilly, as did at least 8,000 other victims, some of whom "won the lottery" by dying before the settlement was even awarded, but the real winners were the lawyers. They charged their usual 35% commission for each and every award, as though they had done all the work they would do for an individual of chasing down witnesses, issuing subpoenas and depositions, researching precedents, selecting a jury, meeting many times with the client, and generally building the case. Yes, each awardee's medical records were analyzed to be sure s/he was eligible; i.e., had contracted diabetes after taking the drug, but the work of building a case was done in a general sense and not for each client. The lawyers apparently felt no qualms about taking as much as they were legally allowed from mental health patients who were rendered unemployable and seriously physically ill. And don't bother chiming in with a bunch of lawyer-support BULLSHIT. I call it effing GREED. And by the way, the drug companies just build a budget for the inevitable lawsuits into their R&D budget. Several hundred million as crumbs to throw to the people who have been robbed of their life and health is a pittance to them, just another tax write-off.

We see every single day now, ads on TV and in the paper for victims of this or that drug, by law offices building class action cases. The FDA has seriously declined, as we can expect after seeing how carelessly * has treated employees and functions of the other agencies, and with such short shrift in terms of support and respect, and they just do not instill any confidence in me whatsoever in the safety of prescription drugs.

It's not like cervical cancer is this huge pandemic, public health problem. This is nothing but corporate welfare and the supposed beneficiaries of "corporate largesse" are the least of the concerns of corporate hogs.

on edit: meant to say, I will be watching a few years from now to see what backwash this "ruling" has created. Thalidomide was a "savior drug," too, as was the Olanzapine that seemed like a miracle cure for schizophrenia sufferers. And don't forget Vioxx. I'd rather just die of a terminal illness than give the pharmas a f**king cent for their snakeoil remedies.

[antigop]

49. Not to mention that Perry did it in a non-democratic manner -- thanks for you .02 n/t

[ima_sinnic]

133. oh, he did it by decree?

I am NOT being snarky! I don't know the details (I'm in my own pathetically repuke-ruled state of Fla.) but this is all I could think of when I read your post. It must be something that amounts to a stinking decree if he did it undemocratically--which seems to be the repuke way of doing everything now.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

134. It was done by Executive Order which is like a decree. eom

[gollygee]

64. Why can't they just make it rercommended, and a standard thing to do

but not make it mandatory? This is getting more complicated than it has to be.

[antigop]

68. GREAT QUESTION! GREAT QUESTION! n/t

[Horse with no Name]

80. Because Perry is a corrupt Republican politician that has his pockets deep in this

Short answer.
The long answer is Planned Parenthood has wanted this and has lobbied for this.
That is what I base my argument that it is good for women.
It has nothing to do with what Perry did or didn't do.
He COULD have state funded it for all women in the same age range.
He COULD have authorized State Medicaid to pay for it.
However, he couldn't authorize insurance companies to pay for it UNLESS he mandated it.

[antigop]

69. OMG! Is it also true that they don't know the long-term effects? Is that true? n/t

[Sapere aude]

74. You should have to opt in not opt out. I just don't understand how willing we are to throw our

freedoms away. How can so many people be so willing be medicated like that?

[antigop]

76. Exactly -- they want to trade our freedom for perceived security

And as the quote attributed to Ben Franklin:
"Those who are willing to trade freedoms for security deserve neither".

[rinsd]

138. Yes, your freedom to remain an ignorant luddite who puts children in danger

vs. say the security of a world with less cancer deaths.

[antigop]

154. Uh, no -- and name calling doesn't advance your position n/t

[mondo joe]

88. Which other mandatory vaccinations do you care to apply that to?

[antigop]

92. Which freedoms are you willing to give up for perceived security? N/t

[mondo joe]

97. Well, let's see: airport security checks; security checks for gun purchases;

security checks to enter certain government buildings; the freedom to yell fire in a theater (unless of course there is an actual fire).

Would you like me to continue?

Incidentally, you are free to opt out of this vaccination.

[antigop]

99. And you want a GOVERNOR (Perry) to unilaterally decide health policy n/t

[mondo joe]

103. I want the governor to act within his democratically determined authority.

[antigop]

106. I want elected reps involved in health policy -- GO Texas lege -- STOP PERRY! n/t

[TZ]

110. how about having health care workers involved in policy

instead? Frankly I would rather they set health policy than any politician.

[antigop]

111. They can certainly provide input to democratically elected representatives n/t

[antigop]

108. Keep it up, Cleaner! Get the truth out there ! n/t

[gravity]

112. Aren't other vaccines mandatory?

Why should Gardasil be treated any differently?

[Horse with no Name]

114. SHHHH....

because it doesn't have to do with s-e-x.(don't tell the children)

[gollygee]

115. That's a good question too

why is this treated differently than the other vaccines kids get?

[antigop]

117. because there was NO input/debate/vote from the democratically elected representatives n/t

[gollygee]

123. Was there input/debate/voting when the chicken pox vaccine

was made mandatory?

I see both sides of this issue. I vaccinate my daughter and she will get this vaccine no matter what. But I have friends who don't vaccinate their kids and that seems like it should be their choice. But I don't see why *this* vaccine is different from any other one. If the others are mandatory, why wouldn't this one be?

On the other hand, it seems like there has to be some way of making the vaccine available without making it mandatory. And I don't trust his relationship to the pharm. company.

The debate on this issue is worthwhile - hopefully things will get clearer through it.

[antigop]

124. You will vaccinate your daughter no matter what? Are the long-term effects known? n/t

[gollygee]

125. The long-term effects of cervical cancer are known.

she has several years before she'll be old enough to get it.

[antigop]

126. No, I'm asking about the long-term effects of the vaccine? Are they known? n/t

[gollygee]

127. I'm sure you will argue that they aren't, and the manufactuerer will argue

that they are.

I'm more worried about cervical cancer than the vaccine.

[antigop]

128. I'm not arguing anything -- I'm asking a question -- are the long-term effects known?

And if they are not known, why wouldn't that be a concern?

[gollygee]

130. Well my daughter is only 4

so for me personally, I'm not too concerned about that because they will be known by then.

How does this happen for most vaccines? The chicken pox one was optional for several years before it became mandatory, wasn't it? I truly don't know how it works. I'm sure Merck says it's completely safe, but I don't have access to their test records and I'm not interested enough to do any googling on it.

[TZ]

135. what are the long term effects of getting the flu?

Basically the same question. Thats basically what most vaccines do is give you a low grade infection in order to stimulate immunity The question is really pointless. Vaccine trials have safety and efficacy studies built in. HOWEVER everybody has different body chemistry so there is really no way down the road to say if anybody is likely to have long term effects. Side effects are common also and clinical trials attempt to establish what are the most likely side effects so you can be aware of them. And even after approval safety testing continues. But its really not practical to do long term 10-25 year studies of POSSIBLE long term effects and withhold the vaccines. The point is that vaccines have risks and likely side effects but the testing is done in such a way to minimize those risks. You can't eliminate them. No more can the eliminate the risk of dying from a car crash every time you get behind the wheel. In fact you are waaay more likely to die from that than any kind of vaccine related illness.

[antigop]

151. I don't have to DO anything to opt out of the flu vaccine -- I simply don't take it n/t

[gollygee]

162. Yeah but I have to pay for it (my insurance won't cover it)

luckily the flu vaccine isn't expensive, but this vaccine is pretty expensive. I'd hate to see people who want it not be able to get it due to the expense. There has to be a way to make sure that people who want it can get it in a way that allows their insurance to pay for it, but that also allows people who don't want it to avoid getting it without having to have affidavits filled out or other garbage like that. I agree you shouldn't have to do something that extreme to decide what to do with your own body (or to decide what health choices are best for your own children). But people should have it available to them regardless of their ability to pay.

[antigop]

158. I'm perfectly aware of clinical trials, thank you very much n/t

[antigop]

118. Why should a governor unilaterally dictate health policy? N/t

[Dora]

129. Because HPV is differently contagious from measles, mumps, rubella, polio...

Transmitting/"catching" HPV requires sexual contact.

Other mandated vaccines are for diseases that can be easily transmitted via air, surface, or water/fluids.

[mondo joe]

131. Hepatitis vaccination is mandatory in most states.

[Dora]

144. I offered information, not an opinion. I am not participating in this debate. n/t

[mondo joe]

146. Appreciated. I am amending your information. Hepatitis, which is sexually contracted,

is a mandatory vaccination in most states.

[Dora]

150. Hepatitis can also be transmitted via other means.

I remember well a local PSA on Phoenix television targeted at children as I was growing up....

"Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Washing your hands after changing baby too.
'Cause we don't want to catch hepatitis...
And we don't want hepatits to catch you!

Who?

YOU!"

For the record, I also know that HPV can be carried in the palms of our hands. A friend of mine had the unfortunate experience of "loving" a man who kept reinfecting her.

[gollygee]

132. Why does the way it is transmitted make a difference?

I don't know why it makes a difference that it requires sexual contact?

[Bridget Burke]

139. Because only "evil sluts" are at risk....

That's the reasoning that drives most of our friendly DU sock puppets.

[TZ]

143. hehe

sock puppets is a good funny and accurate term...:rofl: The other term I heard is the woo woo crowd:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

145. No! It's about evil big pharma! Really!

The fact that I'm a religious right anti-sex nutjob has nothing to do with it! I sweeeear! ;-)

[Dora]

147. I hope you're not implying that is what I said in my post.

I offered information, not an opinion. I am not participating in this debate.

[rinsd]

140. 20 million people now have HPV, its transmission method has not slowed its progress

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Yeah, and that's what this is REALLY about, isn't it?

The fact that the church lady crowd doesn't want to admit that their kids might not be living up to those "abstinence only" pledges.

[Dora]

148. I offered information, not an opinion. I am not participating in this debate. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Is there an echo in here?

Hello... hello... hello... hello...

[Bridget Burke]

153. You posted....

You are participating.

[Dora]

156. Somebody asked a question about difference, I replied w/ information.

My intent was only to contribute to the dialogue, not debate the merits of either arguement.

I am not surprised to be met with hostility, but I am disappointed.

[antigop]

152. I'll ask the question again -- why should a governor unilaterally dictate health policy?

And why doesn't this scare the hell out of people?

[mondo joe]

157. Did the people of his state give him the authority to do that?

If they did, that's their choice.

[antigop]

159. No-- the people in his state have ELECTED representatives

And Texans should scream loudly about how this was done.

[mondo joe]

161. If that's true then there's no issue - his order can't stand. If, on the other hand,

the Texas constitution gives him the authority, that's their choice.

[antigop]

163. The constitution does NOT give him the authority -- he usurped it n/t

[mondo joe]

164. Then the legislature can object and stop him. Right?

[antigop]

167. How ironic that we have to depend upon the Texas lege to uphold democracy here n/t

[mondo joe]

173. "Here"? I think you mean "there". Nothing ironic about it.

[antigop]

174. Yes we have to depend on the lege to uphold democracy because Perry won't GO TEXAS LEGE! n/t

[mondo joe]

175. So you say. It has not yet been demonstrated that he acted outside the scope of

his constitutional powers.

[antigop]

177. Perry unilaterally dictated health policy -- that is undemocratic n/t

[mondo joe]

179. Again: if he is within the scope of his democratically granted authority,

it is not undemocratic.

If you don't understand that, it's your problem.

[antigop]

183. he did an end-run around the legislature -- the lege was not involved he dictated health policy n/t

[antigop]

155. Isn't it amazing that when they can't address the issue(s), they start name-calling? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. Where were you last year when the Democratic nominee for Governor was pushing this idea?

:shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

170. Oh waah, if it's that important, people will make the minimal effort it takes

to fill out the damn paperwork.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

176. Really. Just look at what poor people have to go through to get access to

programs. Sometimes it's practically a mini-audit.

Hell, you have to fill out forms to adot a dog in most cases.

[pnwmom]

189. Lower income and less well educated people will bear the brunt, then,

of the part of the drug research that is completed only AFTER the drug is finally released to the general public (and in this case, immediately made mandatory).

Doesn't seem fair to me.

[Bridget Burke]

191. "Lower income" & "less well educated" does not mean stupid & illiterate.

Even though you obviously think so.

[antigop]

171. Cleaner. keep up the good work! People are questioning what Perry did! n/t

[Ms. Toad]

192. For me, it has nothing to do with how easy it is...

The reality is that the only legal basis for a parental opt out is "reasons of conscience, including a religious belief."

>>A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization based on reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, under Section 161.004 of this code, Section 38.001 or 51.933, Education Code, or Section 42.043, Human Resources Code, must complete an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the exemption.<<

Were I in Texas, my daughter would not be getting the vaccination, and I would be challenging the law.

The decision not to vaccinate (at this time) is based on our evaluation that for her, at this time, the medical risks outweigh the benefits. That is not a reason of conscience or religious belief; it is a health based decision related to:

the quirks of her particular immune system (she has an autoimmune disorder),

the lack of long term information about the effectiveness and/or side effects of this vaccination (those of you my age should recall that the rubella vaccination was supposed to protect women through their child bearing years, but it was belatedly discovered that its effectiveness wore off well before then),

the likelihood that she will voluntarily engage in activities in the near future that will put her at risk of exposure, and

the risk that she may be forced to engage in such activities in the near future.

In a few years, the balance between what we know about this vaccination (after a year or two of use) and the likelihood of exposure may shift as she starts dating and/or heads off to college (putting her in the peak risk years for rape). As the relative risks shift, we will continue to evaluate them and may well make a different health based decision at some point in the future.

None of those reasons, alone or in total, amount to "reasons of conscience, including a religious belief" - and it IS against my religious beliefs to sign an affidavit (or even a statement) falsely claiming to be entitled to an exemption based on conscience when that is not the basis for our decision. I should not be required to violate my religious beliefs or to privately educate my daughter in order to exercise control over family medical decisions, particularly when those decisions put no one at risk other than those involved in making the decision. FWIW, before I am accused of putting my daughter's life in danger by not vaccinating her, my daughter is and will remain involved in making this decision - as she has been involved with age appropriate authority since she was 5 and was first diagnosed with a chronic illness which gives her approximately a 25% risk of being diagnosed with cancer. We are not ignorant or cavalier about the risk of cancer - it is a relatively constant presence in our lives.

This particular vaccination, particularly as Texas has chosen to mandate it, will not create herd immunity so there is no public health based justification for mandating that the "herd" be vaccinated prior to admission to school in order to slow the outbreaks among the unimmunized and eventually eliminate the disease - the virus will remain active in at least the 50% of the population which no one is suggesting be vaccinated, far too large a population to ultimately eliminate the disease. The insurance companies (and public health care alternatives to insurance) can and should be mandated to make vaccinations available without charge, or with minimal charge, just as they have been forced to do in most states with respect to mammograms.

[mhatrw]

194. Thank you. Expect dozens more personal attacks from the pro-Merck crowd. n/t