I found the following figure from webmd: [rquoter] About 20 million people in the U.S. are infected with HPV, and by age 50, at least 80% of women will have had an HPV infection, according to the CDC. [/rquoter] Obviously only a fraction of those who are infected get cancer, but I have a hard time believing that a 'STD health class' would significantly put a dent in a problem affecting up to 80% of the population. This virus is not the exclusive domain of 'sluts' and 'whores'. This appears to not be a type of aberrant behavior that can be affected and remedied by counseling, like 'Kids, this is what will happen if you share needles.' I've read this thread and I still have no real opinion on whether mandating this vaccine is a good idea or a bad idea, but I firmly believe that presenting sex education as an alternative would not be worthwhile. That is my opinion, anyway.
Ideally, one wouldn't have to choose between the two. But this is Texas, and there's not sex ed. company ponying up bigtime cash and favors to any of the political parties.
For Shame! Texas Governor Perry took Merck money before mandating cervical vaccine David Edwards and Mike Sheehan Published: Thursday February 22, 2007 Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) says that it's just a coincidence that he and eight other lawmakers received donations of $5,000 each from Merck lobbyists just a few days before mandating the drug giant's HPV cervical cancer vaccine for all females in Texas ages 12 and up. "There's been a lot of pressure about the implications of vaccinating young girls against sexually-transmitted diseases," says CNN's Ali Velshi in the video below, "some people thinking that that encourages promiscuity at that age." He reports though that "this thing is coming undone by word, rumor and report of connection between Rick Perry's office and Merck." The main lobbyist for Merck previously worked as Chief of Staff for Gov. Rick Perry. Several other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory, thanks in part to Merck's aaggressive lobbying. http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/TX_Gov._Perry_took_Merck_money_0222.html
there are really two issues going on this thread. the first is obviously political lobbyists. but there is another issue that bugs me in this thread and I recently saw a news special on it but I can't remember which show it was. It was about these drug companies pushing these products on commercials. If you've noticed, I guess its merck, has been advertising this vaccine heavily. I see at least one a day, or it seems. but until before merck got approval for this drug, I never heard of this disease. these drug companies are scaring us to push these products. and it seems like a growing epidemic. how many drugs do you see advertised a day, and how many times do you find yourself saying, "I never heard of that illness".
If I had a daughter I would get her this vaccine no matter what. What parent in the world wouldn't want to protect their child against cancer? Who cares - if you can stop a disese from happening, stop it. It's like saying if they develop a vaccine for AIDs but not a cure, that you still wouldn't give it to people because it might encourge promiscuity. And if they get it, well, that's too bad. I can't believe people would risk lives for their political beliefs. Wait....what I guess people do that all the time!
This whole vaccine thing is one huge scam is here's why: Vaccines have side-effects that may not show up months or years later. When "mysterious" ailments start showing up, Merck will be there to provide more treatment for these ailments that will in turn bring more side-effects. It's a vicious cycle and the most likely result is you will get sicker and have alot less $$$.
the side-effects issue is another problem. wasnt this vaccine just developed last summer? definately not enough time to properly determine what side effects there may be. and the fact that merck is the company that gave us vioxx, i would not give them the benefit of the doubt with anything.
