SURELY YOU JEST
No, opponents to the HPV vaccine really think it interferes with abstinence-only sex education.
And don’t call me Shirley.
23 Responses to “SURELY YOU JEST”
![]() Comment by StephanieO February 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
So the only argument they have against promiscuity is disease? I can think of a few more than that… |
![]() Comment by Stephanie February 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm |
But that is not the reason all opponents are opposed. Sure, that’s some people’s beef, but others of us have very valid concerns. |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross February 18th, 2007 at 8:46 am |
Valid? (ears perk up) I love it when we talk research and logic and philosophy and law! Without even knowing what those concerns might be, my first burning question: valid in what context? — “. . .an argument is said to be valid if the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises. ” “In philosophy, avoid using ‘valid’ as a multi-purpose term of vague commendation (‘The belief that God exists is valid’; ‘That’s a valid lifestyle’) “Research is valid if it represents the world as it really is.” (Other key research terms defined simply here too, like reliable, repeatable, representative) “Having legal binding force and authorized by law.“ |
![]() Comment by Jill February 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm |
My daughter (8 years old) will not be getting this vaccine until I see more long term data. Has nothing to do with sex or morality in my case. It has everything to do with reasonable risk. She has received all her other shots (i.e. MMR) but at this point I will wait to see more data. Here’s an article from mother...ng.com on the A Shot in the Dark Sick of the aggressive, targeted marketing onslaught of often inappropriate The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) According to Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death Gardasil is the first childhood vaccine to exclusively target girls. The HPV Health and Human Services is expected to approve the CDC Sources: |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross February 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm |
Doesn’t matter how valid our research and personal concerns, if women and girls don’t have the right and responsibility to act privately as we see fit, without outside interference from those who insist they know better than we do what’s good for us. How odd to read a Texas Republican quoted as saying about a female reproductive health issue: |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer February 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
National Vaccine Information Center From a Google search. So, is NVIC a “valid” source of information? Nance |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 18th, 2007 at 3:02 pm |
I’d say not.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc from the President of the organization is no way to build credibility. |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross February 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm |
Building credbility isn’t the point it seems — building cognitive dissonance might be though, pseudo-sciency mumbo-jumbo playing to the same earnest moderates who intelligent design tries to peel off by reframing their religious beliefs in traditionally open inquiry liberal language like “teaching both sides” and “choice.” We need critical thinking more than ever imo . . . |
![]() Comment by Andrea February 19th, 2007 at 9:57 am |
“Prior to cancer, HPV causes the growth of tell-tale abnormal cells, which can be detected by a Pap smear. Upon detection, the disease can be easily cured by minor surgery to remove the abnormal cells.” And this “minor” surgery has a hell of a lot more side effects and recovery time than a vaccine does. Ask me how I know (she says, sleepily.) Yes, it probably does need more testing – but if my daughters opt to have it (two are teens and can make up their own minds, thanks) so there isn’t a chance, or even a smaller chance, that they have to go through what I just did, then I am all for it. |
![]() Comment by Andrea February 19th, 2007 at 10:05 am |
Ugh, I was talking about the removal of cancer cells, not HPV ones. (TMI ahead) But given the plethora of procedures I have undergone, none of them are easy or minor. Not even the first procedure referenced, which I’ll assume is a colposcopy – the first line of defense in removing abnormal cells from the cervix. They are either frozen or more commonly cut off, like a pinch. But not like the pinch of a needle, like the pinch of a chunk of tissue coming off. There is no anesthetic. If repeated tests come back with new areas of bad cells cropping up, and/or they get worse, then you have a cone biopsy – the removal of a cone-shaped area of your cervix. Some of the biggest risks from that (aside from the usual risk of undergoing surgery) involve having your cervix unable to work properly. Sure beats chemo though. But a vaccine would have been a hell of a lot easier. |
![]() Comment by Jayne Nagy February 20th, 2007 at 8:24 am |
I’m appalled at the number of people who jump on the bandwagon for this vaccine without knowing ANY of the risks. i.e. how do you KNOW a vcaccine would have been easier? If you think for one moment that Merck has yours or your daughter’s best interstes at heart then you are one sadly mistaken parent. It’s all about money which of course is what drives any drug companies train……How wonderful for them all when they can pick up major league politicians and silde them into their back pockets. Here’s a queston–if some big drug comany (who just happens to be facing major losses due to lawsuits JUST as they make this wonderful vaccine) managed to get your governor to mandate shots for adolescent boys and men for say, prostate or testicular cancer, how many of you would be jumping on that bandwagon? I’ve spent too much time in the medical field to simply say “yess sir!” when a doctor recommends something. I’m very proactive in my health care and always was for my now grown daughters. They too take a skeptical view of mandated vaccines, which we all agree are way too many as it is. The drug companies may have some politicians in their pockets but they’ve got the fight of their lives coming when they attempt to get inside my, my daughters and my grandchildren’s bodies. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 20th, 2007 at 8:32 am |
And I’m appalled at the anti-scientific thread that seems pervasive among a segment of the HE community. I’d guess that my family is better informed than most as Lydia worked on the marketing program with Merck. No, she was not a Merck employee. She contracted for a few years with a research firm that Merck hired to interview doctors and laypeople. As part of preparing for the interviews, she had a thick folder with all sorts of data. Our girls (ages 13 and 10) got the first dose (of 3) yesterday. |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross February 20th, 2007 at 5:09 pm |
ME TOO! It’s not just the HE community, of course. One finds such people everywhere including School, but yeah. Me too. Not merely unscientific but anti-reason — willfully, purposefully, belligerently anti-intellectual and proud of it. This was first muttered about, darkly alluded to, acted out in tag-team, and finally spelled out publicly point-blank by their titular leader in the HE community, punctuated with beatings around the face and head from her turf-guarding gang. Science makes them mad; they are deeply suspicious and resentful of it. I got it, and got AWAY. |
![]() Comment by Andrea February 20th, 2007 at 7:34 pm |
I normally stay out of arguments like this… “i.e. how do you KNOW a vcaccine would have been easier?” Did you not read both my comments? I KNOW because I am, this minute recovering from “minor” surgery to remove cancer cells from my cervix. Plus a large portion of said cervix. That’s why. Knocked me flat for a week and a half so far. And no, I do not trust everything a doctor or drug company says, and I selectively vaccinate. I’ve done my homework – my girls are at risk because of our family’s history. I don’t necessarily think it should be mandatory, especially that young (Hep C vaccine is administered a couple years later, I think), but I DO think they are headed in the right direction. It shouldn’t be outright discounted. I’ve read up on the risks of the vaccine. The biggest risk of the procedure I had was death. (I’m done.) |
![]() Comment by Stephanie February 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm |
Okay, Daryl, please correct my emotionally-based decision making and non-scientific hysteria. For how long has this vaccine been tested? Has there been any study that has tracked the health and development of vaccinated girls through puberty and childbearing years? |
![]() Comment by Stephanie February 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm |
Actually, let me just comment on something Andrea has said. She has said that she vaccinates selectively, that she does not accept everything a drug company or doctor tells her. We do the same. No vaccines, or any other kind of medication, go into my children until I do the homework. I don’t have daughters, so this discussion is academic. If I had a daughter, she would not receive the vaccine until more testing is done. For my comfort level, this vaccine has not been tested enough. Plus, my family has no risk factors. The lack of risk factors, combined with medical checkups, would be plenty for me to feel confident about my theoretical daughter’s health until such time the vaccine could be tested to my satisfaction. Add to that, I do not favor government mandating health care. So where is my unscientific anti-reason? |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm |
There may be legitimate concerns about Gardasil. Big Pharma is eeeevilll ain’t one of them (You’ll have to read the HEM-Networking thread to see what I mean). And neither is the idea that it might somehow violate Texas sex-education law. |
![]() Comment by Stephanie February 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm |
Okay. I made an assumption that you were responding based on the responses to your post, and didn’t realize that you were talking about a thread elsewhere. That makes more sense. I apologize. Anyway … there are legitimate reasons (won’t make the mistake of using the word *valid* again, sheesh) to oppose Gardasil being made mandatory so quickly, but the idea that it violates abstinence-only education is certainly not one of them. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm |
No apology necessary. I was less than clear in both my original post (I should have said some opponents) and in my allusion to the HEM-Networking thread which Nance goofed on here. |
![]() Comment by Jayne Nagy February 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am |
I am sooo out of here. I will miss my wonderful belly laughs as I read the posts from folks who thing using BIG words will make them sound ever so much smarter (and to mock) than those of us who use simple terms to express our opinions. When I first stumbled across this site I thought it was going to be a place to “safely” express opinions. NOT SO! If you don’t have the same mind set tht the big word users have then you’re in for the big word tongue lashing of your on-line lives. FYI folks–using big words and mocking others does NOT support your self-inflated sense of intelligence. It simply makes you look like the opinionated bigots that you are. Out and gone. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm |
I’m a bit confused. This was your first comment in this thread. So where were you tongue-lashed? |
![]() Comment by COD February 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pm |
Daryl, She commented above on 2/20 with a rant about how Merck only cares about money. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi February 26th, 2007 at 3:19 pm |
Doh! I missed it. So I guess I was the “lasher”? Pervasive? Not exactly a $5 word. I could have used “prevalent” but that wouldn’t have saved any syllables. Common? Other suggestions? I don’t have my thesaurus here. Tim, you’re quite erudite. I mean you can talk good English. Help me out here. 🙂 |