Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 14, 2011
2012 / Politics / Sex / Religion Religious Conservatives Hate the HPV Vaccine Because They Want Women to Die
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:50 PM
In the midst of the shitstorm over Michele Bachmann's comments about the HPV vaccine—her false statements, a.k.a "lies"—let's pause to remember why religious conservatives like Bachmann hate the HPV vaccine so much.
HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections. HPV is easily transmitted by skin-to-skin contact; condoms provide some protection, but not much. Most people who have been exposed to the human papilloma virus don't know they've been exposed. Most are asymptomatic. An asymptomatic person can still pass the virus on. A small percentage of women who have HPV go on to develop cervical cancer and some of those women wind up dead. Religious conservatives loved the HPV virus because it killed women. Here was a potentially fatal STI that condoms couldn't protect you from. Abstinence educators pointed to HPV and jumped up and down—they loved to overstate HPV's seriousness and its deadliness—in their efforts to scare kids into saving themselves for marriage. And they fought the introduction of the HPV vaccine tooth-and-nail because vaccinating women against HPV would "undermine" the abstinence message. Given a choice between your wife, daughter, sister, or mom dying of cervical cancer or no longer being to scream "HPV IS GOING TO KILL YOU!" at classrooms full of terrified teenagers, socially conservative abstinence "educators" preferred the former.
Bachmann and her ilk believe that woman who have sex—along with men who fail to purchase health insurance—deserve to die horrible deaths. That's why they hate the HPV vaccine, that's why they fought its introduction, that's why they tell lies about it now. Because they want women to die.
The party of life, ladies and gentlemen.
2
Right up there with abortions causing breast cancer and masturbation causing hairy palms.
Actually, IF ONLY this were as innocuous as hairy palms; this is life or death for some women.
Actually, IF ONLY this were as innocuous as hairy palms; this is life or death for some women.
3
Teapartiers believe that if "whores" must die to promote their message, so be it! They of course neglect to mention how gran'ma died of "female concerns" and their mother had a hysterectomy.
Granted, I don't hate the Huffington Post any less for their regressive agenda, simply because HuffPo is believed to be left-leaning. They (and Oprah, for that matter) have their hands bloody just as much.
Granted, I don't hate the Huffington Post any less for their regressive agenda, simply because HuffPo is believed to be left-leaning. They (and Oprah, for that matter) have their hands bloody just as much.
5
She'd be more pro-vaccine if she or her husband were a board director or former chair, or a sizable shareholder of a pharmaceutical company that made $$$$ from vaccines. The idea in US politics is to get into some sort of high-ranking office and then promote some crisis that the company you once controlled and still have lots of shares in can profit by.
6
Actually, they don't want women to die, they just want women beaten into submission. That way they can churn out more "arrows for god's army."
7
Bottom line is that the GOP believes that poor people should not have sex or be allowed to live. Period. If they don't breed, their kids can't grow up to vote democratic. Any solution that allows poor people to die, the GOP are all over it.
8
As usual, Urgutha nails it. This isn't about wanting women to die, but about wanting women to not have sex outside of marriage.
9
Look, if you're dumb enough to perform the low paying jobs that America needs filled to function, you don't deserve to have protected sex for fun. You should be focusing the rest of your 11 hour work day on having babies.
10
No, they hate the HPV vaccine because they don't want women to have sex unless it's their husband. They hate women's sexuality.
11
Again: This is not just about cervical cancer!!!!
The HPV vaccine will help prevent oral and laryngeal cancers (most of which are HPV related). The HPV vaccine protects against 6,11, 16 and 18, but studies have shown that there is some cross protection against other HPV types.
So a vaccine that can protect against cervical cancer, oral/laryngeal cancer, oh - I forgot - anal cancer (sorry Farrah), and genital warts. Versus morons who cite bad literature and no scientifically proven severe adverse effects.
It seems so clear. This protects both men and women and both should be vaccinated!
(Also, keep in mind that cervical cancer is relatively uncommon these days with regular pap screening. But having parts of your cervix lopped off for precancer lesion or premature birth because of cervical incompetence, etc is not exactly pleasant.)
The HPV vaccine will help prevent oral and laryngeal cancers (most of which are HPV related). The HPV vaccine protects against 6,11, 16 and 18, but studies have shown that there is some cross protection against other HPV types.
So a vaccine that can protect against cervical cancer, oral/laryngeal cancer, oh - I forgot - anal cancer (sorry Farrah), and genital warts. Versus morons who cite bad literature and no scientifically proven severe adverse effects.
It seems so clear. This protects both men and women and both should be vaccinated!
(Also, keep in mind that cervical cancer is relatively uncommon these days with regular pap screening. But having parts of your cervix lopped off for precancer lesion or premature birth because of cervical incompetence, etc is not exactly pleasant.)
12
I'm disinclined to agree to the idea that religious conservatives love HPV or that they want their family members to die. What they love is compliance, money, and power. And fearful people tend, not all of them, to be more compliant. Compliant people can be told what to do, they make excellent sheep.
Are they sacrificing the health of individuals, not just girls as HPV can cause cancer (cervical, anal, throat) and cares nothing for its hosts gender, upon the alter of their greed? Yes. But I don't think it is because they love a virus, or wish for their own loved one to die. No, they are counting on odds that their loved ones will be compliant to the abstinence message and so will their future mate, because they've raised them to follow their moral values. It is a gamble. A foolish one in my opinion.
Anyway, you have some power in this. Make sure your beautiful boy is fully immunized, all three shots, Dan. And, I assure you that both of ours have their IQ well intact, despite Bachmann's fears.
Are they sacrificing the health of individuals, not just girls as HPV can cause cancer (cervical, anal, throat) and cares nothing for its hosts gender, upon the alter of their greed? Yes. But I don't think it is because they love a virus, or wish for their own loved one to die. No, they are counting on odds that their loved ones will be compliant to the abstinence message and so will their future mate, because they've raised them to follow their moral values. It is a gamble. A foolish one in my opinion.
Anyway, you have some power in this. Make sure your beautiful boy is fully immunized, all three shots, Dan. And, I assure you that both of ours have their IQ well intact, despite Bachmann's fears.
13
Oncogenic (cancer causing) HPV subtypes cause anal, penile, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal cancer in men, women, straight and gay! Vaccinate the boys too! Men pass the virus on to women and men can get the virus from women!
14
Um ... wow, and you accuse the Republicans of spinning ... just ... wow. I remember when the Democrat supporters were actually better than the Republican ones, at least better than the Republican politicians, now I seriously see no difference.
The age of Us Versus Them goes deeper into depravity.
The age of Us Versus Them goes deeper into depravity.
15
@6 is right. Conservatives don't want all women to die, just the "slutty" ones. They either don't know or don't care that women are just as at-risk if their husbands sleep around.
One of my friends used to provide AIDS-counseling services for immigrant women. Many of them were convinced that they couldn't have HIV because they had never had sex with anyone other than their husbands. As a multilingual, my friend had the heart-breaking task of letting them know the likely scenario...
One of my friends used to provide AIDS-counseling services for immigrant women. Many of them were convinced that they couldn't have HIV because they had never had sex with anyone other than their husbands. As a multilingual, my friend had the heart-breaking task of letting them know the likely scenario...
16
Oh, just wait until health officials start recommending that boys be vaccinated against it too to prevent anal cancer... Because the only thing they hate more than women is teh gays.
But, if they find out it prevents penile cancer- the entire controversy will vanish. watch.
But, if they find out it prevents penile cancer- the entire controversy will vanish. watch.
18
@6/8: Their desires lead to suffering AND submission. HPV affects all their family and relatives.
19
@15: " Conservatives don't want all women to die, just the "slutty" ones."
Yeah, but their mothers/sisters/grandmothers are thus "sluts", no matter how few men they may have slept with.
Yeah, but their mothers/sisters/grandmothers are thus "sluts", no matter how few men they may have slept with.
20
@11: "The HPV vaccine will help prevent oral and laryngeal cancers "
Probably also anal and penile, but men shouldn't be "whoremongers", obviously.
Probably also anal and penile, but men shouldn't be "whoremongers", obviously.
21
They've found HPV under boy's fingernails- so heavy petting (so retro!) is dangerous too- and not just for girls. This vaccine needs to be given to both boys and girls to protect them. The bottom line is the old double standard- girls should be punished for having sex outside of marriage and boys should have all the sex they want without getting caught.
24
@14 "now I seriously see no difference."
I recommend you start by watching some old Sesame Street reruns, "One of these things is not like the others..." Once you've learned the basics, try finding superficial differences between the parties and their representatives. Even you may eventually be able to see underlying philosophical and policy differences that have powerful and far reaching consequences, especially as the play out in the large legislative bodies in out representative Federal government.
I recommend you start by watching some old Sesame Street reruns, "One of these things is not like the others..." Once you've learned the basics, try finding superficial differences between the parties and their representatives. Even you may eventually be able to see underlying philosophical and policy differences that have powerful and far reaching consequences, especially as the play out in the large legislative bodies in out representative Federal government.
25
@21: They've also found evidence of anogenital HPV in nuns and children with no history of sexuality and molestation.
26
Actually, HPV does effect males as badly as females, just not as frequently. Both penile and anal cancer is possible in males, anal and cervical for females. Warts though are the most common complication however most people who get it fight it off with no problems. The vaccine is to decrease the chances of complications, and is still not a sure thing just better than nothing. Gardisal is recommended for both male and female to reduce the risk of warts, and anal cancer. Cervarix is for cervical cancer, but there is nothing for penile cancer yet, which is why there is no push for males to get the vaccine.
Note also, cervical and penile cancer are not death sentences if diagnosed early enough, anal isn't if caught earlier. However, penile cancer has the lowest risk of death (that I just know from personal research) even if it has progressed, so long as it does not migrate all they have to do is remove the member.
Gotta love the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.h…
So again, the Democrat supporters have fallen to the level of Republicans, congratulations, the last bit of faith I had in Dems has been utterly and completely destroyed. I now regard you as the same as right wing religious nuts .... like my mother, how wonderful for you, though I know you don't care about one person, but if you want to know why more people are becoming disillusioned, this is why. Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ....
Note also, cervical and penile cancer are not death sentences if diagnosed early enough, anal isn't if caught earlier. However, penile cancer has the lowest risk of death (that I just know from personal research) even if it has progressed, so long as it does not migrate all they have to do is remove the member.
Gotta love the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.h…
So again, the Democrat supporters have fallen to the level of Republicans, congratulations, the last bit of faith I had in Dems has been utterly and completely destroyed. I now regard you as the same as right wing religious nuts .... like my mother, how wonderful for you, though I know you don't care about one person, but if you want to know why more people are becoming disillusioned, this is why. Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ....
27
@26: "So again, the Democrat supporters have fallen to the level of Republicans, congratulations, the last bit of faith I had in Dems has been utterly and completely destroyed. I now regard you as the same as right wing religious nuts"
What, posted here would ever give you license to say anything this stupid?
"Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ...."
Plenty of Republicans hold anti-science views as a matter of political position. Plenty of "Democrats" do as well (the aforementioned HuffPo technically counts, even though Arianna Huffington is nothing more than a longtime Republican that wanted to be invited to the right parties.)
The "only" difference? Mainstream Dems think those are crazy, whereas mainstream Republicans distrust modern science that isn't endorsed by the GOP.
What, posted here would ever give you license to say anything this stupid?
"Spins like this, lowest form of political statement, lie or exaggerate your opposition's views ...."
Plenty of Republicans hold anti-science views as a matter of political position. Plenty of "Democrats" do as well (the aforementioned HuffPo technically counts, even though Arianna Huffington is nothing more than a longtime Republican that wanted to be invited to the right parties.)
The "only" difference? Mainstream Dems think those are crazy, whereas mainstream Republicans distrust modern science that isn't endorsed by the GOP.
28
I know I can always count on Catalina Vel-Duray and Kim in Portland to provide the most gracious and level-headed comments on Slog. Two lovely ladies.
29
@26, Wow, one blog post completely destroyed your faith in Democrats? This must be your first day on the internet.
30
@14: Please point out the last time the Democrats fielded candidates whose statements flew in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Statements like
1. Evolution did not happen.
2. Climate change is a myth.
3. Vaccines cause mental retardation.
1. Evolution did not happen.
2. Climate change is a myth.
3. Vaccines cause mental retardation.
31
What about vertical transmission? A mother can transmit HPV to her child in the womb. So what about protecting the unborn?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/4836…
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/4836…
33
Spindles and sgt doom must be caught in traffic. I am sure they will make up for their absence in due time.
34
You know, I'd really like for these people to meet a woman whose medical appointment I interpreted once. She had one sexual partner her whole life - her SOB husband who'd fucked around on her and bailed after she had the three kids - and that fuckhead had given her HPV. Coming from a culture where women don't get regular check-ups, it advanced to cervical cancer and she only had another year or two left. She had three kids under 11, no relatives in this country who could look after them, and was absolutely driven mad by wondering what was going to happen to them when she died.
I'd like just one of these cynical motherfuckers to have looked in her eyes and seen the terror there.
I'd like just one of these cynical motherfuckers to have looked in her eyes and seen the terror there.
35
@3: Word. My great-grandma died ca. 1920 from cervical cancer, ~10 years after divorcing my great-grandpa, who must have been quite a player, as the Census shows him marrying a new 20-year-old every 10 years.
Genealogy+death certificates = very enlightening family history.
Genealogy+death certificates = very enlightening family history.
36
My sister had half her cervix out at age 25. Both of my daughters are getting vaccinated as soon as it is reccomended.
38
of course the religious rights distrust of science and their dogmatic animosity towards women makes for bad social policy;
but if you add to that a political agenda wrapped in warped notions of "liberty" things often quickly get much worse... at the very least in terms of discourse, and sometimes even much worse than that.
but if you add to that a political agenda wrapped in warped notions of "liberty" things often quickly get much worse... at the very least in terms of discourse, and sometimes even much worse than that.
40
@34: "I'd like just one of these cynical motherfuckers to have looked in her eyes and seen the terror there."
You're talking about a group of people who still adjust their morality in terms of predestination.
People get HPV because they made poor choices. People are poor because they are lazy. I am Privileged because I am a "good" and moral person. Predestination makes it all the easier to harden their hearts to the effects of STIs, no matter how INCREDIBLY COMMON they are.
If HPV presented more often on males, and had such (commonly) fatal consequences, the GOP would not have so much of an issue with vaccinations. They've never protested any of the treatments that affect white, heterosexual men as much as women, there was no conservative religious outcry against treating Syphilis or Gonorrhea.
You're talking about a group of people who still adjust their morality in terms of predestination.
People get HPV because they made poor choices. People are poor because they are lazy. I am Privileged because I am a "good" and moral person. Predestination makes it all the easier to harden their hearts to the effects of STIs, no matter how INCREDIBLY COMMON they are.
If HPV presented more often on males, and had such (commonly) fatal consequences, the GOP would not have so much of an issue with vaccinations. They've never protested any of the treatments that affect white, heterosexual men as much as women, there was no conservative religious outcry against treating Syphilis or Gonorrhea.
41
@32 and 29 ... I may play a pessimist, but I really am an optimist at heart. I was hoping it was some phase they'd grow out of once Bush was a distant memory ... why? Because I use to love Democrat's take on issues .... now, the ever decreasing logic of the Dem politicians and the increasing and utter hatred spewed by their supporters, then top it off with spins like this "she wishes they'd die" .... "I'm started to become what I play on TV". >.<
To the rest:
Sorry, but the Republican candidates hurt themselves enough with what they say, and actually reporting on that without bias would help the Democrats, but to completely spin it with lies about "he said" and "she said" when they didn't actually say that but are just deluded and uneducated, that does NOT make you or your party look like one that should be in charge anymore, or ever again. Yes, allowing religious belief to influence one's logic is stupid, but to condemn them for having a belief at all is really poor form. Disregarding science it stupid to, but that's all you should need to see it's a bad idea, not creating a lie like this. Seriously, the Us Versus Them in the US has got to stop, it was cute back when Obama was first elected but now it's way out of hand. The Democrat politicians promised they'd seek non-partisan solutions at first, then they lowered themselves to bi-partisan, now it's just partisan .... and the supporters are even worse. Ironically the Republicans use to spin worse than the Democrats, but now they're tame when compared to shit like this. THIS is more sickening than believing a conspiracy theory like Bachmman does, THIS is more sickening than bashing gays, THIS is more sickening and heartbreaking than anything the Republicans have said since Obama got elected, and that's VERY low, so very low I think it passed the core of Earth itself.
Look at you all, instead of seeking to find better ways to educate people like we use to, you are jumping on lynch mob bandwagons. Where are your torches? Did you remember your pitchforks to? I'm not perfect, I am far from perfect, but I expected better than this from the people I use to agree with and support because they had better ideas and wanted to work as a nation instead of a party. Last, this is NOT what the founding fathers wanted. Cartman said it best, "You need each other, the gun toting rednecks to keep America from looking weak, and the bleeding heart hippies to help America look innocent" (paraphrased), so suck it up and learn to work together again.
Note: I gave a similar lecture to some Republican supporters, sadly they actually took it to heart and I doubt you will.
More...
To the rest:
Sorry, but the Republican candidates hurt themselves enough with what they say, and actually reporting on that without bias would help the Democrats, but to completely spin it with lies about "he said" and "she said" when they didn't actually say that but are just deluded and uneducated, that does NOT make you or your party look like one that should be in charge anymore, or ever again. Yes, allowing religious belief to influence one's logic is stupid, but to condemn them for having a belief at all is really poor form. Disregarding science it stupid to, but that's all you should need to see it's a bad idea, not creating a lie like this. Seriously, the Us Versus Them in the US has got to stop, it was cute back when Obama was first elected but now it's way out of hand. The Democrat politicians promised they'd seek non-partisan solutions at first, then they lowered themselves to bi-partisan, now it's just partisan .... and the supporters are even worse. Ironically the Republicans use to spin worse than the Democrats, but now they're tame when compared to shit like this. THIS is more sickening than believing a conspiracy theory like Bachmman does, THIS is more sickening than bashing gays, THIS is more sickening and heartbreaking than anything the Republicans have said since Obama got elected, and that's VERY low, so very low I think it passed the core of Earth itself.
Look at you all, instead of seeking to find better ways to educate people like we use to, you are jumping on lynch mob bandwagons. Where are your torches? Did you remember your pitchforks to? I'm not perfect, I am far from perfect, but I expected better than this from the people I use to agree with and support because they had better ideas and wanted to work as a nation instead of a party. Last, this is NOT what the founding fathers wanted. Cartman said it best, "You need each other, the gun toting rednecks to keep America from looking weak, and the bleeding heart hippies to help America look innocent" (paraphrased), so suck it up and learn to work together again.
Note: I gave a similar lecture to some Republican supporters, sadly they actually took it to heart and I doubt you will.
42
Benign neglect isn't murder, but it's a heartlessness under the guise of kindness, KittenKoder.
Should we pretend spreading disinformation is doing women a favor?
Should we take (presumably Liberal) monsters like Jenny McCarthy at face value when they're "helping parents make the right decisions"?
Should we pretend spreading disinformation is doing women a favor?
Should we take (presumably Liberal) monsters like Jenny McCarthy at face value when they're "helping parents make the right decisions"?
43
"The Democrat politicians promised they'd seek non-partisan solutions at first, then they lowered themselves to bi-partisan, now it's just partisan"
Spoken like a true faux-independent. The Democrats started off Centrist, and have slid further and further right-wing. Nothing is good enough.
Spoken like a true faux-independent. The Democrats started off Centrist, and have slid further and further right-wing. Nothing is good enough.
44
" THIS is more sickening than believing a conspiracy theory like Bachmman does, THIS is more sickening than bashing gays, THIS is more sickening and heartbreaking than anything the Republicans have said since Obama got elected, and that's VERY low, so very low I think it passed the core of Earth itself."
Yes, calling out harmful actions is worse than the disgusting actions themselves. How dare anyone step up and protect science, medicine, and womens' health against deception. How dare anyone take an adversarial tone! How dare anyone call out blatant lies when spoken!
I don't give a shit if you get the vapors from our language, KittenKoder. The political discourse is terrible, but it's your fault for playing false equivalency and unquestioningly toeing the Republican narrative, not ours.
Yes, calling out harmful actions is worse than the disgusting actions themselves. How dare anyone step up and protect science, medicine, and womens' health against deception. How dare anyone take an adversarial tone! How dare anyone call out blatant lies when spoken!
I don't give a shit if you get the vapors from our language, KittenKoder. The political discourse is terrible, but it's your fault for playing false equivalency and unquestioningly toeing the Republican narrative, not ours.
45
@41: I see you didn't answer my question @30. Here's why the question is relevant: because the GOP has started electing politicians who actually believe the crazy shit from the right, or are at least willing to pretend they believe it. As the debt ceiling fiasco showed, you can't negotiate with crazy people-- though fortunately there were enough sane GOP politicians to get the deal through. That won't last.
If the GOP were electing politicans who negotiated using reason, then your point about compromise would be well taken. But they're not: they're electing crazies for whom "conservatism" is a form of religious zealotry. And until that changes, there really isn't any point to engaging with them.
Do you calmly discuss issues with a soapbox preacher so that he sees the error of his ways?
If the GOP were electing politicans who negotiated using reason, then your point about compromise would be well taken. But they're not: they're electing crazies for whom "conservatism" is a form of religious zealotry. And until that changes, there really isn't any point to engaging with them.
Do you calmly discuss issues with a soapbox preacher so that he sees the error of his ways?
46
@11 This is all true, but the problem is that low-income women don't get pap-smears. Other causes of cervical cancer include poor diet, early age at first full-term pregnancy, and lots of full-term pregnancies. So... poverty. Yet another reason why Bachmann doesn't want to see the HPV vaccine made more accessible.
47
@46: "Other causes of cervical cancer include poor diet, early age at first full-term pregnancy, and lots of full-term pregnancies."
Er, those are correlated and may trigger, but do not necessarily CAUSE it.
Er, those are correlated and may trigger, but do not necessarily CAUSE it.
49
and remember, the Republican narrative is so dangerous precisely because it intends to lead us into proven deadly Republican policies.
50
"but it's your fault for playing false equivalency and unquestioningly toeing the Republican narrative, not ours. " That has got the be the most telling comment of Democrat supporters. This is what it says: It's your fault for not giving us your vote.
Do you REALLY want to stoop that low? I don't tow Republican narrative, I didn't even use to pay attention until I noticed the spins. An independent isn't partisan, I choose issues not parties, simply by that logic I am considered an independent by many, note, not the same as the Independent party which are really the faux-independents. I believe the new term they use for my non-partisan look is "swing voter" ... but really that's just another name for non-partisan. Just because you can't handle someone holding up a mirror to your words, doesn't mean we are Republican, there are more people like me who are simply choosing the lesser of two evils this time, and well, I don't like having to do that, I'm guessing a lot of people probably don't like being in that position either. If you can't be honest about what your opponents actually say or do, how can someone trust you to be honest about what you want done? Ayn, if you want people to respect the Democrats more, they should start being Democrats again at least. "Religious Conservatives Hate the HPV Vaccine Because They Want Women to Die " Is not what any of them have said, or even implied, the only thing they have said is conspiracy nuttery on it, a conspiracy nuttery that's becoming more common these days, but it wasn't wishing people dead. Can't you at least admit that? I admit when I'm wrong, can't you? Again, I know I'm not perfect, but if someone as imperfect as me can admit to being wrong (see the Earthlike planet comment or the cyclist on the Ave comments for proof on here) surely someone with your creds could.
More...
Do you REALLY want to stoop that low? I don't tow Republican narrative, I didn't even use to pay attention until I noticed the spins. An independent isn't partisan, I choose issues not parties, simply by that logic I am considered an independent by many, note, not the same as the Independent party which are really the faux-independents. I believe the new term they use for my non-partisan look is "swing voter" ... but really that's just another name for non-partisan. Just because you can't handle someone holding up a mirror to your words, doesn't mean we are Republican, there are more people like me who are simply choosing the lesser of two evils this time, and well, I don't like having to do that, I'm guessing a lot of people probably don't like being in that position either. If you can't be honest about what your opponents actually say or do, how can someone trust you to be honest about what you want done? Ayn, if you want people to respect the Democrats more, they should start being Democrats again at least. "Religious Conservatives Hate the HPV Vaccine Because They Want Women to Die " Is not what any of them have said, or even implied, the only thing they have said is conspiracy nuttery on it, a conspiracy nuttery that's becoming more common these days, but it wasn't wishing people dead. Can't you at least admit that? I admit when I'm wrong, can't you? Again, I know I'm not perfect, but if someone as imperfect as me can admit to being wrong (see the Earthlike planet comment or the cyclist on the Ave comments for proof on here) surely someone with your creds could.
51
@41, We have different definitions of sickening, it would seem. A major candidate for the presidency going on national television and delivering second-hand information from a random stranger as though it’s as good as peer-reviewed science, demonstrating both her profound ignorance and contempt for science all at once = sickening, disturbing, even terrifying when I consider she has a theoretical chance at running the country. A sex advice columnist making hyperbolic statements about said politician’s beliefs, on the other hand, doesn’t even chart on the scale.
52
@50: "Do you REALLY want to stoop that low? "
You're crying about tone, not substance.
"Republicans don't care if women die"
versus
"Republicans want women to die"
versus
"Republicans would rather women die than be 'sluts' "
versus any number of iterations that state the same thing.
All that matters is that women are dying and Republicans passively-to-actively encourage this to continue, as long as it justifies their "moral code".
You're what is known as a "tone troll" oh so concerned about civility! Oh so unconcerned with the horrors of actual GOP policy. God help us if someone gets angry at lies and mistruths. Your shock and horror that someone would get angry and dare use strong words is childlike.
Even if we were to use less strong language, it would not reduce the crass politics that encourage deaths to occur. It's your passive complicity that allows it to continue.
You're crying about tone, not substance.
"Republicans don't care if women die"
versus
"Republicans want women to die"
versus
"Republicans would rather women die than be 'sluts' "
versus any number of iterations that state the same thing.
All that matters is that women are dying and Republicans passively-to-actively encourage this to continue, as long as it justifies their "moral code".
You're what is known as a "tone troll" oh so concerned about civility! Oh so unconcerned with the horrors of actual GOP policy. God help us if someone gets angry at lies and mistruths. Your shock and horror that someone would get angry and dare use strong words is childlike.
Even if we were to use less strong language, it would not reduce the crass politics that encourage deaths to occur. It's your passive complicity that allows it to continue.
53
@51 You mean like how Al Gore did? Yep, I do see that as sickening to, but at least get the story right and don't adlib with complete fabrications, as I said, that's stooping to their level, do you really want to be the same as those you condemn?
54
"if someone as imperfect as me can admit to being wrong (see the Earthlike planet comment or the cyclist on the Ave comments for proof on here) surely someone with your creds could."
I lose my temper and *sound* like a jerk when things affect me, that does not make me somehow "worse" than someone who actively lies and places people in danger to gain popular support.
I lose my temper and *sound* like a jerk when things affect me, that does not make me somehow "worse" than someone who actively lies and places people in danger to gain popular support.
55
"@51 You mean like how Al Gore did? "
You're not helping your "i'm an independent" cred when you regurgitating GOP climate-denial lies. Stick to koding, stop pretending to understand hard science.
Check out
http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
If you're actually concerned with reality and not perpetuating a lie.
You're not helping your "i'm an independent" cred when you regurgitating GOP climate-denial lies. Stick to koding, stop pretending to understand hard science.
Check out
http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
If you're actually concerned with reality and not perpetuating a lie.
56
@53 Do you have no sense of scale whatsoever? Do you really see no distinction between a politician and a private citizen with a soapbox?
Might I suggest you spend less energy fretting over a supporter's tone and a little more looking into what the politicians themselves are saying? Or do you base your vote entirely on whose supporters say the least divisive things?
Also: Al Gore? WTF are you talking about?
Might I suggest you spend less energy fretting over a supporter's tone and a little more looking into what the politicians themselves are saying? Or do you base your vote entirely on whose supporters say the least divisive things?
Also: Al Gore? WTF are you talking about?
57
Ayn, all of those statements ARE different, they mean different things, pollsters use tricks like that as well, so do psychics .... it's not honest, it's a lie, and even worse not one of those is true. As I have said before, it's more effective to show the truth. "Harsh" language is subjective as well, I have the "mouth of a sailor" according to many, I use harsh language when I'm not angry. As for trolling, no, I'm not trying to stir up anything, I'm trying to do the opposite, prevent a lynch mod mentality. I may not get everyone to see the problem but some will ... as I like to remind people, the wars of the strongest impact in history were won with whispers. Hurting yourself just to hurt the opposition, is that really a good tactic? You see, in this particular instance, she didn't lie or even say anything about wanting people to die, she honestly believes in her conspiracy theory. But what do Republican supporters see? They see you spin it into a lie, only strengthening her base. If you want to sway supporters of a particular group, show them how insane that group is. Here is a perfect opportunity completely wasted. Do you realize how much they hate when their politicians are actually conspiracy theorists? I have won a lot of debates against Republican supporters simply by pointing out a true conspiracy theory held by one of their politicians. It works, not always but it opens their eyes a little, eventually their eyes open wide enough and they may see the truth in more things. Articles are just debates of a different type, but they are debates, and can be used to help or hurt causes and political groups. This time, this one article (a few others but as well but I'm focusing here) is hurtful to one side while helpful to the other. Hell, I can't find an article I can use to defend Democrats anywhere lately, I had to actually give up debating with the Republicans altogether, even they're bored. The message board is dead now, mostly just wise cracks and jokes, no debating, not even an argument, because those on the Dem's side have given up completely and I can't play both sides at all either. I haven't had a decent debate against anyone for so long I'm getting agitated, I can't defend the Republicans, most of what they say is nuts, but I can't defend the Democrats either now. All I'm asking is for something useful for a change, like fair and balanced reporting would be nice, or at least honesty so they can't use the article itself as firepower. Yes, I'm taking the egotistical and narcissistic angle on this, but it's deeper than that, as I pointed out already, but since you aren't willing to listen to logic or reasoning, at least listen to a heartfelt plea for something honest.
More...
58
@40: Wow. I'd never even considered the importance of predestination and the way it shades these people's world views. So then that lady's kids were predestined to be orphans and there's no need to worry about their wellbeing, because god will provide?
Wow. Just wow.
Wow. Just wow.
60
Ayn, the Al Gore thing wasn't proven by the Republicans, it was actually a Democrat who first pointed it out, and then some media outlets as well. Al Gore did jump the gun massively using unproven science and such to make a false case to the government. Also, there have been liberals opposing vaccines with the same exact conspiracy theories as well, watch Penn and Teller's Vaccine episode of Bullshit for several. ;) No, they are not my only source for information, just it's easier to remember which show of theirs has what compared to searching through thousands of links for the same information. The Al Gore thing ... well ... that's just too easy to see, read the report he submitted himself, the very first one.
61
@59 I suck at my native tongue, I admit it, public school failed me and I have no reason to care about perfecting it.
62
Shit; people being allowed to live AND have sex without consequences? Surely this level of "people being non-miserable" must be stopped!
63
http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featur…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/why_…
I mean, is asking for a little objectiveness from those who cry when others are not objective really that much to ask for?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featur…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/why_…
I mean, is asking for a little objectiveness from those who cry when others are not objective really that much to ask for?
64
@60: You seriously have no idea what you're talking about regarding climate change. It's not helping your credibility here.
Regarding vaccines, read my earlier posts. Stop skimming them.
You're all emotion, no research. Start paying attention and turn off Fox and maybe you'll have a clue what's going on around you.
Regarding vaccines, read my earlier posts. Stop skimming them.
You're all emotion, no research. Start paying attention and turn off Fox and maybe you'll have a clue what's going on around you.
65
it's like some sort of republican party meme generator just spit out a let's be all "centrist" bot, one with a "not be to blatant and obvious" flaw in it the clone subroutine, perhaps it is just a glitch and will be fixed in beta.
66
@61: You have no reason to make yourself intelligible? That's tantamount to admitting that you don't want us to listen to you.
67
@63: Pointing to pseudo-science sites and lawsuit allegations does not help your cause. The medical community-- you know, people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about-- is near-unanimous in its conclusions regarding the lack of causal link between vaccines and autism or retardation.
Truthfully, you're exactly like the religious zealots I described in @45: someone who passionately believes that "civility solves everything" and "both parties are to blame," and thus completely disregards any evidence that does not support your beliefs.
And so I will now take my own advice and leave you to your soapbox.
Truthfully, you're exactly like the religious zealots I described in @45: someone who passionately believes that "civility solves everything" and "both parties are to blame," and thus completely disregards any evidence that does not support your beliefs.
And so I will now take my own advice and leave you to your soapbox.
68
@65: "the truth lies somewhere in the middle, let us be fair and balanced, ale gore is fat, blah blah blah (marginalized) liberals believe the same things, liberals never tried to listen and work with republicans!"
Yep, KittenKoder is a homeschooled mainstream-media narrative generator alright.
Yep, KittenKoder is a homeschooled mainstream-media narrative generator alright.
69
@67 Way to not keep up, I was showing that the "other" side has done the same thing you are all so angry about "them" doing. Keep up.
71
@68 Did I ever once say that liberals never tried to work with Republicans, hell, did I even mention liberals in here anywhere until just now?
73
@69: can you read? That's not the mainstream left and this was ALREADY MENTIONED and explained as harmful. I honestly believe that HufPo and Jenny McCarthy would allow people to die for their own egos.
74
I love it, when someone comes in with an alternate view that isn't even actual opposition, you are all just attacking, most are not even reading anything that's being said, and some are just looking for excuses, I'm starting to think this spin wasn't even on purpose, that Democrat supporters are really becoming as ignorant as Republican politicians. Seriously, this looks like a bunch of Republicans jumping on the gay kid now. So glad I don't commit to one side or the other so vehemently, I'd hate to have to surrender my brain for a D or R on my card ... I really would, it's not a good trade off.
Yep, that last part was trolling, but it's truth to and no worse than what is being said toward me.
Yep, that last part was trolling, but it's truth to and no worse than what is being said toward me.
75
You're uninformed and willfully ignorant. it doesn't matter what partisan allegiances you hold, or your claimed impartiality. You're not disliked because you "think different", you're disliked because you're full of misinformation and logical fallacies.
77
the flaw of centrism today is that, out of fear, it so often willingly, obstinately still holds that one foot and at least half of its ideas in the messed up past.
78
@76 - I don't think the problem is that all conservatives oppose the HPV vaccine, rather that anyone would oppose the HPV vaccine, especially on the grounds that it might increase promiscuity.
80
If we all get the vaccine and they don't that could work out okay. They don't believe in evolution so I don't think they will notice until it is too late.
81
I wish they would just say, "We believe that the fear of STDs is good because it keeps people from having more sex than they otherwise would." Then some of the stink of hypocrisy would go away.
Saving oneself for an emotionally meaningful relationship is a good thing, but the right reasons to do that are all internal ones, self-discipline and focus. The vaccine wouldn't do a darn thing to those.
Saving oneself for an emotionally meaningful relationship is a good thing, but the right reasons to do that are all internal ones, self-discipline and focus. The vaccine wouldn't do a darn thing to those.
83
@kim in portalnd, I think you're right on. Nobody is "evil" in the sense that we want "evil" to prevail; it's just that fundamentalist religious conservatives have convinced themselves that non-abstinence/monogramy driven sexuality is "wrong" and "bad" and "unhealthy" and "a threat" -- so much so that they're willing to put up with potential cancer deaths in order to fight against something that they see as increasing the power of the sexual "threat."
You mention compliance, and it's a big part of it: we want everybody to agree with OUR viewpoint. (No matter how much America is supposedly based on the idea that other viewpoints are OK, there's no shortage of people who think it's in the public interest to make all viewpoints othe than theirs disappear...). But there's also a big, urgent feeling that our viewpoint is RIGHT, that people are being "really harmed" by the "pseudo-liberal-gay-anarchist agenda" and all this animal sexuality out there, and that this has to stop or else we're doomed. And that it's OK to put up with a few HPV-related deaths if this helps us save everybody from a fate worse than death.
How sad it is when someone closes their hearts to the (different) happiness of others, and their brains to the possibility there might be truth elsewhere than in their own favorite beliefs! ...
You mention compliance, and it's a big part of it: we want everybody to agree with OUR viewpoint. (No matter how much America is supposedly based on the idea that other viewpoints are OK, there's no shortage of people who think it's in the public interest to make all viewpoints othe than theirs disappear...). But there's also a big, urgent feeling that our viewpoint is RIGHT, that people are being "really harmed" by the "pseudo-liberal-gay-anarchist agenda" and all this animal sexuality out there, and that this has to stop or else we're doomed. And that it's OK to put up with a few HPV-related deaths if this helps us save everybody from a fate worse than death.
How sad it is when someone closes their hearts to the (different) happiness of others, and their brains to the possibility there might be truth elsewhere than in their own favorite beliefs! ...
84
@KittenKoder, it pains me to say so, but I think there's a lot of truth in what you say.
Dan is a good guy. He really is -- not only because of the IGB project, or because of the obvious concern he shows in so many of his advice posts. But he's decided to have a husband and form a family, to raise a kid, and he's taking all of that damn seriously and responsibly -- more so than many a person I see in my daily life. He is a good guy.
And yet, you're right... all this post says is "I'm angry at them, so I'm going to say the worst, most offensive, most exaggerated things I can think of about their motivations -- they want women to DIE!! because they HATE women!! -- as if they were plainly obvious, as if reality really were like that."
It is sad. But frankly -- considering the climate; considering how so many people, and different kinds of people, are stooping that low; considering the amount of utterly exaggerated garbage we see being thrown around; how difficult must be it to keep your cool? To not get angry, to not want to hurl shit around since there's so much shit in the air already (and some of it hurts us directly)...
I mean, aren't you yourself doing something like this when you say "Democrats and Democrat supporters are like this or like that"... as if EVERY SINGLE ONE shared Dan's opinions to the last iota? Granted, it's not much of a spin, but it is one.
I guess people -- even good people -- are getting angry in this climate. And angry people say angry things, not right things. It's the world we're living in, apparently.
Dan is a good guy. He really is -- not only because of the IGB project, or because of the obvious concern he shows in so many of his advice posts. But he's decided to have a husband and form a family, to raise a kid, and he's taking all of that damn seriously and responsibly -- more so than many a person I see in my daily life. He is a good guy.
And yet, you're right... all this post says is "I'm angry at them, so I'm going to say the worst, most offensive, most exaggerated things I can think of about their motivations -- they want women to DIE!! because they HATE women!! -- as if they were plainly obvious, as if reality really were like that."
It is sad. But frankly -- considering the climate; considering how so many people, and different kinds of people, are stooping that low; considering the amount of utterly exaggerated garbage we see being thrown around; how difficult must be it to keep your cool? To not get angry, to not want to hurl shit around since there's so much shit in the air already (and some of it hurts us directly)...
I mean, aren't you yourself doing something like this when you say "Democrats and Democrat supporters are like this or like that"... as if EVERY SINGLE ONE shared Dan's opinions to the last iota? Granted, it's not much of a spin, but it is one.
I guess people -- even good people -- are getting angry in this climate. And angry people say angry things, not right things. It's the world we're living in, apparently.
85
Those of you who are saying that they don't want women to die, but rather want them to abstain, are correct to a point. However, one way to drive home the importance of abstinence and only abstinence is to point to hundreds of women who have died of cervical cancer and say "If only they had practiced abstinence they would still be alive." When women aren't dying from HPA turned cervical cancer then they can't use HPV as a boogeyman to scare women out of sex.
86
Point well taken. Indeed, those who would like to keep STIs around because they're god's way of telling us to keep it in our pants should also not be vaccinated or even take medicine against other infections that can certainly be construed as "god's will" too; or else you look inconsistent ("god's will is to be obeyed in some cases but not others", etc.).
When women aren't dying from HPA turned cervical cancer then they can't use HPV as a boogeyman to scare women out of sex.
Point well taken. Indeed, those who would like to keep STIs around because they're god's way of telling us to keep it in our pants should also not be vaccinated or even take medicine against other infections that can certainly be construed as "god's will" too; or else you look inconsistent ("god's will is to be obeyed in some cases but not others", etc.).
87
Dan I hate to break it to you but some things are all about personal freedom and choice and not about conservatives. I'm a libertarian myself who votes Democratic about 70% of the time. I dislike Bachmann very much but i also dislike the government being able to dictate what i put into my body or my (imaginary) childs for that matter. I normally agree with you, but on this, i think you're dead wrong. The HPV vaccine is most likely perfectly harmless and provides protection from disease that is avoidable. But these are personal choices we must all make and having the government dictate this decision for you is a violation of your body not just your rights.
89
@87, you make a good argument. But we have a long-standing history of the government being able to tell us what to do with our bodies when it affects other people. Thus, nobody tells you that you can't smoke cigarettes, just where you can't smoke. Nobody says "don't drink alcohol," just "don't drink and drive." And an unvaccinated person is clearly spreading a communicable disease to other, unsuspecting individuals. There's certainly a public health aspect to this you can't ignore.
90
Anyone who thinks there isn't any conservative glee over casualties from HPV might recall the conservative reaction to deaths from AIDS in the 1980s. Fundamentalist preachers like Jimmy Swaggart got applause from their congregations just by mentioning it, and Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan actually laughed about it during a press conference.
In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
91
@ 87, in case @ 89 wasn't clear, you have no right to spread communicable diseases and endanger the health of others.
@ 89, you're up early (5:10 mountain time...)
@ 89, you're up early (5:10 mountain time...)
92
Anyone who thinks there isn't any conservative glee over casualties from HPV might recall the conservative reaction to deaths from AIDS in the 1980s. Fundamentalist preachers like Jimmy Swaggart got applause from their congregations just by mentioning it, and Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan actually laughed about it during a press conference.
In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
In the case of women, the Right regards women as necessary -- after all, if women aren't having babies, where are we going to get more people to work at borderline-subsistence wages and where are we going to get more soldiers to "defend our freedom" (a/k/a defend the profits of military contractors)? However, I have no doubt at all that they're about as concerned over women dying from HPV as they are over women dying from botched illegal abortions. It may not be what they actually want, but nevertheless it's useful for them.
95
wow - I wish I lived out there with you guys. Here in Baltimore this story got a shrug and a "there they go again" roll of the eyes. It's nice to see actual public discourse. Our papers try to run comment boards, but the crazies (mostly from the far far suburbs) post such vitriolic blather that there is no longer any conversation taking place.
Kudos to all of you! Don't fuck it up sniping at each other
Kudos to all of you! Don't fuck it up sniping at each other
96
@87 Vaccinations are the most effective means of saving lives and improving health ever devised. Providing proof of vaccinations were once a requirement to enroll at public schools and ought to be again. Parents who disagree should go live off the grid in the wilds of Dumbfuckistan.
If your libertarian logic applied small pox would still be killing millions. Don't like any limitations on liberty? Well, eminent domain, and the draft, and laws that can toss your ass in prison for possessing narcotics are all limitations on liberty, and none of them have saved millions of lives.
Oh and Kitten: Dan is just one blogger. If you're such a delicate flower--oh the incivility of Mr. Savage conclusively proves that Democrats are just as hateful as the Republicans and blah blah blah--then don't read Dan's blog. He is an opinionated motherfucker, and occasionally overstates his case when angry or exasperated.
This community is self-selected and non-randomized, so it is foolish to draw broad conclusions about 'Dems' based on the blogging of one person, and the comments of a few dozen regular contributors.
If your libertarian logic applied small pox would still be killing millions. Don't like any limitations on liberty? Well, eminent domain, and the draft, and laws that can toss your ass in prison for possessing narcotics are all limitations on liberty, and none of them have saved millions of lives.
Oh and Kitten: Dan is just one blogger. If you're such a delicate flower--oh the incivility of Mr. Savage conclusively proves that Democrats are just as hateful as the Republicans and blah blah blah--then don't read Dan's blog. He is an opinionated motherfucker, and occasionally overstates his case when angry or exasperated.
This community is self-selected and non-randomized, so it is foolish to draw broad conclusions about 'Dems' based on the blogging of one person, and the comments of a few dozen regular contributors.
97
Matt, it's not all that unusual for me to be up at that hour; it is pretty unusual for me to be fucking around on Slog at that time, though.
98
I'm sorry but i don't believe HPV is a "public health hazard" in the sense that other communicable diseases are. It's a sexually transmitted disease. In order to be infected one must first choose to have sex with an infected partner. This choice would be made in spite of the risks of other sexually transmitted disease like HIV, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and so on. It's not the same as being vaccinated to prevent the spread of measles, mumps, rubella, etc. That's why it should remain as much a choice as the choice to engage in sex. As i've said i don't believe the vaccine is harmful as some do but i don't believe it's necessary to mandate the vaccine. It like many decisions should be between a patient and their doctor.
99
@96 I think you've taken my position to an extreme i never suggested there weren't reasons to vaccinate. I don't see HPV as comparable to Small Pox because of the mechanism of spreading the disease. And I do feel it is intrusive on a persons body to force any vaccine the government deems acceptable and safe. I wouldn't even recommend a young girl not get the vaccine, but i don't agree the government has the rightful authority to force it. Yes the government does plenty of things that intrude on our rights but it doesn't make it correct to add one more.
100
@ MyChalkLine
You really should do some reading on HPV. Then you would know that both low- and high-risk types of HPV often stay undetected for month, even years after the initial infection took place because the virus tends to stay inactive for that long. This makes HPV much more dangerous than other virus-induced illnesses because an infected person could spread the virus for a long, long time before even suspecting that he or she isn´t healthy.
You really should do some reading on HPV. Then you would know that both low- and high-risk types of HPV often stay undetected for month, even years after the initial infection took place because the virus tends to stay inactive for that long. This makes HPV much more dangerous than other virus-induced illnesses because an infected person could spread the virus for a long, long time before even suspecting that he or she isn´t healthy.
101
I do not doubt the seriousness of the disease @100. I agree that young women should get vaccinated against the disease for their own good. I also recommend people use condoms (because HPV isn't the only threat). But i don't believe i have the right to make the choices for others that i believe are best for them. It all comes down to the threat they pose to society and by that i mean will they pose a threat from casual contact. If i'm walking down the street (or riding an elevator) with someone who has Small Pox then they are putting me and everyone else in danger. The same cannot be said of someone who has HPV. And once again I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm anti-mandate (without the specific threat i mentioned above).
103
I've been called an evil queer (and worse) more than once for refusing to participate in "group think". I Have thicker skin than an elephant.
104
@ 101, you may not have that right, but the people do.
Read up on HPV. And, for the sake of argument, tell me where the line should be drawn.
Read up on HPV. And, for the sake of argument, tell me where the line should be drawn.
105
Oh I don't think MyChalkLine is evil; he/she is absolutely entitlted to his/her opinion. And in any event the fact that he/she is in no position to make public policy makes him/her completely harmless.
106
I think having HPV vaccines available are good, and I hate the utterly uninformed and anti-scientific yammering from Republicans. I'm vaccinated. I think it, along with safer-sex practices and my long term monogamous relationship, is likely to reduce the chance that I get cervical cancer. I want everyone, male and female, to have easy access to it and the information to make an informed decision to (in most cases) get it. If I had kids, I'd vaccinate them (as long as they had no previous vaccine-related reactions).
However, the mandate for vaccinating for this disease is problematic for me for several reasons.
1. Unlike other standard vaccinations, this disease has a very, very small public health impact. Most people have had or do have some strain of this disease, and there are only around 4000 deaths per year from it in the US. (Fewer than deaths caused/contributed by the diarrhea-inducing C. difficile, for which vaccines are in the pipeline that are unlikely to ever be mandated.)
2. Vaccines have side effects, and that should be taken into account.
3. Vaccines are not free, someone has to pay for them.
4. The efficacy of this vaccine is limited to only 2 strains of carcinogenic HPV and 2 that cause warts, and the strength and duration of immunity are not well established. Of the 4000 deaths/year caused by cervical cancer, not all of those would have been prevented by universal implementation of this vaccine. Some women would have gotten it despite vaccination - either the immunity was not strong enough to repel the infection, the immunity started off strong but waned to susceptibility before the woman was exposed to the virus, or the cancer involved a strain not covered by the vaccine.
5. It is unknown how many of those cases could have been prevented by timely Pap-smears, or how many cases are prevented by timely smears regardless of strain.
The risk-reward information I have seen is that this vaccine may not be sufficient to justify a mandate, particularly when it hasn't been out long enough to establish long-term benefits or potential hazards. I have vehemently defended this vaccine in many fora, but I can't defend the mandate on this one. MMR? DPT? Those are important mandates. This one is much greyer than we are letting on. Let us not allow our distrust of anti-science superstition lead us to make similar mistakes. If a broader, cheaper, more effective vaccine for HPV comes along, that might get to the point of justifying a mandate. Gardasil does not.
Vaccination was a good idea for me: I am healthy and had no previous vaccine reactions, I knew that I would "age out" of the current recommended age to be vaccinated if I waited a long time for additional data, and I understood that the vaccine provided limited protection from 2 strains of carcinogenic virus. I had insurance that covered it. My risk was minimal, and my gain weighed out greater. This is highly variable.
More...
However, the mandate for vaccinating for this disease is problematic for me for several reasons.
1. Unlike other standard vaccinations, this disease has a very, very small public health impact. Most people have had or do have some strain of this disease, and there are only around 4000 deaths per year from it in the US. (Fewer than deaths caused/contributed by the diarrhea-inducing C. difficile, for which vaccines are in the pipeline that are unlikely to ever be mandated.)
2. Vaccines have side effects, and that should be taken into account.
3. Vaccines are not free, someone has to pay for them.
4. The efficacy of this vaccine is limited to only 2 strains of carcinogenic HPV and 2 that cause warts, and the strength and duration of immunity are not well established. Of the 4000 deaths/year caused by cervical cancer, not all of those would have been prevented by universal implementation of this vaccine. Some women would have gotten it despite vaccination - either the immunity was not strong enough to repel the infection, the immunity started off strong but waned to susceptibility before the woman was exposed to the virus, or the cancer involved a strain not covered by the vaccine.
5. It is unknown how many of those cases could have been prevented by timely Pap-smears, or how many cases are prevented by timely smears regardless of strain.
The risk-reward information I have seen is that this vaccine may not be sufficient to justify a mandate, particularly when it hasn't been out long enough to establish long-term benefits or potential hazards. I have vehemently defended this vaccine in many fora, but I can't defend the mandate on this one. MMR? DPT? Those are important mandates. This one is much greyer than we are letting on. Let us not allow our distrust of anti-science superstition lead us to make similar mistakes. If a broader, cheaper, more effective vaccine for HPV comes along, that might get to the point of justifying a mandate. Gardasil does not.
Vaccination was a good idea for me: I am healthy and had no previous vaccine reactions, I knew that I would "age out" of the current recommended age to be vaccinated if I waited a long time for additional data, and I understood that the vaccine provided limited protection from 2 strains of carcinogenic virus. I had insurance that covered it. My risk was minimal, and my gain weighed out greater. This is highly variable.
107
Addendum: "Complely harmless" unless of course MyChalkLine is one of those who are unaware that they are infected with HPV and is merrily spreading it about like a chalk drawing of Typhoid Mary. And considering that HPV has been found under people's fingernails, and one can be infected by skin to skin contact that doesn't necessarily involve any kind of penetration, he/she could very possibly be doing just that.
Ya neveh know.
Ya neveh know.
108
@104 I have explained where the line should be drawn. If you pose a risk to the public through casual contact then you're a public health hazard.
@105 You are correct I am as harmless as you are and my vote, like yours, counts just once. Neither of us are in a superior position to make public policy. We do that together through debate and voting. I find you equally harmless and incapable of dictating public policy. :-)
@105 You are correct I am as harmless as you are and my vote, like yours, counts just once. Neither of us are in a superior position to make public policy. We do that together through debate and voting. I find you equally harmless and incapable of dictating public policy. :-)
109
@107 Agreed if we took the advice of some people commenting here we'd mandate tetanus vaccines. Some people lack the mental abilities to know when they are intruding on other peoples choice. But of course these same people find other choices (like abortion) to be sacrosanct. A case could be made for or against abortion (for the public good), with lunatics taking extreme positions on each side, but it always comes down to a womans right to do with her body as she pleases.
112
Actually "unregistered" @111 I didn't see any facts posted by 105/107 just ignorant accusations that i might be infected with HPV and an attempt to diminish my opinion. Basic trolling 101.
113
So you want to draw the line at individuals? How do you determine who is a threat without violating individual rights?
That strikes me as pretty damn much the opposite of a libertarian principle.
That strikes me as pretty damn much the opposite of a libertarian principle.
114
@109 We do mandate the tetanus vaccine (it's the T in DPT). We mandate all sorts of vaccines that pose no threat of infection through casual contact, but have severe consequences if a person has not been innoculated.
116
@112: "ignorant accusations that i might be infected with HPV "
It's a fact that you may be infected with HPV and not know it. As mentioned earlier, children and nuns/others with no possible sexual history have been found to carry anogenital HPV. Warts can also be transmitted prenatally and during birth.
Putting your hands over your ears and going NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH doesn't make your argument any stronger, you know.
It's a fact that you may be infected with HPV and not know it. As mentioned earlier, children and nuns/others with no possible sexual history have been found to carry anogenital HPV. Warts can also be transmitted prenatally and during birth.
Putting your hands over your ears and going NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH doesn't make your argument any stronger, you know.
117
If you're too lazy to research your own disproven claims-
http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/conten…
"Comment: Children may become infected with HPV at any time and via various modes of transmission. Given these realities and possible viral latency, evaluation of the mode of transmission is extremely challenging. In this study, all infants under age 1 year had innocent transmission. In this small sample, children older than 6 had a high rate of suspected or proven sexual abuse, and most abused children were girls. However, there are no reliable rules. "
http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/conten…
"Comment: Children may become infected with HPV at any time and via various modes of transmission. Given these realities and possible viral latency, evaluation of the mode of transmission is extremely challenging. In this study, all infants under age 1 year had innocent transmission. In this small sample, children older than 6 had a high rate of suspected or proven sexual abuse, and most abused children were girls. However, there are no reliable rules. "
118
@116 It's also equally a fact that i may not be infected. Are you really so naive as to not recognize trolling ?
I also do not recall putting my hands over my ears, I can understand people just fine without personal insults and accusations meant entirely to elicit an emotional response.
Your facts about HPV do not warrant a mandate. Woman can potentially transmit any number of diseases to their fetus. I recognize the reasons someone SHOULD CHOSE to be vaccinated. I do not recognize the authority to mandate it without public health being in jeopardy.
I also do not recall putting my hands over my ears, I can understand people just fine without personal insults and accusations meant entirely to elicit an emotional response.
Your facts about HPV do not warrant a mandate. Woman can potentially transmit any number of diseases to their fetus. I recognize the reasons someone SHOULD CHOSE to be vaccinated. I do not recognize the authority to mandate it without public health being in jeopardy.
119
@118: "Your facts about HPV do not warrant a mandate"
And that's your personal opinion/worldview, which I'm not going to address. Your excuses about why it's not such an issue for people having sex are what I'm going after.
"It's also equally a fact that i may not be infected. Are you really so naive as to not recognize trolling ?"
That's not trolling. She's right. Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like KittenKoder to react positively.
And that's your personal opinion/worldview, which I'm not going to address. Your excuses about why it's not such an issue for people having sex are what I'm going after.
"It's also equally a fact that i may not be infected. Are you really so naive as to not recognize trolling ?"
That's not trolling. She's right. Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like KittenKoder to react positively.
120
Er, that should read "Your excuses about why it's not an issue for the chaste or people with one monogamous partner in their life"
121
@ #113 - That is because Chalky has no idea what it means to be a libertarian. It just makes Chalky feel better to label itself that way.
122
@113 "How do you determine who is a threat without violating individual rights?"
It isn't the individual that is being discussed it is the mandating of vaccine for a disease that is not communicable through casual contact. You aren't violating anyones individual rights by recognizing certain diseases are a communicable threat to us all. Mandating an individual to be vaccinated must be because the disease if contracted would threaten someone else who is not engaging in risky behavior with another individual but through casual contact.
Tetanus BTW requires ongoing boosters until death, which is not mandated. You can never become immune to Tetanus.
From the CDC: "Each state has immunization requirements, sometimes called "school laws," that must be met before a child may enter school. These may include vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and hepatitis B. Some states have added varicella (chicken pox) vaccination to the list of required vaccines. Smallpox vaccination was once required, but the disease has been so successfully eradicated that this vaccination is no longer needed.
In most states, a parent must bring written proof of a child's immunizations from the health provider or clinic at the time of school registration. If a required vaccination has not been obtained, and there is no health condition or religious objection preventing immunization, the child must receive the vaccinations before school entry.
These required vaccinations DON'T JUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN in a classroom. They protect the teachers, parent volunteers, visiting grandparents, and everyone else who enters the classroom or provides services to the school. The blanket of protection provided by rubella ("German measles") vaccination is especially important for women who are pregnant. Rubella can cause serious effects on the developing fetus, including deafness, blindness, heart disease, brain damage, or other serious problems, including miscarriage. Today's middle-aged adults may remember how common this disease was before the rubella vaccine became available. Rubella was feared for its effects, including ear infection, pneumonia, diarrhea, seizures, brain damage, and death"
More...
It isn't the individual that is being discussed it is the mandating of vaccine for a disease that is not communicable through casual contact. You aren't violating anyones individual rights by recognizing certain diseases are a communicable threat to us all. Mandating an individual to be vaccinated must be because the disease if contracted would threaten someone else who is not engaging in risky behavior with another individual but through casual contact.
Tetanus BTW requires ongoing boosters until death, which is not mandated. You can never become immune to Tetanus.
From the CDC: "Each state has immunization requirements, sometimes called "school laws," that must be met before a child may enter school. These may include vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and hepatitis B. Some states have added varicella (chicken pox) vaccination to the list of required vaccines. Smallpox vaccination was once required, but the disease has been so successfully eradicated that this vaccination is no longer needed.
In most states, a parent must bring written proof of a child's immunizations from the health provider or clinic at the time of school registration. If a required vaccination has not been obtained, and there is no health condition or religious objection preventing immunization, the child must receive the vaccinations before school entry.
These required vaccinations DON'T JUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN in a classroom. They protect the teachers, parent volunteers, visiting grandparents, and everyone else who enters the classroom or provides services to the school. The blanket of protection provided by rubella ("German measles") vaccination is especially important for women who are pregnant. Rubella can cause serious effects on the developing fetus, including deafness, blindness, heart disease, brain damage, or other serious problems, including miscarriage. Today's middle-aged adults may remember how common this disease was before the rubella vaccine became available. Rubella was feared for its effects, including ear infection, pneumonia, diarrhea, seizures, brain damage, and death"
123
@119 That's IS trolling. "Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like Lissa to react positively."
Facts do not include personal insults and are never directed at a particular individual but at the topic being discussed. You should know better.
Facts do not include personal insults and are never directed at a particular individual but at the topic being discussed. You should know better.
124
@122: Not everyone died from Polio, but we sure managed to eradicate that for everyone's benefit.
People who harp on HPV because of sex-related "moralization", and because there's no test for men. You at this point carry several strains of HPV. You could also be carrying a strain of highly cancerous HPV and you wouldn't know it.
You're not giving any legitimate health-related reasons against vaccinations other than "FREEDOMS".
Which, again, is your opinion, but you're not being very persuasive about it or bringing up any points of interest.
People who harp on HPV because of sex-related "moralization", and because there's no test for men. You at this point carry several strains of HPV. You could also be carrying a strain of highly cancerous HPV and you wouldn't know it.
You're not giving any legitimate health-related reasons against vaccinations other than "FREEDOMS".
Which, again, is your opinion, but you're not being very persuasive about it or bringing up any points of interest.
125
@123: "Facts do not include personal insults and are never directed at a particular individual but at the topic being discussed. You should know better."
KittenKoder and yourself can get the vapors all you wish. "Troll" isn't someone who insults you while offering information. It's a fallacy to say that someone's a moron and therefore not to listen to them, it's not a logical fallacy to say that you're a moron BECAUSE x. It may not be nice speech, but when you're both offering judgments and not researching your arguments, it gets people riled up.
KittenKoder and yourself can get the vapors all you wish. "Troll" isn't someone who insults you while offering information. It's a fallacy to say that someone's a moron and therefore not to listen to them, it's not a logical fallacy to say that you're a moron BECAUSE x. It may not be nice speech, but when you're both offering judgments and not researching your arguments, it gets people riled up.
126
@124 "You're not giving any legitimate health-related reasons against vaccinations other than "FREEDOMS".
That's because i think people should be vaccinated. I do not believe people should be mandated to do so. I don't need to prove anything.
@125 You seem not to understand the definition of "Troll" here it is sweety:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Now if I were to say you were a "MORON because" you seem not to understand this i would be "Trolling" regardless of accuracy.
That's because i think people should be vaccinated. I do not believe people should be mandated to do so. I don't need to prove anything.
@125 You seem not to understand the definition of "Troll" here it is sweety:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Now if I were to say you were a "MORON because" you seem not to understand this i would be "Trolling" regardless of accuracy.
127
Quoth @122:
The factor that most makes me support mandatory vaccination is not the transmission rate but the fact that the vaccinated are children. I agree that there is a right to bodily autonomy, and it makes me uncomfortable when the government starts saying "you must do X with your body" or "you must not do X." That's one of the principles that renders me pro-choice. But I do not think that right extends in full to your children.
For instance, I am allowed to make dumb medical decisions for myself. I can refuse a blood transfusion or other basic medical care, even if that refusal costs me my life. I cannot, however, kill my kids by refusing to allow them a blood transfusion or keeping them at home for prayer instead of taking them to the hospital. And I completely agree with those laws: my right to my own crazy does not allow me to fuck up my kids.
So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
Mandating an individual to be vaccinated must be because the disease if contracted would threaten someone else who is not engaging in risky behavior with another individual but through casual contact.It's worth pointing out that not all "risky behavior" is voluntary. Roughly 2% of American women are sexually assaulted each year, and the incidence of HPV infection in the sexually active population is roughly 30% (likely higher for rapists). Which means the average woman probably has a greater chance of being exposed to HPV through no choice of her own than I do of being exposed to polio.
The factor that most makes me support mandatory vaccination is not the transmission rate but the fact that the vaccinated are children. I agree that there is a right to bodily autonomy, and it makes me uncomfortable when the government starts saying "you must do X with your body" or "you must not do X." That's one of the principles that renders me pro-choice. But I do not think that right extends in full to your children.
For instance, I am allowed to make dumb medical decisions for myself. I can refuse a blood transfusion or other basic medical care, even if that refusal costs me my life. I cannot, however, kill my kids by refusing to allow them a blood transfusion or keeping them at home for prayer instead of taking them to the hospital. And I completely agree with those laws: my right to my own crazy does not allow me to fuck up my kids.
So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
128
@126: "I don't need to prove anything."
Right, then why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
@125: Trolls are unconstructive. Lissa's a productive member of the forum and offers more than opinion, unlike yourself.
Right, then why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
@125: Trolls are unconstructive. Lissa's a productive member of the forum and offers more than opinion, unlike yourself.
129
Gracious MyChalkLine has called me a troll! I am actually quite tickled by this. :)
But seriously MCL, (may I call you MCL?) since HPV is pretty much asymptomatic it is entirely possible that you could unknowingly be both infected and infecting others, as for that matter, could I, which could mean neither one of us is harmless.
HPV is not an indictment of your moral purity; it is a virus. But the fact that you took offense at this hypothetical scenario is indicative of the weight that you personally give one virus over another, and it is that tipping of the scale with cultural baggage that can get in the way of effective medical practices.
But I’m sorry if I got your dander up.
Signed
A Harmless Little Bunny
But seriously MCL, (may I call you MCL?) since HPV is pretty much asymptomatic it is entirely possible that you could unknowingly be both infected and infecting others, as for that matter, could I, which could mean neither one of us is harmless.
HPV is not an indictment of your moral purity; it is a virus. But the fact that you took offense at this hypothetical scenario is indicative of the weight that you personally give one virus over another, and it is that tipping of the scale with cultural baggage that can get in the way of effective medical practices.
But I’m sorry if I got your dander up.
Signed
A Harmless Little Bunny
130
@122 Vaccine mandates apply exclusively to children. There is no such thing as an adult mandate for vaccination in the US. Most vaccinations require boosters throughout life in order to maintain immunity, but we do not require adults to do this.
Also, you are wrong in your assumption about the rationale for vaccine mandates. Vaccines are not mandated exclusively because a disease is a threat to others via casual contact, but because the vaccine benefits public health to a degree that outweighs the cost of the vaccine itself. This is the rationale for most public health interventions.
And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons), non-cervical HPV-related cancers have been steadily increasing for decades now, and we do not have effective screening tests for these sites as we do for the cervix. The potential public health impact of this vaccine is much greater than kaliann @106 assumes.
Also, you are wrong in your assumption about the rationale for vaccine mandates. Vaccines are not mandated exclusively because a disease is a threat to others via casual contact, but because the vaccine benefits public health to a degree that outweighs the cost of the vaccine itself. This is the rationale for most public health interventions.
And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons), non-cervical HPV-related cancers have been steadily increasing for decades now, and we do not have effective screening tests for these sites as we do for the cervix. The potential public health impact of this vaccine is much greater than kaliann @106 assumes.
131
@126 Also: Lissa is not a troll. She is a much more frequent commenter here than you and always posts on topic, and does so without resorting to petty name-calling.
I hate to get involved in these kinds of spats, but when you start calling people names that tacitly accuse that person of derailing the thread and illiciting an emotioanl response, well, that irony is just too delicious to pass up.
I hate to get involved in these kinds of spats, but when you start calling people names that tacitly accuse that person of derailing the thread and illiciting an emotioanl response, well, that irony is just too delicious to pass up.
132
@128 "Lissa's a productive member of the forum and offers more than opinion, unlike yourself."
Take your own advice: "Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like XXX to react positively."
I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You seem to have taken my opinions seriously and have reflected nothing but your own opinion back. If you are unwilling to admit when someone is trolling then rational debate with you is useless and a waste of time.
Take your own advice: "Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like XXX to react positively."
I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You seem to have taken my opinions seriously and have reflected nothing but your own opinion back. If you are unwilling to admit when someone is trolling then rational debate with you is useless and a waste of time.
134
@129 My dander is not up. I take offense only by the arrogance on display in comment 105. As i stated before neither of us is more capable of dictating public policy than the other. We are both here commenting on the story and the mandate. We both know this was a coy attempt to insult me. Harmless as it is, it's not on topic.
135
@132: You're not debating, you're saying "I don't like this". One doesn't debate with personal opinions, unless you're going to get deep into wanky sophistry.
@130: "And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons)"
At least a point to work with (far too nuanced and substantial for Chalky), though Gardasil has been in development and testing for the last thirty years.
@130: "And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons)"
At least a point to work with (far too nuanced and substantial for Chalky), though Gardasil has been in development and testing for the last thirty years.
136
@132: "You seem to have taken my opinions seriously and have reflected nothing but your own opinion back"
I've pointed out that infants and virgins get cancerous strains of HPV on a regular basis.
You've offered fluff and huff and vague, undigested libertopian virtue.
I've pointed out that infants and virgins get cancerous strains of HPV on a regular basis.
You've offered fluff and huff and vague, undigested libertopian virtue.
137
@131 "Lissa is not a troll. She is a much more frequent commenter here than you and always posts on topic, and does so without resorting to petty name-calling."
First of all frequency of commentating doesn't mean Lissa wasn't trolling. Second I believe i was associated with "Typhoid Mary". Third it doesn't matter how many people explain how important Lissa is to the discussion it doesn't mean she wasn't trolling in this instance. I don't fear your little mob. My opinion remains unchanged. I support personal choice to be vaccinated but not the mandate to do so. The only thing that would change my mind about that is the discovery that HPV could be transmitted casually; such as riding an elevator, being in a plane, or eating food prepared by an infected person.
First of all frequency of commentating doesn't mean Lissa wasn't trolling. Second I believe i was associated with "Typhoid Mary". Third it doesn't matter how many people explain how important Lissa is to the discussion it doesn't mean she wasn't trolling in this instance. I don't fear your little mob. My opinion remains unchanged. I support personal choice to be vaccinated but not the mandate to do so. The only thing that would change my mind about that is the discovery that HPV could be transmitted casually; such as riding an elevator, being in a plane, or eating food prepared by an infected person.
138
@136 You may not recognize a debate when you see one but then again you don't recognize "trolling" either. (This is a nice example BTW)
The statement about "infants and virgins" does nothing to further your argument that this vaccine should be mandated. Which is by the way what is being debated.
The statement about "infants and virgins" does nothing to further your argument that this vaccine should be mandated. Which is by the way what is being debated.
139
@137 I am not trying to disabuse you of your opinion; I’m only pointing out that your personal rationale for vaccine mandates is at odds with what we do in practice. Fortunately you’re not in charge of vaccine mandates, for if we applied your reasoning there would be a bunch of vaccines added to the mandate list (flu, pneumococcus, TB...) and boosters would be required throughout life.
140
@134: Well, I'd sure hate to further aggravate your dander. I guess I better accede to your assertion that letting people go unvaccinated against HPV couldn't possibly endanger the public health.
141
There's nothing worse in life than getting all rufflefeathered because one doesn't understand basic concepts like "herd immunity".
142
Don't be unfair venomlash, Chalky believes in vaccines..but only for diseases you can catch from elevators (or something like that).
143
@139 What we do in practice is provide a "philosophical or religious exemption" to all vaccines so in truth mandates for vaccinations are nothing more than bureaucracy a person/parent opposed to such a vaccination need to deal with.
Oh and if we mandated vaccine of Flu and Pneumococcus we would prevent far more deaths per year than by mandating HPV vaccine, so there goes the entire argument for a mandate.
Oh and if we mandated vaccine of Flu and Pneumococcus we would prevent far more deaths per year than by mandating HPV vaccine, so there goes the entire argument for a mandate.
144
Oh and in case anyone is confused Virgins and Nuns die from the Flu too. (of course this is another example of "trolling")
145
"Oh and if we mandated vaccine of Flu and Pneumococcus we would prevent far more deaths per year than by mandating HPV vaccine, so there goes the entire argument for a mandate."
If one immunization (rather than a yearly immunization) would be enough, we probably would.
We just don't have the sort of infrastructure in place to do that every year.
If one immunization (rather than a yearly immunization) would be enough, we probably would.
We just don't have the sort of infrastructure in place to do that every year.
146
@144: "Oh and in case anyone is confused Virgins and Nuns die from the Flu too. (of course this is another example of "trolling")"
You must be new to the internet or way thinskinned if you think that's trolling.
You must be new to the internet or way thinskinned if you think that's trolling.
147
@143 Preventing death is not the argument in favor of a vaccine mandate. It's providing a public health benefit (this is measured in dollars not lives, although the two are related) that exceeds the cost of the state assuming the financial burden of administering it to everyone. And, as you yourself just pointed out, if one objects to a mandatory vaccine as vehemently as you do, you are welcome to petition for an exemption. Problem solved, everyone wins! Now remind me, what is your problem again?
148
@132, 134 &137: Goodness such a fuss!
I apologize, MyChalkLine, for the invocation of Typhoid Mary, and truly am sorry I ruffled your feathers. I was making a flip, but on topic and accurate observation, and I assure you it was in no way a coy attempt to insult you. If I want to insult you I promise I will be direct about it.
The fact remains that due to the generally asymptomatic nature of HPV, virtually any one could have it, and spread it. This includes you, and as I’ve pointed out in attempt to take the sting out of this fact for you, it includes me as well.
I, and most of the posters here, feel it prudent to ere on the side of caution, since a mandate would incur negligible harm vs measurable good, and find it baffling that any one would object to something proven to save lives. Your main objection, since you agree that the vaccine indeed does save lives, seems to boil down to a variation on You’re Not The Boss Of Me. And that’s not really a good enough argument from our perspective.
You are, absolutely, of course, entitled to your opinion on this subject, as well as giving one virus more moral weight than another if you choose to, but you are unfortunately not entitled to the rest of us being in agreement with you, or to be spared being told so.
And I still don’t think you’re evil. So there. :P
I apologize, MyChalkLine, for the invocation of Typhoid Mary, and truly am sorry I ruffled your feathers. I was making a flip, but on topic and accurate observation, and I assure you it was in no way a coy attempt to insult you. If I want to insult you I promise I will be direct about it.
The fact remains that due to the generally asymptomatic nature of HPV, virtually any one could have it, and spread it. This includes you, and as I’ve pointed out in attempt to take the sting out of this fact for you, it includes me as well.
I, and most of the posters here, feel it prudent to ere on the side of caution, since a mandate would incur negligible harm vs measurable good, and find it baffling that any one would object to something proven to save lives. Your main objection, since you agree that the vaccine indeed does save lives, seems to boil down to a variation on You’re Not The Boss Of Me. And that’s not really a good enough argument from our perspective.
You are, absolutely, of course, entitled to your opinion on this subject, as well as giving one virus more moral weight than another if you choose to, but you are unfortunately not entitled to the rest of us being in agreement with you, or to be spared being told so.
And I still don’t think you’re evil. So there. :P
149
@146 If i had not implied your "confusion" by citing Virgins and Nuns you'd be correct. But it was clearly a personal message based solely on eliciting an emotional response. The facts are clear without resorting to such childish behavior. But when in Rome do as the Romans do, if it makes me look "thinskinned" or new to the internet so be it. I'm sure you believe yourself capable of educating me about the error of my ways.
150
@MyChalkLine, well, let me put the question in a rational way.
You claim that it is OK for the government to mandate a vaccination if people who do not engage in risky behavior are nevertheless endangered by some unvaccinated contracting the disease.
Then you claim HPV doesn't qualify because you get it via sex, so people only get it by engaging in 'risky behavior' (i.e. having a partner with HPV) which they could in principle avoid. Hence other people are only harmed willingly, with their own cooperation. Which is why the vaccination shouldn't be obligatory.
Is that so?
But now--if HPV can be so non-symptomatic that many, probably most, people who have HPV don't even know they have it, how can a person actually know s/he is engaging in risky behavior by having sex with someone who honestly believes s/he does not have HPV? Sort of having a crystal ball that tells you who is and who isn't dangerous, that is impossible.
So in order to avoid infection, the only truly guaranteed alternative is complete abstinence. Which I hope you agree is not a reasonable expectation to make. (It would be like saying that a disease transmitted by food could in principle be avoided by not ever eating, by getting one's nutrition only from pills instead -- so no need to mandate vaccination against such a disease.)
My argument would be: since honest people in most cases cannot know if a potential partner has or doesn't have HPV (said partner him/herself most often doesn't either), then barring abstinence it is not possible to say that one is going to engage in 'risky behavior'.
Wouldn't that be enough to make a public health case defensable for obligatory vaccination, even according to your criteria?
More...
You claim that it is OK for the government to mandate a vaccination if people who do not engage in risky behavior are nevertheless endangered by some unvaccinated contracting the disease.
Then you claim HPV doesn't qualify because you get it via sex, so people only get it by engaging in 'risky behavior' (i.e. having a partner with HPV) which they could in principle avoid. Hence other people are only harmed willingly, with their own cooperation. Which is why the vaccination shouldn't be obligatory.
Is that so?
But now--if HPV can be so non-symptomatic that many, probably most, people who have HPV don't even know they have it, how can a person actually know s/he is engaging in risky behavior by having sex with someone who honestly believes s/he does not have HPV? Sort of having a crystal ball that tells you who is and who isn't dangerous, that is impossible.
So in order to avoid infection, the only truly guaranteed alternative is complete abstinence. Which I hope you agree is not a reasonable expectation to make. (It would be like saying that a disease transmitted by food could in principle be avoided by not ever eating, by getting one's nutrition only from pills instead -- so no need to mandate vaccination against such a disease.)
My argument would be: since honest people in most cases cannot know if a potential partner has or doesn't have HPV (said partner him/herself most often doesn't either), then barring abstinence it is not possible to say that one is going to engage in 'risky behavior'.
Wouldn't that be enough to make a public health case defensable for obligatory vaccination, even according to your criteria?
151
@148 You comments speak for themselves. Thankfully as you've previously stated to me You, and most of the posters here are in no position to make public policy which makes you completely harmless.
152
@150: "So in order to avoid infection, the only truly guaranteed alternative is complete abstinence."
Even kissing, as the HPV strain responsible for most cervical cancer is linked to cancer of the mouth and throat.
Even kissing, as the HPV strain responsible for most cervical cancer is linked to cancer of the mouth and throat.
153
"But now--if HPV can be so non-symptomatic that many, probably most, people who have HPV don't even know they have it, how can a person actually know s/he is engaging in risky behavior by having sex with someone who honestly believes s/he does not have HPV? Sort of having a crystal ball that tells you who is and who isn't dangerous, that is impossible."
The same can be said for HIV, that's why it's a epidemic and you're risking your safety by engaging in sex with someone who has not been tested or refuses to use protection (which is comparable to being vaccinated) We of course have an opportunity to discuss such things with a partner before deciding to engage in sex with the. Someone who is a walking Flu virus is not giving the public such a choice. It's as simple as asking a partner if they've been tested/vaccinated and trusting them. They could certainly lie and the mandate wouldn't provide certainty since an exemption could easily be obtained.
The same can be said for HIV, that's why it's a epidemic and you're risking your safety by engaging in sex with someone who has not been tested or refuses to use protection (which is comparable to being vaccinated) We of course have an opportunity to discuss such things with a partner before deciding to engage in sex with the. Someone who is a walking Flu virus is not giving the public such a choice. It's as simple as asking a partner if they've been tested/vaccinated and trusting them. They could certainly lie and the mandate wouldn't provide certainty since an exemption could easily be obtained.
154
@153: "The same can be said for HIV"
All you're "proving" here is that you have a poor understanding of HPV transmission and behavior. It's far easier to test for HIV, and possible to test for HIV in men. It's also easier to transmit HPV without direct genital contact.
All you're "proving" here is that you have a poor understanding of HPV transmission and behavior. It's far easier to test for HIV, and possible to test for HIV in men. It's also easier to transmit HPV without direct genital contact.
155
Oh and in case anyone is confused again you could get the flu and die by kissing someone who has it. In fact you don't even need to kiss them you could die just by sharing their air space. (oops i'm trolling again)
156
@155: "Oh and in case anyone is confused again you could get the flu and die by kissing someone who has it."
I explained why we don't mandate vaccinations for influenza.
"oops i'm trolling again"
No, you're just exposing your ignorance.
I explained why we don't mandate vaccinations for influenza.
"oops i'm trolling again"
No, you're just exposing your ignorance.
157
"It's far easier to test for HIV, and possible to test for HIV in men."
Which is why i compared it to being vaccinated for HPV. That's kinda easy too but still should be a choice and if you refuse you only harm yourself or a potential sex partner you're not being honest with. Maybe we should mandate HIV testing?
Which is why i compared it to being vaccinated for HPV. That's kinda easy too but still should be a choice and if you refuse you only harm yourself or a potential sex partner you're not being honest with. Maybe we should mandate HIV testing?
158
@156 is the HPV mandate meant to prevent death or not? It is clearly comparably to a disease that kills far more every year that a vaccine is also available for but is not mandated. But hey that's just me exposing my ignorance again.
160
Someone needs to take a stand for all the innocent "Virgins and Nuns" dying from the flu. Any idea how many more die each year from the Flu vs. HPV? But maybe it's all about the cost and not the lives the flu vaccine would save.
161
@148: Awww who's all butt hurt now? Good thing I'm so harmless isn't it? ;)
(Now that,FYI MCL, is trolling!)
(Now that,FYI MCL, is trolling!)
162
@161 I happen to know I'm trolling (I'm surprised you noticed) but if you hadn't said anything the fake Ayn Rand would have never recognized it. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
163
@159: Ahahhaah, speaking of butthurt. Sully wants to be coddled 24/7 and told he's not like other Conservatives. This is a good example of how wrong it is to treat him as somehow "special", because he can't see horrible behavior from other conservatives, he's got a complete myopia to their ills.
@158: "But hey that's just me exposing my ignorance again."
It is, seeing as you still did not read why it is that we don't.
Since you have issues with reading comprehension, I'll repeat myself. HPV and influenza aren't the same virus. It's crazy! Influenza strains mutate far too quickly for a childhood (or last year's!) vaccine to work for long. If we could perform a childhood vaccination for something so harmful, reality might be shaped differently.
@158: "But hey that's just me exposing my ignorance again."
It is, seeing as you still did not read why it is that we don't.
Since you have issues with reading comprehension, I'll repeat myself. HPV and influenza aren't the same virus. It's crazy! Influenza strains mutate far too quickly for a childhood (or last year's!) vaccine to work for long. If we could perform a childhood vaccination for something so harmful, reality might be shaped differently.
164
Oh and Lissa you shouldn't confuse my willingness to throw a jab at those who've thrown one in my direction as being "butt hurt", I'm simply treating you as you treat others. I guess you're really saying you were "butt hurt" when you made your derogatory comments about my opinion and my person.
165
"if you hadn't said anything the fake Ayn Rand would have never recognized it"
Because I'm only concerned whether you've got any signal-to-noise in your posting. Trolling isn't about how "mean" you sound, it's about whether you're babbling or actually providing a base for your arguments. The best trolls sound sweet at anything and don't ever get heated, they just blather and blather and waste everyone's time.
Because I'm only concerned whether you've got any signal-to-noise in your posting. Trolling isn't about how "mean" you sound, it's about whether you're babbling or actually providing a base for your arguments. The best trolls sound sweet at anything and don't ever get heated, they just blather and blather and waste everyone's time.
166
@163 We can provide a vaccination on a yearly basis that will evolve as rapidly as the Flu does. Doing so would save far more lives than vaccinations for HPV. I read your nonsense already i dismissed it because of course it would be costly but after all the intention is to save lives not money. Right Ayn? I'm sure you'll educate me and correct my "ignorance" though you seem to have a need to qualify yourself as the most knowledgeable person here so do it already.
167
Generally speaking... When people on the left tell facts and act civil, no one pays a damn bit of attention. When people on the right shout about death panels and Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim, OMG MAJOR NEWS EVENT.
And sometimes, public need is more important than personal choice. See national health threat prevention, police officers, fire fighters, environmental regulations...
So who here has actually gotten the vaccine? Had their children get it? Planning on getting it?
And sometimes, public need is more important than personal choice. See national health threat prevention, police officers, fire fighters, environmental regulations...
So who here has actually gotten the vaccine? Had their children get it? Planning on getting it?
168
@165 Oops you got that wrong again dear
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
or maybe you like this definition better "Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can."
or this one "The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue."
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
or maybe you like this definition better "Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can."
or this one "The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue."
169
@166: "We can provide a vaccination on a yearly basis that will evolve as rapidly as the Flu does."
Your inability to read past posts is tiring.
We do not have the infrastructure to give it to everyone, barely enough for senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. My aunt works for a public clinic giving vaccinations to schoolchildren (and others) if you'd sincerely like further clarification I'd be happy to research.
Your inability to read past posts is tiring.
We do not have the infrastructure to give it to everyone, barely enough for senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. My aunt works for a public clinic giving vaccinations to schoolchildren (and others) if you'd sincerely like further clarification I'd be happy to research.
170
@169 No need sweetheart we are capable of providing the vaccine to everyone if it's made a priority the "infrastructure" could be in place. But then again we can't very well provide HPV and enough Flu vaccine at the same time. One happens to be far more dangerous and deadly than the other. The wrong one is being mandated because as you said "virgins and nuns" are in danger. Oh my.
171
@170: "we are capable of providing the vaccine to everyone if it's made a priority the "infrastructure" could be in place"
Influenza primarily kills senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. There is no reason to mandate a flu vaccine every year when it would do very little good in the long run. It mutates much quicker than HPV.
You have very little interest in educating yourself and all interest in pretending that you know what you're talking about. If you're interested in learning more, I can contact people who administer public health and ask for their opinions.
Influenza primarily kills senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. There is no reason to mandate a flu vaccine every year when it would do very little good in the long run. It mutates much quicker than HPV.
You have very little interest in educating yourself and all interest in pretending that you know what you're talking about. If you're interested in learning more, I can contact people who administer public health and ask for their opinions.
172
But I need you to present actual questions to bother wasting someone's time, not repeating the same false assumptions over and over.
174
There is simply no false assumption.
There is only on question that makes a difference to me and the answer should be the same for whether we issue a mandate or not.
Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?
That's the only question that matters to me for a basis to let the government vaccinate by mandate. The answer for the Flu would clearly be yes. How about HPV?
There is only on question that makes a difference to me and the answer should be the same for whether we issue a mandate or not.
Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?
That's the only question that matters to me for a basis to let the government vaccinate by mandate. The answer for the Flu would clearly be yes. How about HPV?
175
Oh and will this HPV vaccine mandate also apply to dentists, doctors, hairstylists, or anyone else who has to touch us to do their job? (You know since it's under your fingernails and all)
176
@168: A truly successful troll may or may not make people angry. The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time. Trolling is a art, and like all arts, it takes skill to pull off.
177
@174: "Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?"
We do not currently *know* this for similar reasons to why we can not test males for HPV unless their partners present evidence. (Or they present visible warts, I suppose.)
Again cancer-causing strains of HPV were found in children with no sexual contact and no indications of those same strains of HPV in the mother. Science doesn't say for sure until it can prove with empirical, non-anecdotal evidence, but it isn't outrageous to think that it may be possible.
We do not currently *know* this for similar reasons to why we can not test males for HPV unless their partners present evidence. (Or they present visible warts, I suppose.)
Again cancer-causing strains of HPV were found in children with no sexual contact and no indications of those same strains of HPV in the mother. Science doesn't say for sure until it can prove with empirical, non-anecdotal evidence, but it isn't outrageous to think that it may be possible.
178
"The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time."
You said it, brother.
You said it, brother.
179
@170 - actually, no, we can't. We have to guess, every year, what the antigen shifts in that year's strains of influenza will be. Sometimes we guess wrong. The vaccine cannot be manufactured and distributed without some lag time. We are quite often wrong, especially when there's an extreme shift in the surface proteins.
180
"The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time."
And you've spent plenty of time explaining your position to me again and again. Thanx
And you've spent plenty of time explaining your position to me again and again. Thanx
181
"Again cancer-causing strains of HPV were found in children with no sexual contact and no indications of those same strains of HPV in the mother."
Then it's too late for them to be vaccinated. Since as you've said there is so much unknown and yet to learn we should proceed slowly before mandating vaccines that may or may not work and focus that attention on preventing disease we know far more about.
@179 no we can't what? put the infrastructure in place to provide enough vaccine or provide the right vaccine for the strain being passed around?
We most definitely can create the "infrastructure" to provide enough vaccine. But you're right it's a gamble on the strain. This has never before stopped the CDC from recommending yearly vaccination for the Flu. Nor can we guarantee the HPV vaccine to be 100% effective so i guess we should just give up.
Then it's too late for them to be vaccinated. Since as you've said there is so much unknown and yet to learn we should proceed slowly before mandating vaccines that may or may not work and focus that attention on preventing disease we know far more about.
@179 no we can't what? put the infrastructure in place to provide enough vaccine or provide the right vaccine for the strain being passed around?
We most definitely can create the "infrastructure" to provide enough vaccine. But you're right it's a gamble on the strain. This has never before stopped the CDC from recommending yearly vaccination for the Flu. Nor can we guarantee the HPV vaccine to be 100% effective so i guess we should just give up.
182
@162: No, no, no, honey! My comment at 161 was an example of me actually trolling you.
Golly, since you didn’t get that I guess I really must suck at being a troll.
Sigh, so much for my little hopes and dreams….
Golly, since you didn’t get that I guess I really must suck at being a troll.
Sigh, so much for my little hopes and dreams….
183
Here's some of that good ole edumakation about HPV i must be lacking that allows me to think other virus are far more dangerous and in need of our attention.
"More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types — different from the ones that cause skin warts — may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer. HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. However, most infections with these types do not cause disease.
Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. Seventy percent of infections are gone in 1 year and ninety percent in 2 years. However, when the infection persists — in 5% to 10% of infected women — there is high risk of developing precancerous lesions of the cervix, which can progress to invasive cervical cancer. This process usually takes 15–20 years, providing many opportunities for detection and treatment of the pre-cancerous lesion. Progression to invasive cancer can be ALMOST ALWAYS prevented when standard prevention strategies are applied, but the lesions still cause considerable burden necessitating preventive surgeries, which do in many cases involve loss of fertility"
Well now i see why these virgins and nuns are in such danger. How could i have been so wrong about the need to force school children to be vaccinated for an STD by mandate.
"More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types — different from the ones that cause skin warts — may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer. HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. However, most infections with these types do not cause disease.
Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. Seventy percent of infections are gone in 1 year and ninety percent in 2 years. However, when the infection persists — in 5% to 10% of infected women — there is high risk of developing precancerous lesions of the cervix, which can progress to invasive cervical cancer. This process usually takes 15–20 years, providing many opportunities for detection and treatment of the pre-cancerous lesion. Progression to invasive cancer can be ALMOST ALWAYS prevented when standard prevention strategies are applied, but the lesions still cause considerable burden necessitating preventive surgeries, which do in many cases involve loss of fertility"
Well now i see why these virgins and nuns are in such danger. How could i have been so wrong about the need to force school children to be vaccinated for an STD by mandate.
185
@174 "There is only on question that makes a difference to me and the answer should be the same for whether we issue a mandate or not."
"Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?"
Really? That's your only question? Time to mandate everyone carrying lighting rods, grounding straps and insulated boots then!
"Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?"
Really? That's your only question? Time to mandate everyone carrying lighting rods, grounding straps and insulated boots then!
186
@ 184, you're really wearing out your welcome.
If everyone else is a troll, why not be the big person and stop responding?
If everyone else is a troll, why not be the big person and stop responding?
187
@182: Nope.
Just 161. And possibly this comment. :P
Ok, I'll be good and stop teasing you now.
::scampers off to join the other harmless fluffy bunnies::
Just 161. And possibly this comment. :P
Ok, I'll be good and stop teasing you now.
::scampers off to join the other harmless fluffy bunnies::
189
@ 167,
Both our daughter and son have been vaccinated, which takes three doses. Neither had any negative reaction. There is every indication that their IQs are just fine. The eldest was vaccinated nearly 4 years ago.
@ankylosaur,
Thanks.
Both our daughter and son have been vaccinated, which takes three doses. Neither had any negative reaction. There is every indication that their IQs are just fine. The eldest was vaccinated nearly 4 years ago.
@ankylosaur,
Thanks.
190
@186 :"you're really wearing out your welcome"
I wasn't aware i was in your house or that i needed an invitation to be here. You always have a choice to ignor what I've posted or kick rocks yourself sweety. However not "everyone else is a troll" I didn't say such a thing. If you don't recognize that comments 105/107 are trolling (which caused me to troll lissa & her defenders as she had trolled me) then you need to figure out what trolling is.
@187/188 Yeah i've heard you sing that tune already. I'm just not buying it.
I wasn't aware i was in your house or that i needed an invitation to be here. You always have a choice to ignor what I've posted or kick rocks yourself sweety. However not "everyone else is a troll" I didn't say such a thing. If you don't recognize that comments 105/107 are trolling (which caused me to troll lissa & her defenders as she had trolled me) then you need to figure out what trolling is.
@187/188 Yeah i've heard you sing that tune already. I'm just not buying it.
191
oh christ, are you STILL bickering about what a "troll" is?
I'm sure you're excited by the new world promised to you in the Internet For Dummies series, but grow the fuck up and get a thicker skin. Nobody cares that your feeling were hurt. People will lash out at you if you're a poorly informed asshole. Go back to AOL or ageofautism or RedStare, wherever spawns dumb people with no conception of immunology.
I'm sure you're excited by the new world promised to you in the Internet For Dummies series, but grow the fuck up and get a thicker skin. Nobody cares that your feeling were hurt. People will lash out at you if you're a poorly informed asshole. Go back to AOL or ageofautism or RedStare, wherever spawns dumb people with no conception of immunology.
192
@191 "unregistered" My position is not that someone/anyone should not receive the vaccination. so i don't know who you're referring to as "dumb people with no conception of immunology." and "People will lash out at you if you're a poorly informed asshole."
I think i've seen some idiotic statements like infants have been documented to get HPV to make a case for mandatory vaccinations at age 12. These are not people I would consider to be well "informed assholes".
Being against a government mandate is simply not the same as being against vaccinations. I have said since my very first comment (87) here that I agree people should chose to be vaccinated but not forced since the threat to others is minimal.
I think i've seen some idiotic statements like infants have been documented to get HPV to make a case for mandatory vaccinations at age 12. These are not people I would consider to be well "informed assholes".
Being against a government mandate is simply not the same as being against vaccinations. I have said since my very first comment (87) here that I agree people should chose to be vaccinated but not forced since the threat to others is minimal.
194
@192: As I pointed out @127-- which was apparently lost amongst all the trolling allegations-- my biggest concern is that we're not talking about individual choice but rather parent choice. Bodily autonomy does not apply here, and parental autonomy is not nearly as strong a right.
IMO, neither extreme position works regarding parenting rights. If the health of the kids always trumps, then the government would be able to mandate three meals per day, an hour of exercise, etc. If parental rights always trump, then child abuse allegations vanish (the kids are just being "disciplined"), and on a less sinister level parents could refuse routine, life-saving medical procedures for their kids. So there's some line at which children should be protected from the stupidity of their parents, and I'm wondering where you think that line is.
On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children?
IMO, neither extreme position works regarding parenting rights. If the health of the kids always trumps, then the government would be able to mandate three meals per day, an hour of exercise, etc. If parental rights always trump, then child abuse allegations vanish (the kids are just being "disciplined"), and on a less sinister level parents could refuse routine, life-saving medical procedures for their kids. So there's some line at which children should be protected from the stupidity of their parents, and I'm wondering where you think that line is.
On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children?
195
@193 Not at all.
@194 You became lost in a fog of rape being a reason we need to mandate HPV Vaccine.
After you quoted me rape statistics as a part of your argument you lost me and I honestly stopped reading. I have gone back and read your question.
"So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?"
This isn't a question at all just a judgement you seek to validate that these parents are "crazy" and most certainly "crazy parents" shouldn't barely be allowed to exist let alone make a decision concerning their offspring.:-)
"On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children? "
I said i was a Libertarian not an Anarchist. There is a difference.
Maybe you'd support a law banning children from cars for their own safety?
That'll save far more innocent children from being placed in harms way by "crazy parents" driving their kids around. :)
@194 You became lost in a fog of rape being a reason we need to mandate HPV Vaccine.
After you quoted me rape statistics as a part of your argument you lost me and I honestly stopped reading. I have gone back and read your question.
"So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?"
This isn't a question at all just a judgement you seek to validate that these parents are "crazy" and most certainly "crazy parents" shouldn't barely be allowed to exist let alone make a decision concerning their offspring.:-)
"On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children? "
I said i was a Libertarian not an Anarchist. There is a difference.
Maybe you'd support a law banning children from cars for their own safety?
That'll save far more innocent children from being placed in harms way by "crazy parents" driving their kids around. :)
197
Not all vaccines are equally effective, and this should be taken into account when considering mandates as a part of the risk-benefit analysis. (In other news, there are serious concerns about the efficacy of flu vaccines in pretty much every species they are given to, and not just for reasons of genetic shift.)
I don't think that HPV is so completely inconsequential that a mandate should never be considered, but I don't think that the current levels of disease incidence, mortality rate, relative costs, and vaccine efficacy are sufficient to justify a mandate at this point.
I've looked at the data on this, published by the CDC. It was at least a year ago that I did so, but I do remember that the efficacy, while present and statistically significant, was not particularly impressive, and was less for the cancer-causing strains than the benign ones. It was enough to justify me getting the vaccine, but a higher standard should be applied to a mandated vaccine.
For example, about 50-70% of cases of cervical cancer involve the strains covered by the vaccine. There is some question as to the efficacy of cancer prevention, but about the best "prevention of cancer" number I could find in the intended treatment population was about 40% (other, non-cancerous lesions were decreased at a higher percentage).
In addition, last I heard, the company currently makes no claims for duration of immunity after 3 years. Most recent studies show efficacy at 8 years out (I don't know at what level). Think about when that would imply the effect potentially wearing out... vaccinate 9-11, immunity might be gone by the time they are 21.
What I don't have on hand is the mortality reduction of the vaccine compared head-to-head with the mortality reduction of the current standard of care (gyne exams, paps, colposcopy, and removal of abnormal tissue). That's pretty relevant.
It is my understanding that, for ethical reasons, once you are in a vaccine study like this, you are ensured access to the standard of care treatments; the variable is whether or not you also got the vaccine. Standard of Care vs Standard of Care+vaccine. I don't think there are data on people actually vaccinated at 11 and then followed to see if they get cancer at 20 (and definitely not at 47, the median age of cervical cancer diagnosis per the CDC), or people who (like many women) don't have access to the standard of care.
My concern: if we vaccinate every 9-11 year old girl in the country and only improve mortality over the current standard of care by 10% [totally hypothetical number], but cost millions of dollars that could have been spent ensuring access to the standard of care to more women... did we do the right thing? Or did we allow people to die because we didn't work through the implications of our actions?
And if a vaccine only gives a 10% bump to your chances against death from a cancer, do we have a reasonable case to mandate that vaccine despite both financial cost and potential side-effects?
Needs MOAR DATA :-)
More...
I don't think that HPV is so completely inconsequential that a mandate should never be considered, but I don't think that the current levels of disease incidence, mortality rate, relative costs, and vaccine efficacy are sufficient to justify a mandate at this point.
I've looked at the data on this, published by the CDC. It was at least a year ago that I did so, but I do remember that the efficacy, while present and statistically significant, was not particularly impressive, and was less for the cancer-causing strains than the benign ones. It was enough to justify me getting the vaccine, but a higher standard should be applied to a mandated vaccine.
For example, about 50-70% of cases of cervical cancer involve the strains covered by the vaccine. There is some question as to the efficacy of cancer prevention, but about the best "prevention of cancer" number I could find in the intended treatment population was about 40% (other, non-cancerous lesions were decreased at a higher percentage).
In addition, last I heard, the company currently makes no claims for duration of immunity after 3 years. Most recent studies show efficacy at 8 years out (I don't know at what level). Think about when that would imply the effect potentially wearing out... vaccinate 9-11, immunity might be gone by the time they are 21.
What I don't have on hand is the mortality reduction of the vaccine compared head-to-head with the mortality reduction of the current standard of care (gyne exams, paps, colposcopy, and removal of abnormal tissue). That's pretty relevant.
It is my understanding that, for ethical reasons, once you are in a vaccine study like this, you are ensured access to the standard of care treatments; the variable is whether or not you also got the vaccine. Standard of Care vs Standard of Care+vaccine. I don't think there are data on people actually vaccinated at 11 and then followed to see if they get cancer at 20 (and definitely not at 47, the median age of cervical cancer diagnosis per the CDC), or people who (like many women) don't have access to the standard of care.
My concern: if we vaccinate every 9-11 year old girl in the country and only improve mortality over the current standard of care by 10% [totally hypothetical number], but cost millions of dollars that could have been spent ensuring access to the standard of care to more women... did we do the right thing? Or did we allow people to die because we didn't work through the implications of our actions?
And if a vaccine only gives a 10% bump to your chances against death from a cancer, do we have a reasonable case to mandate that vaccine despite both financial cost and potential side-effects?
Needs MOAR DATA :-)
198
@196 What rules are you referring to the rules of the internet you seem to think I'm new to?
Is that like letting the guy on the right at a four way stop go first?
You'll need to be more specific Matt.
Is that like letting the guy on the right at a four way stop go first?
You'll need to be more specific Matt.
199
@195: You're evading the question. You believe vaccines are a good idea, yes? E.g., @126:
So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, should parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
That's because i think people should be vaccinated. I do not believe people should be mandated to do so.Let me rephrase since you got hung up on "crazy":
So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, should parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
201
@195: FWIW, I do not think the prevalence of rape is "a reason we need to mandate HPV Vaccine." In my post @127, I was pointing out that the distinction you made between vaccines for diseases contracted through "risky behavior" and vaccines for diseases contracted through "casual contact" does not withstand scrutiny. While women can take steps to protect themselves from voluntary HPV contact, a woman who is assaulted is just as "innocent" of the contact as I would be of running into a person with polio in the elevator. And by those statistics, a woman is more likely to have involuntary contact with HPV than I am of having involuntary contact with polio-- because polio is so damn rare.
Or does your "casual contact" rule only apply to more prevalent communication diseases? E.g., you would be opposed to mandatory polio vaccinations because polio is rare, but not mandatory measles vaccinations because measles is more common?
Or does your "casual contact" rule only apply to more prevalent communication diseases? E.g., you would be opposed to mandatory polio vaccinations because polio is rare, but not mandatory measles vaccinations because measles is more common?
202
@153 -- MyChalkLine, who wrote: "The same can be said for HIV, that's why it's a epidemic and you're risking your safety by engaging in sex with someone who has not been tested or refuses to use protection (which is comparable to being vaccinated) We of course have an opportunity to discuss such things with a partner before deciding to engage in sex with the. Someone who is a walking Flu virus is not giving the public such a choice. It's as simple as asking a partner if they've been tested/vaccinated and trusting them. They could certainly lie and the mandate wouldn't provide certainty since an exemption could easily be obtained."
But, MyChalkLine, this is not a counter-argument. What you're saying here is that, by the logics implicit in your opinion (namely, that the government should mandate vaccination when someone being infected is an implicit danger for others who can't choose not to be affected by this person) is that indeed the government should mandate vaccination against HIV, the Flu -- and I suppose then you'd now agree that anti-HPV vaccionation should be mandated.
By the very logic of the argument you made yourself.
Or am I getting something wrong? Could you please clarify that?
But, MyChalkLine, this is not a counter-argument. What you're saying here is that, by the logics implicit in your opinion (namely, that the government should mandate vaccination when someone being infected is an implicit danger for others who can't choose not to be affected by this person) is that indeed the government should mandate vaccination against HIV, the Flu -- and I suppose then you'd now agree that anti-HPV vaccionation should be mandated.
By the very logic of the argument you made yourself.
Or am I getting something wrong? Could you please clarify that?
203
Indeed, let me even restate it again, MyChalkLine. If I get your meaning, you believe that mandated vaccines are only OK when there's nothing a normal person can do to avoid danger from a disease, given the existence of infected people around to transmit it who a normal person simply cannot protect him/herself against. Right?
If so, then you should be the one in favor of mandated HPV (and HIV, and Flu) vaccination (given that innocent people, short of total abstinence plus no kissing, really cannot protect themselves against HPV) -- while the others here should be against that (at least for HIV and flu, I suppose), I assume because their criteria for mandating vaccination would be different from yours.
Yet you're the one saying HPV vaccination shouldn't be mandated (and I suppose also HIV and flu vaccination).
I really don't get it -- and I realize this can be taken ironically in the context of this somewhat aggressive and adversarial comments thread, but I'm being sincere: I really don't get it. It seems to me you're being inconsistent with your own beliefs.
Or maybe there's something I'm not getting -- and please accept my apologies if I'm somehow misrepresenting your opinion: this is not what I want to do. But I would like a clarification. How can you believe that vaccination should be mandated if normal people cannot willingly, by making choices, reasonably protect themselves against an infection, and still be against mandated HPV vaccination?
If so, then you should be the one in favor of mandated HPV (and HIV, and Flu) vaccination (given that innocent people, short of total abstinence plus no kissing, really cannot protect themselves against HPV) -- while the others here should be against that (at least for HIV and flu, I suppose), I assume because their criteria for mandating vaccination would be different from yours.
Yet you're the one saying HPV vaccination shouldn't be mandated (and I suppose also HIV and flu vaccination).
I really don't get it -- and I realize this can be taken ironically in the context of this somewhat aggressive and adversarial comments thread, but I'm being sincere: I really don't get it. It seems to me you're being inconsistent with your own beliefs.
Or maybe there's something I'm not getting -- and please accept my apologies if I'm somehow misrepresenting your opinion: this is not what I want to do. But I would like a clarification. How can you believe that vaccination should be mandated if normal people cannot willingly, by making choices, reasonably protect themselves against an infection, and still be against mandated HPV vaccination?
204
@199 You're still not posting a question but asking for validation of your assumptions. "good idea" & "be allowed to imperil" Are both assumptions you've decided are facts.
"I was pointing out that the distinction you made between vaccines for diseases contracted through "risky behavior" and vaccines for diseases contracted through "casual contact" does not withstand scrutiny."
No you were quoting rape stats. An act of Crime doesn't negate risky behavior vs. casual contact. Unless of course you're making a case to vaccinate all future rapists. Let me know how that works for you. And in case you need clarification A woman could contract far worse diseases if she is raped- but the possibility of rape isn't a reason to vaccinate any more than it is a factor in deciding to get your tubes tied to prevent having your rapists baby vs. your husbands. You're just as absurd as your scenarios.
"I was pointing out that the distinction you made between vaccines for diseases contracted through "risky behavior" and vaccines for diseases contracted through "casual contact" does not withstand scrutiny."
No you were quoting rape stats. An act of Crime doesn't negate risky behavior vs. casual contact. Unless of course you're making a case to vaccinate all future rapists. Let me know how that works for you. And in case you need clarification A woman could contract far worse diseases if she is raped- but the possibility of rape isn't a reason to vaccinate any more than it is a factor in deciding to get your tubes tied to prevent having your rapists baby vs. your husbands. You're just as absurd as your scenarios.
205
@202/203
No I do not favor a mandate on the HPV or even a potential HIV vaccine. You going on to claim my logic includes sexually transmitted disease as "unavoidable" is ridiculous. Nearly as ridiculous as 201 who claims rape is "unavoidable" so therefore rape is reason to be vaccinated. It's equivalent to saying a woman should be carrying condoms so when she is raped she can give one to her attacker. In fact she should have a multi pack since she could get gang banged. Bring an assortment for his pleasure?
How thoughtful, really.
But we could just vaccinated her with Smith & Wesson and take care of all the diseases in one little shot.
I support the HPV vaccine being administered but only by choice not by mandate period. Again the only thing that would bring me to your line of thinking is to know that HPV poses a threat from casual contact.
No I do not favor a mandate on the HPV or even a potential HIV vaccine. You going on to claim my logic includes sexually transmitted disease as "unavoidable" is ridiculous. Nearly as ridiculous as 201 who claims rape is "unavoidable" so therefore rape is reason to be vaccinated. It's equivalent to saying a woman should be carrying condoms so when she is raped she can give one to her attacker. In fact she should have a multi pack since she could get gang banged. Bring an assortment for his pleasure?
How thoughtful, really.
But we could just vaccinated her with Smith & Wesson and take care of all the diseases in one little shot.
I support the HPV vaccine being administered but only by choice not by mandate period. Again the only thing that would bring me to your line of thinking is to know that HPV poses a threat from casual contact.
206
@204: First, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_o…
I agree "good idea" / "allowed to imperil" is an assumption I have not yet proven, but it's an assumption you share. Again, you stated that "i think people should be vaccinated." Your argument against vaccination was not that vaccines were harmful, but that people should be free to make bad decisions.
I'm not questioning whether people should be free to make decisions for themselves. I'm questioning whether people should be free to make bad decisions on behalf of their kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_o…
I agree "good idea" / "allowed to imperil" is an assumption I have not yet proven, but it's an assumption you share. Again, you stated that "i think people should be vaccinated." Your argument against vaccination was not that vaccines were harmful, but that people should be free to make bad decisions.
I'm not questioning whether people should be free to make decisions for themselves. I'm questioning whether people should be free to make bad decisions on behalf of their kids.
207
And let's not forget Dave Schultheis, the "pro-life" state senator from Colorado Springs (the Evangelical Vatican, as it's frequently known). He voted against mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women, not for any defensible reason (privacy concerns or questions about cost vs. benefit.) Not at all. He opposed testing that can save babies from contracting the disease from their infected mothers because it would reward promiscuity. Later he clarified his stance by saying that HIV babies are a punishment to promiscuous mothers and a useful lessons to others.
So not only are conservatives okay with women contracting cancer, they're fine with babies dying lingering, horrible deaths. Better dead babies than live sluts. Or something.
So not only are conservatives okay with women contracting cancer, they're fine with babies dying lingering, horrible deaths. Better dead babies than live sluts. Or something.
208
And let's not forget Dave Schultheis, the "pro-life" state senator from Colorado Springs (the Evangelical Vatican, as it's frequently known). He voted against mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women, not for any defensible reason (privacy concerns or questions about cost vs. benefit.) Not at all. He opposed testing that can save babies from contracting the disease from their infected mothers because it would reward promiscuity. Later he clarified his stance by saying that HIV babies are a punishment to promiscuous mothers and a useful lessons to others.
So not only are conservatives okay with women contracting cancer, they're fine with babies dying lingering, horrible deaths. Better dead babies than live sluts. Or something.
So not only are conservatives okay with women contracting cancer, they're fine with babies dying lingering, horrible deaths. Better dead babies than live sluts. Or something.
209
@206 And I'm questioning you right to interpret what is a bad decision for another parent. But you don't seem to be understanding that. A parent is being entrusted to do many things, some even dangerous or risky (like operate a car with their children inside it). They will undoubtedly have many approaches to raising their children. I don't see the choice to not have a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease as harmful or abusive to a child who is in no danger. When the alternative is for the child to make this decision. You can cite all sorts of scenarios but that doesn't mean you have a right to decide for parents how to approach sex (education) and reproductive medical decisions with their children. We are after all talking about sexually transmitted disease. Not something a child should be contracting from her teacher.
They should be consulting their physicians for that. Not the Government. I don't like the approach where parents are being dictated to in a system that isn't adequate or fit to raise children, and by that i mean Government (state). Families raise children. Mothers and Fathers, Not Senators and Presidents, or Governors and Legislatures. Sure there's abuse and plenty of people who put children in danger but most of it is being done by the government and their employees who are supposed to be looking out for them in the first place. Any child raised inside the system would know this.
They should be consulting their physicians for that. Not the Government. I don't like the approach where parents are being dictated to in a system that isn't adequate or fit to raise children, and by that i mean Government (state). Families raise children. Mothers and Fathers, Not Senators and Presidents, or Governors and Legislatures. Sure there's abuse and plenty of people who put children in danger but most of it is being done by the government and their employees who are supposed to be looking out for them in the first place. Any child raised inside the system would know this.
210
Oh yeah? I'm questioning your right to interpret my intentions towards your understanding of how I determine my personal rights with respect to individual freedoms versus collectivist action as the law and public health see fit while viewed through a libertarian framework.
On a serious note: "Sure there's abuse and plenty of people who put children in danger but most of it is being done by the government and their employees who are supposed to be looking out for them in the first place. Any child raised inside the system would know this."
Yes, it's Big Fed's fault children are abused and not the willful underfunding of all social services termed "entitlements". Bully on you for recognizing the true villain in all of this.
On a serious note: "Sure there's abuse and plenty of people who put children in danger but most of it is being done by the government and their employees who are supposed to be looking out for them in the first place. Any child raised inside the system would know this."
Yes, it's Big Fed's fault children are abused and not the willful underfunding of all social services termed "entitlements". Bully on you for recognizing the true villain in all of this.
211
@209: Arguing that
In other words, repeating the question I asked @194:
A related question: if a disease could be acquired through "routine" means but was not communicable (e.g., it required ingestion like mad cow), should parents be permitted to refuse inoculation for their kids? Does your answer depend on the prevalence of the disease?
I don't like the approach where parents are being dictated to in a system that isn't adequate or fit to raise children, and by that i mean Government (state). Families raise children. Mothers and Fathers, Not Senators and Presidents, or Governors and Legislatures.is an argument against any government intervention within the family. Obviously there are limits-- parents can't abuse their kids, after all. Where are those limits drawn?
In other words, repeating the question I asked @194:
there's some line at which children should be protected from the stupidity of their parents, and I'm wondering where you think that line isYou're in favor of mandatory child safety seats, but not mandatory vaccinations (unless third parties would be harmed). What's your reasoning here?
A related question: if a disease could be acquired through "routine" means but was not communicable (e.g., it required ingestion like mad cow), should parents be permitted to refuse inoculation for their kids? Does your answer depend on the prevalence of the disease?
212
Honestly, even if they won't even pretend to care about saving lives, wouldn't preventing more cervical cancer also save money?
213
Dear MyChalkLine, any parent who would neglect to administer a perfectly safe vaccine to their children, regardless of efficacy, for any reason besides those which are out of their hands (egg allergy, poverty, etc.) is a BAD PARENT, and children should not have to suffer at the hands of a bad parent. That's why the government needs to mandate this vaccine. There are plenty of crazy, batshit, bad, unfit parents out there who would neglect to protect their children because of a (fucking stupid, irrelevant, subjective) moral/religious principle they hold.
Your comments make me literally sick to my stomach.
And, for the record, just got my last Gardasil booster two weeks ago, haven't been stricken mentally retarded and I have signed up for any super-slutty gang-bangs yet. But who knows, I'm only 25 and I've already needed a cone biopsy, maybe I might as well just go for it. Four straight years of being with the same man didn't spare me this fate.
Your comments make me literally sick to my stomach.
And, for the record, just got my last Gardasil booster two weeks ago, haven't been stricken mentally retarded and I have signed up for any super-slutty gang-bangs yet. But who knows, I'm only 25 and I've already needed a cone biopsy, maybe I might as well just go for it. Four straight years of being with the same man didn't spare me this fate.
214
@MyChalkLine, who wrote: " You going on to claim my logic includes sexually transmitted disease as "unavoidable" is ridiculous."
No, MyChalkLine, it's not. All I'm trying to do is check whether or not you will follow your own criteria to their logical consequences. My impression / gut feeling is that you don't, that you are willing to put up with inconsistencies in your worldview. I'm merely checking that. (What my opinion on the topic is, is irrelevant, for instance.)
So, you do then claim that, since it is (barely) possible to completely avoid HPV by never engaging in sex (or kissing), then there is no need to mandate vaccination, right?
But, if you do think that such radical solutions are sufficient to preclude mandatory vaccination, then it is difficult to see how you could be in favor of any mandatory vaccination at all, even in the cases (measles, rubeola, etc. if I'm not mistaken) where you said you would favor mandatory vaccination.
After all, there always is something the common citizen could do to avoid the danger of infection. It might be a difficult thing to do (say, always wear a gas mask? or a fully isolated suit, like an astronaut's?) -- a choice that the common citizen could make -- that would protect him/her from any infectious disease.
In this case, how can you support any kind of mandatory vaccination at all? Or do you then drop your support for any mandatory vaccination and prefer to consider all vaccination as a matter of choice?
Again, I'm just intrigued by the consequences of your choice of criteria. I'm not trying to 'be ridiculous' or anything, I'm simply honestly curious about your worldview.
No, MyChalkLine, it's not. All I'm trying to do is check whether or not you will follow your own criteria to their logical consequences. My impression / gut feeling is that you don't, that you are willing to put up with inconsistencies in your worldview. I'm merely checking that. (What my opinion on the topic is, is irrelevant, for instance.)
So, you do then claim that, since it is (barely) possible to completely avoid HPV by never engaging in sex (or kissing), then there is no need to mandate vaccination, right?
But, if you do think that such radical solutions are sufficient to preclude mandatory vaccination, then it is difficult to see how you could be in favor of any mandatory vaccination at all, even in the cases (measles, rubeola, etc. if I'm not mistaken) where you said you would favor mandatory vaccination.
After all, there always is something the common citizen could do to avoid the danger of infection. It might be a difficult thing to do (say, always wear a gas mask? or a fully isolated suit, like an astronaut's?) -- a choice that the common citizen could make -- that would protect him/her from any infectious disease.
In this case, how can you support any kind of mandatory vaccination at all? Or do you then drop your support for any mandatory vaccination and prefer to consider all vaccination as a matter of choice?
Again, I'm just intrigued by the consequences of your choice of criteria. I'm not trying to 'be ridiculous' or anything, I'm simply honestly curious about your worldview.
215
Has anyone mentioned that—like all "mandatory" vaccines—parents are able to "opt out" of vaccinating their children? There's way better things to hit Perry on, unfortunately Bachman's not going to go there because it's not the insane shit that she disagrees with.
Maybe it's because I've been watching Arrested Development again, but does anyone else imagine Michelle and Marcus pounding handfuls of TIMOsil between tour stops?
Maybe it's because I've been watching Arrested Development again, but does anyone else imagine Michelle and Marcus pounding handfuls of TIMOsil between tour stops?
217
You can cite all sorts of scenarios but that doesn't mean you have a right to decide for parents how to approach sex (education) and reproductive medical decisions with their children.
But that's the point, MyChalkLine -- it's not about sex, it's about a disease these children will be exposed to, without any way of knowing that they're being exposed to it. (If kissing transmits it, they don't even have to grow up to get it.)
You see, that is the main point: just like other mandatory vaccinations, it's not about sex education, it's about preventing a disease you have no other means to defend yourself against. If you reduce that simply to sex education, you're ignoring this fact.
But that's the point, MyChalkLine -- it's not about sex, it's about a disease these children will be exposed to, without any way of knowing that they're being exposed to it. (If kissing transmits it, they don't even have to grow up to get it.)
You see, that is the main point: just like other mandatory vaccinations, it's not about sex education, it's about preventing a disease you have no other means to defend yourself against. If you reduce that simply to sex education, you're ignoring this fact.
218
@41 KittenKoder
http://usmessageboards.com/showthread.ph…
Do you see any irony with you playing US vs THEM on message boards? When was the last time Slog deleted one of your comments? URNSANE
http://usmessageboards.com/showthread.ph…
Do you see any irony with you playing US vs THEM on message boards? When was the last time Slog deleted one of your comments? URNSANE
219
@218: Hah, she gets ripped to shreds and reverts to arguing solo where we can't read. Fucking hilarious.
220
@MyChalkLine, do you defend a parent's right to administer faith healing to their severely ill child to the complete exclusion of modern medicine? When is society allowed to step in and say "hey, you're a shitty parent"? Apparently not when it comes to rendering an extremely common and potentially fatal virus effectively harmless.
221
It's only the party of life if that life hasn't actually been born yet. Or it is a life that fits into one of their approved categories, which don't seem to include women or LGBT people.
222
Dan's statement about Republicans wanting women dead made Doonesbury's "mud line" today.
I've said it before, but Dan is a fascinating case of how politics makes you dumb. In his day job (the one he justly became famous(-ish) for), he's able to tease out the finest of nuances in the stupefyingly complex universe of human emotional and sexual relations. He disentangles prejudice, fear, and just plain stupidity from the web of reality and, with humor and compassion and sometimes just the right amount of tough love, points people towards answers so obvious it makes you smack your forehead. The guy is a genius when it comes to that.
But when it comes to politics, suddenly he's a freaking neanderthal. The world becomes black and white, populated with good guys and bad guys, and he wants all Republicans dead, because Republicans want women dead, because they're eeeevil, etc. etc. etc.
The contrast is breathtaking.
I've said it before, but Dan is a fascinating case of how politics makes you dumb. In his day job (the one he justly became famous(-ish) for), he's able to tease out the finest of nuances in the stupefyingly complex universe of human emotional and sexual relations. He disentangles prejudice, fear, and just plain stupidity from the web of reality and, with humor and compassion and sometimes just the right amount of tough love, points people towards answers so obvious it makes you smack your forehead. The guy is a genius when it comes to that.
But when it comes to politics, suddenly he's a freaking neanderthal. The world becomes black and white, populated with good guys and bad guys, and he wants all Republicans dead, because Republicans want women dead, because they're eeeevil, etc. etc. etc.
The contrast is breathtaking.
223
It seems so strange to me that people are so up in arms about the HPV but schools give Hep B vaccine without so much as a whisper of protest. Guess what, Hep B is mostly a sexually transmitted disease. . . we don't really think that all those young people are getting it to prevent exposure from needlesticks in a healthcare setting do we?
224
From the linked Time article: "It a measure of the depth of suspicion on both sides that something almost universally hailed as a medical triumph still became a subject of controversy."
No, it's a measure of the asinine, backwards, imperious lunacy of the Religious Right. I hate this "both sides" bullshit that has become the new norm. Sometimes one side is just plain wrong (factually and/or ethically). The response of the right-wing policy groups in response to the backlash is just so much misdirection, because their opinion on people's consensual sexual behaviors (yes, including teenagers) has no place in dictating public policy. Whether their proposed "disinhibition" idea has merit or not is immaterial (it's also patently ridiculous: there are a LOT of other STIs, many worse, on average, than any strain of HPV, and of course we don't worry about seat-belt laws disinhibiting reckless driving, food safety regulations disinhibiting overeating, etc.), and the only logical reason to raise an immaterial issue is to drum up controversy around something that should otherwise pass easily, which means you ARE actively opposed to it. Of course, that requires that one grants my premise of regulating consensual sexual behaviors being out of the purview of public policy, which these assholes obviously don't, but either way, no one should actually be granting them any degree of consideration, as they're either operating from a flawed premise or reaching a conclusion that does not follow from the non-flawed premises.
"'Unlike diseases for which there are required immunizations,' explains Klepacki, 'this is a disease you don't catch by sneezing or coughing. It's linked to a behavior. You don't contract HPV by sitting in a classroom. So this is a different issue.'"
Except that like sitting in a classroom, it's a behavior in which (in spite of years of pro-abstinence propaganda in those same classrooms and anti-sex religious mandates) the overwhelming majority of the population engages. One could avoid those other illnesses by living in a hermetically-sealed bubble and never touching another person or anything another touched - those are behaviorally-linked too, it's just that you don't disapprove of the behaviors that expose people to e.g. measles. Ideological positions have no place in public policy because they are not evidence-based/fact-based, and public policy is limited in that it can only deal with what actually happens. We can legislate Utopia (whatever version) all we want, but that's not going to make it a reality (there's a similar problem with banning abortion: we know from historical and cross-national data that women terminate pregnancies at about the same rates whether abortion is legal or illegal, and the only difference is how safe the procedures are; from a public health or pro-life standpoint, even if one thinks abortion is wrong, the evidence clearly shows that the best LAWS around abortion make access cheap and easy, but also strive to provide access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, which can delay onset of sexual activity and definitely reduces the number of unintended pregnancies, as well as the spread of STIs). The biggest issue I have with these kinds of policy proposals is that they don't make sense EVEN IF I GRANT THE IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT (the second-biggest problem is with those ideological positions), because the law just doesn't function like they think/wish it does.
More...
No, it's a measure of the asinine, backwards, imperious lunacy of the Religious Right. I hate this "both sides" bullshit that has become the new norm. Sometimes one side is just plain wrong (factually and/or ethically). The response of the right-wing policy groups in response to the backlash is just so much misdirection, because their opinion on people's consensual sexual behaviors (yes, including teenagers) has no place in dictating public policy. Whether their proposed "disinhibition" idea has merit or not is immaterial (it's also patently ridiculous: there are a LOT of other STIs, many worse, on average, than any strain of HPV, and of course we don't worry about seat-belt laws disinhibiting reckless driving, food safety regulations disinhibiting overeating, etc.), and the only logical reason to raise an immaterial issue is to drum up controversy around something that should otherwise pass easily, which means you ARE actively opposed to it. Of course, that requires that one grants my premise of regulating consensual sexual behaviors being out of the purview of public policy, which these assholes obviously don't, but either way, no one should actually be granting them any degree of consideration, as they're either operating from a flawed premise or reaching a conclusion that does not follow from the non-flawed premises.
"'Unlike diseases for which there are required immunizations,' explains Klepacki, 'this is a disease you don't catch by sneezing or coughing. It's linked to a behavior. You don't contract HPV by sitting in a classroom. So this is a different issue.'"
Except that like sitting in a classroom, it's a behavior in which (in spite of years of pro-abstinence propaganda in those same classrooms and anti-sex religious mandates) the overwhelming majority of the population engages. One could avoid those other illnesses by living in a hermetically-sealed bubble and never touching another person or anything another touched - those are behaviorally-linked too, it's just that you don't disapprove of the behaviors that expose people to e.g. measles. Ideological positions have no place in public policy because they are not evidence-based/fact-based, and public policy is limited in that it can only deal with what actually happens. We can legislate Utopia (whatever version) all we want, but that's not going to make it a reality (there's a similar problem with banning abortion: we know from historical and cross-national data that women terminate pregnancies at about the same rates whether abortion is legal or illegal, and the only difference is how safe the procedures are; from a public health or pro-life standpoint, even if one thinks abortion is wrong, the evidence clearly shows that the best LAWS around abortion make access cheap and easy, but also strive to provide access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, which can delay onset of sexual activity and definitely reduces the number of unintended pregnancies, as well as the spread of STIs). The biggest issue I have with these kinds of policy proposals is that they don't make sense EVEN IF I GRANT THE IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT (the second-biggest problem is with those ideological positions), because the law just doesn't function like they think/wish it does.
225
The Religious Right should call themselves Old-Testamentists, not Evangelists. They never read the part of the New Testament where the prostitute washed the feet of Jesus and he didn't kick her in the groin.
They are not Christians.
They are not Christians.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
So I've Got This Baby Bird... by Brendan Kiley
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (225) RSS