You may want to ask Ben Rothlesberger how well that worked out for him; check the news if you haven't heard.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:.because they think it will promote sexual promiscuity. This is a joke, right?
THere's nothing funny about it, when you realize this vaccine can and will be administered to 9 year old little girls, who one way or the other have been infected by the virus, through sexual contact.
Pennsylvania also has no helmet law. It was Ben's risk to take.
Quote:It is not an infectious disease
Infectious isn't the right term. Don't you mean communicable?
McWhitey's attempt to take a swipe at Walter and Miss Law at the same time only serves to show how dense he is. Miss Law was simply providing an example of how the state is considered able to legislate as of right in matters of compelling interest to the state.
McGentrix wrote:
I will pretend to be Walter for a second and remind you New Hampshire has no seatbelt or helmet requirement for adults.
I haven't been on this thread at all.
Besides, it's impossible to be me, especially for you.
Although I'm personally pro compulsory vaccination - not in this case and generally I've my sincere doubts about that as well (at least for Germany, since it could be unconstitutional).
I think my main problem in this whole equation is, why does it have to be mandatory to be affordable? I guess it has something to do with making it in bulk, and that people will tend to only get the mandatory vaccinations.
I'd be happiest if it were both affordable (or as affordable as it would be if it were mandatory) and non-mandatory.
sozobe wrote:I think my main problem in this whole equation is, why does it have to be mandatory to be affordable?
Yep. Why wouldn't insurance pay for all vaccines?
Here, you either get the recommended vaccines free from the public health authorities (or via your family doctor) - others are paid by the health insurance.
Re: Moral majority opposes cancer vaccine
FreeDuck wrote:...because they think it will promote sexual promiscuity. This is a joke, right?
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article755931.ece
Quote: Pharmaceutical giants Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are gearing up for a bruising showdown with America's religious right after the US medicines regulator approved a new blockbuster cervical cancer vaccine last week.
Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus that most regularly causes cervical cancer, Human Papilloma- virus, may lead to sexual promiscuity. "We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government. "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."
Yeah, because teenage girls are most concerned with getting cancer as a consequence to having sex. Right.
No, it's because they know it will eleminate them as they are a cancer on the human race!
sozobe wrote:I think my main problem in this whole equation is, why does it have to be mandatory to be affordable?
I don't think it
has to. It sounds more like an insurance heuristic to me. In distinguishing what they fund, they need some rules between "gotta"s and "nice to have"s; and when schools make it mandatory, it's probably a "gotta".
Another point to remember is that, because health insurance in America tends to change with your employer, the insurance who invests in vaccination today will likely lower some other insurance's medical bill in five years; It's good public health, but bad business under those circumstances.
Setanta wrote:McWhitey's attempt to take a swipe at Walter and Miss Law at the same time only serves to show how dense he is.
I thought he was funny ...
Kinda like someone posting "I will pretend to be nimh for a second" before rattling off some geekily obscure, tangentally related set of polling statistics..
You left the "i" out of tangentially, dweeb . . .
Setanta wrote:You left the "i" out of tangentially, dweeb . . .
Actually, it's left out of "tangentally", big boss ...
These people long ago proved they are neither moral, nor are they in the majority. However, they are powerful and plenty of sheeple follow them around, buying into everything they say, hook, line and sinker.
These are the people who think a woman has no right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
These are the people who think a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant.
These are people who think it is perfectly okay for a husband to use "spanking" to "discipline" his wife.
These are people who think that it was a mistake to give women the right to vote, but since they do have the right to vote, the women vote the way their husband's tell them.
These are people who think if they say "Don't have sex," to their teenage child, that's all the birth control information they need.
Does it surprise me that they are so stupid, so narrow minded, to think that a vaccine that would cure cervical cancer would lead to girls being promiscuous? Heaven's no!!!
I remember all too well when the Right to Life men came to my high school to tell us all about how horrible abortion was. They showed us graphic pictures. Then they told the girls that boys would be boys and if the girls got pregnant it was nobody's fault but their own. My mother was amazed they let these neanderthals come to the school, but they had to, because Planned Parenthood also came in and gave a talk about the options for preventing and handling an unwanted pregnancy (common sense things like: abstinence, birth control, good prenatal care, adopting out the child, or an abortion if the pregnant person so chose).
Walter Hinteler wrote:Setanta wrote:You left the "i" out of tangentially, dweeb . . .
Actually, it's left out of "tangentally", big boss ...
{Channels Setanta}: You left the final period off of your ellipsis....
I cannot believe that so far, nobody, nobody has pointed out that HPV is not necessarily sexually transmitted.
Let me quote an entire letter printed in Scientific American...
Quote:Thank you for highlighting in "To Banish a Cancer" the achievements in the fight against human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes all the cervical cancers. I must point out, however, a few facts tht your editorial overlooked, because understanding the virus's biology removes the sexual connotation.
HPV can live only in the squamous skin layer, which is about 400 nanometres deep. No other sexually transmitted infection (STI) lives in the skin. HPV is rapidly transmitted from squamous skin to squamous skin cells but is not transmitted by bodily fluids, as are all other STIs. Most important is that penetrative intercourse, though the most efficient method for transmission, is not necessary for this rapid transfer from skin to skin. Fingernails and the skin around them contain the same types of cervical cancer-causing HPV as the anogenital skin does, allowing autoinoculation from simple habits such as a toilet hygiene or tampon insertion. This virus is ancient and omnipresent in all environments, and 80-percent of women (and probably more men, but this has not been well documented yet) develop at least one HPV infection in their lifetime.
Thus, all references, surveys and propagation of "educational" materials that assert cervical cancer is transmitted solely through sexual contact are deceiving and do the public a disservice. The potential for improved health with the new vaccine in both men and women is tremendous - and it is the biggest health care advance in 50 years for women. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the truth.
Dian M. Harper.
Director, Gynecologic Cancer Prevent Research Group
Dartmouth Medical School.
Scientific American, June 2006, p6.
So, in summary. HPV is an STI, but is not necessarily transferred through sexual means.
News:
Quote:....The great majority of cases of cervical cancer result from infection by the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is sexually transmitted.
The study used a computer model to predict the outcome of vaccinating all 12-year-old girls in the UK - almost 377,000 - over their lifetime.
The GSK researchers found it would lead to a 76 per cent reduction in cases of cervical cancer and a similar reduction in deaths....
three quarters! this is one of them there bonafide mircule cures. And miracles should be endorsed by the religious right.
EDIT: adding the link:
Daily Mail
And from another source
Quote:According to new data presented at a medical conference in Prague, the vaccine Gardasil has the potential to neutralise additional strains of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) that causes the disease.
Gardasil directly targets HPV types 16 and 18, which account for 75 percent of all cervical cancer, but now scientists have found the vaccine is also capable of neutralising strains 31 and 45, which together account for another 8 to 9 percent of cases.
They say more clinical trials are needed to confirm this discovery but the revelation is a huge plus as it means the vaccine will be almost 85% effective in preventing HPV types.
Gardasil is produced by drug company Merck and faces direct competition from GlaxoSmithKline's rival vaccine Cervarix which has shown equal promise in fighting a range of cancer-causing HPV types.
news-medical.net
Is it my imagination or has the R.R. mostly gotten it's panties in a bunch about drugs that effect women's lives?
