Hijexx wrote:
Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.

The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

...

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

...

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

...

/cynic mode ON

Welcome to Utopia. Now we vaccinate your children for sexually transmitted diseases. Please report to Central Immunization immediately. Failure to comply within seven days will result in quarantine.

/cynic mode OFF

I don't believe this. I'm dumbfounded. Corporate cronyism at it's boldest. If this comes to your state, not only should you say no, you should say HELL NO. Since when is it the State's place to give preventative STD vaccines to children? I know the carrot here is oh it's such a great thing, it prevents cervical cancer. But is cervical cancer really a US health epidemic? Everything I've read says otherwise.

Even if you trust the State to inject whatever they deem necessary into your children, think about the economics here. $360 a head for the vaccine treatments. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to provide education about the importance of regular pap smears? Even if you get this vaccine, you still need them anyway.

And yes, I did not miss the part about an affidavit being available to opt out. I won't bore you with stories I've read about how that has been abused in the past, where kids were quarantined then the parents were charged with truancy, etc... Hit me up if you want the skinny on that.

Recommended reading:

10 Things You Might Not Know about Gardasil

Notable quotables:

4. While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for schoolchildren, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future.... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Jello wrote:

Schools already make kids get vaccinated for a variety of diseases. Polio, for instance. I don't think you can attend public school without being vaccinated for Mumps, Measles, Rubella or Polio, for instance. The reason for this is that children interact in manners that would allow for transmission: they touch each other, they sit near each other, they cough.

HPV is an epidemic. Most young people have it. Once you accept that children have sex with one another, and therefore act in a way that routinely transmits this disease... it follows that they should be vaccinated, and its no more Orwellian than vaccinating children against Measles, because they cough on one another.

It may be too soon for this to happen. Lord knows we've made mistakes with vaccines before, like the CHAT polio vaccine which may have caused SIV to jump to humans and become HIV. But in general, this is not a bad idea.

Apples to oranges comparison. Read my statements carefully. Nowhere did I state all vaccination is bad. If you are a child in school, you cannot choose who you are around or affect the air you breathe. You CAN however choose who you have sex with. I disagree with MANDATING vaccination for STD's. Especially with a vaccine as questionable as the one Merck is putting out. Check out some of the information being reported to VAERS.

Here's some advice I found:

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners.

CDC recommended by the way, not from a conservative Christian website. But I guess the CDC is just not "accepting" that all kids in a school are going to fuck each other, no different than coughing or using the same water fountain. Yeah, it's all the same. Sure.

Hijexx wrote:

Jello wrote:

Schools already make kids get vaccinated for a variety of diseases. Polio, for instance. I don't think you can attend public school without being vaccinated for Mumps, Measles, Rubella or Polio, for instance. The reason for this is that children interact in manners that would allow for transmission: they touch each other, they sit near each other, they cough.

HPV is an epidemic. Most young people have it. Once you accept that children have sex with one another, and therefore act in a way that routinely transmits this disease... it follows that they should be vaccinated, and its no more Orwellian than vaccinating children against Measles, because they cough on one another.

It may be too soon for this to happen. Lord knows we've made mistakes with vaccines before, like the CHAT polio vaccine which may have caused SIV to jump to humans and become HIV. But in general, this is not a bad idea.

Apples to oranges comparison. Read my statements carefully. Nowhere did I state all vaccination is bad. If you are a child in school, you cannot choose who you are around or affect the air you breathe. You CAN however choose who you have sex with. I disagree with MANDATING vaccination for STD's. Especially with a vaccine as questionable as the one Merck is putting out. Check out some of the information being reported to VAERS.

Here's some advice I found:

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners.

CDC recommended by the way, not from a conservative Christian website. But I guess the CDC is just not "accepting" that all kids in a school are going to fuck each other, no different than coughing or using the same water fountain. Yeah, it's all the same. Sure.

Honestly, I think it is. Just like 'accepting' the reality that kids don't wash their hands or cover their mouths when they cough. They can. They should. They have a choice. It prevents disease. Yet lots of the grubby ones don't. If this weren't an epidemic, if more than half of people in their 20s didn't have HPV, that would be one thing. But this is an epidemic. Two strains of this thing cause cancer in women. And condoms don't necessarily prevent the transmission of HPV.

Obviously minors shouldn't be sleeping around. But they are. And they continue to do so into their 20s. And as a result most of them will contract HPV. I say: solve the problem with a vaccine. I don't think sexual hangups have a place in public health policy.

Hijexx wrote:
If this comes to your state, not only should you say no, you should say HELL NO. Since when is it the State's place to give preventative STD vaccines to children?

They already require a litany of vaccines to attend public schools in most jurisdictions. Private schools typically also require the same vaccines. The purpose is generally to prevent outbreaks of various diseases in the public. The debate about whether or not the state should be involved in dealing with public health problems occured in the late 1800s.

As for STDs in general, I don't see why vaccines for STDs are any different than vaccines for other diseases. People's emotional hangups about sex shouldn't get in the way of solving real public health problems.

As for whether this specific medication should be required, you have to ask one question. Will the overall cost of distributing this vaccine be lower than the overall cost of the infections which would occur without this vaccine but will not occur with it, factoring all of the other costs and risks associated with having people take it. If the answer is yes, its probably a decent idea.

The people I'd look to for answers to that question aren't some blogger who is seriously misinterpreting several factors and doesn't understand the clinical trial process. Ask insurance companies. They don't bear all of the costs, so their position is not beyond being overruled, but they probably have the best understanding of the direct expenses. They'd be paying for the vaccines, and they'd be paying for the treatments. If they support this given that they'd be picking up the tab for it, I don't see why anyone else would oppose it.

You got a specific example of someone how wasn't sick who was quaranteened because of their lawful use of an exemption process to a public health law?

Decius wrote:

They already require a litany of vaccines to attend public schools in most jurisdictions.

I did not say I am against all vaccination.

As for STDs in general, I don't see why vaccines for STDs are any different than vaccines for other diseases. People's emotional hangups about sex shouldn't get in the way of solving real public health problems.

See my response to Jello. I don't consider it an "emotional hangup" to see the clear difference between a communicable disease and sexually transmitted disease.

As for whether this specific medication should be required, you have to ask one question. Will the overall cost of distributing this vaccine be lower than the overall cost of the infections which would occur without this vaccine but will not occur with it, factoring all of the other costs and risks associated with having people take it. If the answer is yes, its probably a decent idea.

And you think it is a good idea for insurance companies to make the call on this? That just means WE will be subsidizing it through higher insurance premiums! And as a child vaccine, thanks to the NCVIA, guess who shoulders the liability down the road? As taxpayers, WE do!

Think about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Because of federal laws, employer provided health insurance MUST cover expenses for pregnancies. You think the insurance company just eats that cost? No, of course not. They spread it across all premiums, including those of people who choose NOT to become pregnant.

But I guess that's what I am supposed to do, because well, pregnancy is just something people do, and once I get over my emotional hangup about pregnancy, I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE.

Considering that most HPV infections clear up on their own, and only a low percentage of long-term infections (which would have been detected by pap smear) turn into cervical cancer, I would say no, the vaccinations are probably not necessary. But that's where the line blurs on this issue. Is this a CANCER vaccine or an HPV vaccine? It is an HPV vaccine, thus a vaccine for an STD. But it is being marketed and sold to the public as a CANCER vaccine. Who would be against fighting cervical cancer? Nevermind that HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer.

This is all just my opinion though based on what I can find via Google's search results, Wikipedia, etc. I do not claim to be an expert on HPV/cervical cancer, nor do I claim any expertise as an actuary. I do not know any actuaries personally that I can pose the financial questions to. This is a new issue that is hot and heavy in at least three states I know of right now, Michigan, Texas, and Colorado, so I imagine it is rapidly gaining attention in the insurance circles. Hoping more information comes out... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

See my response to Jello. I don't consider it an "emotional hangup" to see the clear difference between a communicable disease and sexually transmitted disease.

I read that. I'm still not getting it. That fact that you can choose who you're going to have sex with or whether your going to have sex does not change the fact that people have sex and it spreads disease.

I don't see how you can not be bothered at all about vaccines for airborne illnessess on the one hand but vaccines for illnessess that spread in some other way you're gunna get seriously pissed off about. I just don't get that.

And you think it is a good idea for insurance companies to make the call on this? That just means WE will be subsidizing it through higher insurance premiums!

No, the point would be that it would reduce the cost of insurance. That whole thing I said about the vaccines costing less than the disease? Whether an increase or decrease in cost would get reflected in your insurance premium is a different matter. Prices are not a direct function of costs.

I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE.

If you get in car accident its often the effect of a personal choice, but you'll still get treated in the hospital and your insurance will still cover it. The point of that rules is to prevent insurance companies from treating pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition" if a pregnant woman changes providers (jobs) during a pregnancy. Health Insurance is not taxation, but if you're so pissed off about subsidising other people you don't have to carry it.

What do you disagree with in that blogger's post? I found the blog in question quite inI don't see a lot of room for misinterpretation, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. I think points 1 through 7 are solid. Points 8 and 9 are not really germane to the issue.

1,2, and 3 are irrelevent if the vaccine reduces the cost of the disease overall.
4. just means that the government is liable instead.
5. 6. She might have a point with regard to the need for a study with young girls, but most vaccines do not have longitudinal results prior to deployment. Is there a technical reason to suspect that the impact won't last? If not, why sit on your hands with it for 20 years while you do a longitudinal study? Things just don't work that way.
7. What does this disclaimer mean? Obviously, these problems didn't arise during lab or clinical trials or the drug wouldn't have been approved. If there is no technical reason to suspect this as a possibility than its probably not a problem.
8. This observation is interesting. I think it is germane to the issue.
9. This observation is a stupid conspiracy theory.

if this becomes a public health matter and is issued at schools like MMR was when I was in high school, who pays for the vaccines at that point?

Insurance.

I do suspect that once again, the taxpaper foots the bill.

Only if the kid is on medicade.

Scroll down to the heading "Compulsory Vaccination Negates the Spirit of Informed Consent."

Makes sense to me. Yes "Christian Scientists" who refuse to allow their children to get medical treatment of illnesses can sometimes be a controversial child welfare issue. No, I also don't agree to a pick and choose "religious exemption." Either your religion prohibits modern medical treatment or it doesn't.

Decius wrote:

I read that. I'm still not getting it. That fact that you can choose who you're going to have sex with or whether your going to have sex does not change the fact that people have sex and it spreads disease.

I don't see how you can not be bothered at all about vaccines for airborne illnessess on the one hand but vaccines for illnessess that spread in some other way you're gunna get seriously pissed off about. I just don't get that.

And likewise, I do not see how you can find coughing on someone and fucking someone equivalent. Yes, I understand they are both vectors for infection. One is casual contact, something that is bound to happen in a school when kids are near each other. The other is intimate contact, something that an individual makes a conscious decision to engage in. It generally does NOT happen AT school. While coughing on someone at school is not grounds for expulsion, fucking someone at school IS.

If a parent wants their child to have this vaccine, that should be their personal choice, not the State's. I'm sorry if you think I have an emotional hangup about sex. Believe me, I do not. Sometimes I get sick of living in the Bible belt because of prevailing attitudes about what's best for me based on their idea of morality. I say if you want to do something, and it doesn't hurt someone else, go for it.

At the same time, this forced vaccination of children for STD's is yet another assault by someone telling me what's best for me based on their idea of ethics. I can't think of many other ways to say it, or any other creative analogies. I guess what it boils down to is whether one believes personal responsibility should come into play here, or do people not know what is for their own good, thus the Nanny State has to step in and make those decisions for us?

The availability of waivers will vary from state to state. Texas did not have a reason of conscience affidavit until Sept. 2003. Before that, it required a religious affidavit. What about people who claim no religion? The point I'm trying to make is that to get out of these programs, you have to go through a lot of red tape. It gets crammed down your throat.

Public Health is a touchy subject without a lot of black and white. I know there are people that rail just as hard against forcing children to get MMR shots. My personal ideology there is that the risks of contracting those diseases is very high, and they are nasty disesases. To me, the risk of complications from an MMR shot is worth the benefit.

However, sex is something the individual has 100% control over. I have no control over going to a class and catching something from the air. I have complete control over going to a class and having sex with someone there. Thus, there is no public health concern as it relates to the context of a cla... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
One is casual contact, something that is bound to happen in a school when kids are near each other. The other is intimate contact, something that an individual makes a conscious decision to engage in. It generally does NOT happen AT school.

If you're looking for a concession that vaccination of school children isn't just about preventing the spread of disease in the classroom, you can have it.

At the same time, this forced vaccination of children for STD's is yet another assault by someone telling me what's best for me based on their idea of ethics.

Its not about imposing ethics. Its about controlling the spread of a virus.

Thus the Nanny State has to step in and make those decisions for us?

You're back to arguments that have to do with vaccination in general and not this specific vaccine...

However, sex is something the individual has 100% control over.

Thats a straw man. No one chooses to get STDs, and with one exception, the STDs we have today have been a part of human society for a long time. Nearly everybody has sex at some point in their lives. Sex spreads this illness. People rarely make a concious decision to contract it. Its not like they sat down and decided "I'm going to get HPV today." Talking about it as if its something that people have control over is silly.

The only possible interpretation I can reach is that you are advocating sexual abstinence as an alternative to vaccination for STDs. Among a myriad of objections I'd offer that wouldn't be as effective.

What you are expressing is that there is an STD epidemic in schools that adversely affects the learning experience of a majority of children.

No, its simply the mechanism through which we manage public health.

To believe otherwise is to say you want to pre-emptively stamp out STDs just because "It's the right thing to do," not because of any specific need as it pertains to the public school system.

Do you think its wrong for the government to require people who work with food to wash their hands? Isn't it a matter of personal choice? Couldn't you decide not to eat at places that don't have an internal hand washing requirement for their staff? Why not let the free market decide? Who needs to spend tax dollars on restaurant inspectors!?

Automotive insurance and health insurance are completely different from each other.

You are intentionally sidestepping my point. People make all kinds of personal choices that lead to unexpected medical problems that are covered by health insurance. For example, people who climb trees sometimes fall out of them. People who ride bicycles sometimes have accidents.

Therefore, why is it a federal law that insurance companies MUST insure these people? Insurance should be for unexpected illnesses, not planned life events.

I simply don't find your insistance compelling. I don't have a problem with this.

Why do you get angry about the idea that you're funding social insitutions that occaisonally help people?

Decius wrote:

You're back to arguments that have to do with vaccination in general and not this specific vaccine...

It's almost as if you didn't even read what I said about my ideology about airborne communicable diseases. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to this HPV vaccine.

Thats a straw man. No one chooses to get STDs, and with one exception, the STDs we have today have been a part of human society for a long time. Nearly everybody has sex at some point in their lives. Sex spreads this illness. People rarely make a concious decision to contract it. Its not like they sat down and decided "I'm going to get HPV today." Talking about it as if its something that people have control over is silly.

Following that line of reasoning, if you have sex and you impregnate or are impregnated, you did not choose to have a child if you did not make a conscious decision to do so. Should we start mandating that kids take birth control so they are protected from unwanted pregnancy?

Some people accept that sex can have consequences and accept the personal responsiblity for their choice. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease is one such risk. There are many preventative measures that can be employed to curb the risks. You can define "risks" to mean whatever you want, whether it be unwanted disease or pregnancy.

I don't think my original statement was really a straw man, it was just an example. I wasn't taking any of your arguement and twisting it. If anything, the preceding two paragraphs may be a slight straw man, but I tend to think of it as more of an analogy.

The only possible interpretation I can reach is that you are advocating sexual abstinence as an alternative to vaccination for STDs. Among a myriad of objections I'd offer that wouldn't be as effective.

I am not advocating ANY alternative to vaccination for STDs! I am saying I do not believe this is a public health crisis that required Texas Governor Rick Perry to issue an Executive Order to make it happen by next year.

No, its simply the mechanism through which we manage public health.

If you manage something through public health, that implies there is a public health crisis. I have not seen any compelling evidence that HPV is a public health crisis that is affecting the learning experience of a majority of children in school. What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

To believe otherwise is to say you want to pre-emptively stamp out STDs just because "It's the right thing to do," not because of any specific need as it pertains to the public school system.

Do you think its wrong for the government to require people who work with food to wash their hands? Isn't it a matter of personal c... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
It's almost as if you didn't even read what I said about my ideology about airborne communicable diseases. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to this HPV vaccine.

I was refering to your specific comment about the "nanny state." I'm simply pointing out that general appeals to the concept of freedom from overbearing regulation that could be applied to any law in any context are not persuasive with regard to the difference between virus A and virus B.

If you have sex and you impregnate or are impregnated, you did not choose to have a child if you did not make a conscious decision to do so.

Makes sense to me. This is the difference between an accidental and intentional pregnancy.

Should we start mandating that kids take birth control so they are protected from unwanted pregnancy?

There is no way to enforce that, but we do have sex education.

Some people accept that sex can have consequences and accept the personal responsiblity for their choice. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease is one such risk.

Yes, thats correct, but its not persuasive as to the question of whether or not its OK for the government to treat an STD as public health problem. In my previous post I mentioned that you get to choose where you eat, just as you get to choose who you have sex with. If you're arguement is that your choice in who you have sex with should mean that the government has no business dealing with STDs as a public health problem, then by inferrence that fact that you get to choose where you eat means that the government has no business dealing with the cleanliness of restaurants in order to protect public health. I don't agree with either conclusion. Perhaps you agree with both?

What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Your point was addressed, not sidestepped. You brought up auto accidents, and I said that's what I have auto insurance for. I said that is a bad analogy. I will consider your statement now as tacit acknowledgement that you agree the analogy did not hold.

No, my point was sidestepped. You addressed my example instead of addressing my point. You said, "I should feel really warm and fuzzy about subsidizing the treatment for something that is an effect of A PERSONAL CHOICE." I was attempting to demonstrate that health insurance does cover the effects of personal choices. The example I provided was covered by car insurance, but thats irrelevent. There are many many many many other examples t... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

I was refering to your specific comment about the "nanny state." I'm simply pointing out that general appeals to the concept of freedom from overbearing regulation that could be applied to any law in any context are not persuasive with regard to the difference between virus A and virus B.

I don't follow you.

There is no way to enforce that, but we do have sex education.

If there was a way to "enforce" the prevention of teen pregnancy, would you find it prudent to do so as a prerequisite to attend public school? You could give kids birth control shots as well as STD shots.

If you're arguement is that your choice in who you have sex with should mean that the government has no business dealing with STDs as a public health problem, then by inferrence that fact that you get to choose where you eat means that the government has no business dealing with the cleanliness of restaurants in order to protect public health. I don't agree with either conclusion. Perhaps you agree with both?

I have already established that I am not completely against public health management. See my statements about MMR.

Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Yours differs from mine significantly then. Take measles for example. It is so infectious that you can have an outbreak situation on your hands in no time. But right now, it does NOT impact a significant percentage of the population.

I believe that we should manage diseases that are communicable by common methods of public contact. Diseases that can become an outbreak that overwhelm the community and the hospitals of the community. Sorry, I am not sold on STDs being anywhere close in importance. STDs simply do not affect public health in the same manner that the ones we currently vaccinate for do.

I presume that you also think that health insurance should not cover menapause, aging effects, puberty, or any other predictable life events. Whatever, I don't agree. People use health insurance as a general way of paying for health expenses because it allows them to amortize expenses over time as well as among society.

Your presumption is inane. Puberty, aging, and menopause are part of living. Of course insurance should cover them.

My premise is that I do not believe the vaccination of sixth graders for STDs should be part of a public health program. Keep that in mind. Our debate is wandering across many fractured points, mostly as a result of both of us trying to explore the other's ideology. That is not a bad thing, it is just the nature of debate. It has a side effect of removing focus from the main tenant of the debate tho... [ Read More (1.1k in body) ]

I'm dropping the hpv debate for the most part. I'm clearly not going to change your mind.

I presume that you also think that health insurance should not cover menapause, aging effects, puberty, or any other predictable life events. Whatever, I don't agree. People use health insurance as a general way of paying for health expenses because it allows them to amortize expenses over time as well as among society.

Your presumption is inane. Puberty, aging, and menopause are part of living. Of course insurance should cover them.

Is there any medical expense other than pregnancy that you think insurance shouldn't cover?

In the same manner that I don't believe the State should provide safety equipment for bicycle riders, I don't believe the State should provide vaccinations for STDs. What it should provide is proper education and guidance.

The state does require safety equipment for bicycle riders. The helmet issue is debated, but generally rules about reflective surfaces and lights are widely accepted. Same thing with automobiles.

Because you live in a society with other people, and if those people are stupid, your society becomes poor, and your life will suck as a result.

I live in a society with other people that choose to have children. Let them pay for their kids' educations, not me. When I have a kid that needs to be educated, I'll pay for it then. I do understand the nuances of this debate, such as capital spending required for building schools and amortizing the debt over time. I realize you can't get out completely. But where the direct revenue required for operational costs can be removed from my tax bill, I say let me OUT until I need such service.

I understand your position but you didn't address my arguement, essentially that it is in your self interest for other people's children to be educated because their education level is directly reflected in the success of the economy that you work in.

If you start to let the State control the destiny of reproductive health like this, what comes next?

I don't think this is a slipery slope. State control over diseases can be considered in a conceptual bucket that is quite distinct from state control over reproduction.

I'm dropping the hpv debate for the most part. I'm clearly not going to change your mind.

I left the door open for you to change my mind. I stated that if someone can prove that cervical cancer is a health epidemic on par with something like MMR, I might be persuaded. Here, for the third time, are my words:

If I discover evidence that it is a public health crisis that is spreading like wildfire in schools and adversely affecting the learning experience of many children, I might change my mind.

I went further in my research. I tried to convince myself that there is a growing epidemic. I found no such evidence. In fact, I found evidence to the contrary. It's right there in my last post, with hyperlinked footnotes of the sources that I used.

If you drop the debate at this juncture, you are conceding that cervical cancer does not meet your own definition of a public health crisis that we must compell public management of. You hold that this vaccine should be required by that fact that you say you "don't see anything wrong on its face." Since this vaccine is not a public health crisis, it is therefore going to be given to kids just because someone thinks it is a good idea. As far as I can tell, that is a new precedent in public health.

I don't know if you are still pursuing a career in law or not. In the past we spoke about your aspirations to become a Supreme Court Justice, or at least Constitutional Law. For the sake of arguement, assume you are now a Justice. I assume if this issue had to be ruled on in your court, you would rule in favor of allowing state governments to require mandatory vaccination for cervical cancer. What would your opinion look like?

I have attempted to elucidate my position here: http://www.memestreams.net/users/hijexx/blogid340819/

As for the rest of the points left dangling, since you are threatening to drop this discussion entirely, I see no point in continuing the other threads. I have enjoyed our discussion and thank you for making me think. It almost felt like being back on a BBS.

Hijexx wrote:
If you drop the debate at this juncture, you are conceding that cervical cancer does not meet your own definition of a public health crisis that we must compell public management of.

I'm not conceeding anything that I haven't stated I'm conceeding. Franky, I'm not interested in whether or not cervical cancer is a public health crisis. Furthermore, I never defined what I saw as a public health crisis nor did I ever say that things had to become a public health crisis before I felt the government could require vaccination. The criteria that I offered for whether or not I'm comfortable with government vaccine requirements are:

1. There is a safe vaccine.
2. A vaccine requirement costs less than the treatment of illnesses which would occur without a vaccine requirement.

I don't care how the disease is spread, what kind of disease it is, what population it impacts, or what complications it has. I don't have a problem with government vaccine requirement for STDs. HPV is an STD that lots of people get. I don't have a problem with them vaccinating for it.

Decius wrote:

I'm not conceeding anything that I haven't stated I'm conceeding. Franky, I'm not interested in whether or not cervical cancer is a public health crisis. Furthermore, I never defined what I saw as a public health crisis nor did I ever say that things had to become a public health crisis before I felt the government could require vaccination. The criteria that I offered for whether or not I'm comfortable with government vaccine requirements are:

1. There is a safe vaccine.
2. A vaccine requirement costs less than the treatment of illnesses which would occur without a vaccine requirement.

I don't care how the disease is spread, what kind of disease it is, what population it impacts, or what complications it has. I don't have a problem with government vaccine requirement for STDs. HPV is an STD that lots of people get. I don't have a problem with them vaccinating for it.

So you are retracting your portion of the following dialogue:

Hijexx: What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

Decius: Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Consider it retracted.

To summarize your position then, as best as I can distill (I am sincerely not trying to distort it:)

You hold that the State has the authority to dictate to its citizenry that they must receive vaccinations for any disease, so long as the State deems the vaccination safe and the cost of administering the vaccines is lower than treating the effects of illness that would result from not being vaccinated.

The one unknown in your position is who decides that the cost would be lower. Is it the State, a corporation, or some other sort of organization?

Hijexx wrote:
So you are retracting your portion of the following dialogue:

Hijexx: What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

Decius: Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Consider it retracted.

Its not retracted. I said where we can. The criteria "significant precentage of the population" is not "as defined by hijexx" its as constrained by the notion that the vaccination ought to cost less than the disease.

The one unknown in your position is who decides that the cost would be lower. Is it the State, a corporation, or some other sort of organization?

Ultimately, its the state that decides these things. My preference would be that the decisions be based on independent study... the FDA for example.

Decius wrote:

Its not retracted. I said where we can. The criteria "significant precentage of the population" is not "as defined by hijexx" its as constrained by the notion that the vaccination ought to cost less than the disease.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. If I understand correctly, this is your check list:

[ ] Can the disease be managed through vaccination?
[ ] Is the vaccine safe?
[ ] Do we not currently manage the disease as a public health problem?
[ ] Does the disease impact a significant percentage of the population?
[ ] Is the cost of vaccinating for the disease less than the cost of treating the disease?

If all of the answers are yes, then the State should mandate vaccinations for the disease.

Item #4 on this check list directly contradicts your assertion that you "don't care how the disease is spread, what kind of disease it is, what population it impacts, or what complications it has." Unless you are being extremely didactic with what your meaning of "what population it impacts," this is the only conclusion I can arrive at. Percentages of population was the context of my assertion you were responding to.

When you say "the criteria of significant percentage of the population" should not be mine to define, I agree. I never said it was my sole authority. I am not a statistician, an elected official, a trained medical professional, or otherwise qualified to make those kinds of definitions.

You are saying that the criteria of significant percentage of the population should instead be defined as what you say it is, which is "as constrained by the notion that the vaccination ought to cost less than the disease." This makes no sense to me. You already said vaccination should cost less than treatment. What does that have to do with the definition of what constitutes a significant percentage of the population? A disease pays no attention to economics. How does the cost of a vaccine constrain what percentage of a population the disease affects?

Ultimately, its the state that decides these things. My preference would be that the decisions be based on independent study... the FDA for example.

The FDA is not independent, it is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Unless you are being extremely didactic with what your meaning of "what population it impacts," this is the only conclusion I can arrive at. Percentages of population was the context of my assertion you were responding to.

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. I did not mean in terms of percentages. I meant with respect to the "sort of people" who get sick. IE sexually permiscuous people, or poor people, or whatever the case may be for a particular virus.

You already said vaccination should cost less than treatment. What does that have to do with the definition of what constitutes a significant percentage of the population? A disease pays no attention to economics. How does the cost of a vaccine constrain what percentage of a population the disease affects?

Obviously if a disease only effects one person the cost of vaccinating everyone in society would exceed the cost of treating that one individual, or perhaps loosing them. There is an obvious relationship between cost and scope.

Look, you seem to want to have an arguement with me and others on this board about this issue. I don't want to have an arguement with you. I've already tried to end it, because it isn't going anywhere and it isn't interesting. The fact that I'm not interested in continuing to discuss it with you is not a statement that I agree with you or that I think I'm wrong. I don't appreciate your attempts to pull me back in by accusing me of having made concessions. I don't want to continue this discussion because I'm sick of explaining what I meant to you over and over, I'm sicking of being forced to research patently obvious questions such as the constitutionality of coerced vaccination, and I'm sick of engaging in circular arguments.

I really don't understand why many preventable deaths sounds like a great idea to you, but at this point I don't fucking care. Have your deaths. Leave me alone.

Decius wrote:

Look, you seem to want to have an arguement with me and others on this board about this issue. I don't want to have an arguement with you. I've already tried to end it, because it isn't going anywhere and it isn't interesting. The fact that I'm not interested in continuing to discuss it with you is not a statement that I agree with you or that I think I'm wrong. I don't appreciate your attempts to pull me back in by accusing me of having made concessions. I don't want to continue this discussion because I'm sick of explaining what I meant to you over and over, I'm sicking of being forced to research patently obvious questions such as the constitutionality of coerced vaccination, and I'm sick of engaging in circular arguments.

I have not finished reading the Supreme Court opinion you referenced. It is far from "patently obvious" that ruling pertains to this case. However, in your interest, I will cease at this point.

I really don't understand why many preventable deaths sounds like a great idea to you, but at this point I don't fucking care. Have your deaths. Leave me alone.

If that was the opinion I held, I wouldn't understand it either.

Hijexx wrote:
Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.

No fucking way I'm moving my family to texas... and absolutely no way anyone is giving my daughters shots of this untested shit...

dc0de wrote:

No fucking way I'm moving my family to texas... and absolutely no way anyone is giving my daughters shots of this untested shit...

If this becomes law in your state, let me know how you fare getting a waiver.

This is what I like about Memestreams. It's a marketplace of different ideas and opinions, not an echo chamber. So far, based on responses I've read, Memestreams users are split 50/50 on this issue. That's out of a sample of 4 people, but for the "regular userbase" I'd say that's a statistically significant sample :)

Hijexx wrote:

dc0de wrote:

No fucking way I'm moving my family to texas... and absolutely no way anyone is giving my daughters shots of this untested shit...

If this becomes law in your state, let me know how you fare getting a waiver.

This is what I like about Memestreams. It's a marketplace of different ideas and opinions, not an echo chamber. So far, based on responses I've read, Memestreams users are split 50/50 on this issue. That's out of a sample of 4 people, but for the "regular userbase" I'd say that's a statistically significant sample :)

You're absolutely right, but since we've removed our 12yo daughter from the government school system, and have started down the path of Home Schooling for her, I don't think that the vaccination requirements are going to be much of an issue. (We removed her from middle school for a litany of other reasons, not this guardisil one..)

Why don't I just give my child to the govt to totally educate and raise so he can be a good little Amerikan? baaaaaa

Palindrome wrote:

Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.

The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.

First, this is not about hangups this is about forcing a population to get vacinated against something that is not a threat to society. It can not be transmitted through daily interaction. Even if this is an epidemic this is not the way to address the situation. On top of that even if this vaccine had been tested for years and years we are talking about 11 year olds. Even though some 11 year old are acting like they are grown ups they aren't and there bodies are different/ Drug effects are different.

Jello:Schools already make kids get vaccinated for a variety of diseases. I don't think you can attend public school without being vaccinated for Mumps, Measles, Rubella or Polio, for instance. The reason for this is that children interact in manners that would allow for transmission: they touch each other, they sit near each other, they cough.

HPV is an epidemic. Most young people have it. Once you accept that children have sex with one another, and therefore act in a way that routinely transmits this disease... it follows that they should be vaccinated, and its no more Orwellian than vaccinating children against Measles, because they cough on one another.

Secondly, It is the first step in making laws taking away people's right to make decisions about their own bodies. I have two children that sit next to each other in my class. Kaitlyn and Dylan. Kaitlyn does not have a choice in the fact that Dylan often coughs on her or touches her or her stuff. Kaitlyn does have a choice on whether she lets Dylan have sex with her. If not that is rape and that is where the requirement belongs. Freedom of choice is the issue. I have two nieces who I love like they were my own. I help raise them it remains one of the two hardest things I have ever done. You don't mess with peoples right to make their own decision much less a parent's right to make decisions about their children. If we were there are much better places to start. If this flies they are one step closer to requiring all kinds of procedures and vaccinations because they know what's best for you and making things like abortion illegal.

The decision here isn't really about sex, but whether or not they are immune to HPV, a virus which causes cancer, and which most young people get. I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter, and I don't think it impacts sexuality whatsoever. Nobody is telling you who to have sex with, or to have sex at all. In fact kids are told to wait. Bottom line: they just want to stop a disease epidemic that starts spreading in schools.

I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease. I don't care how they're transmitted. It doesn't matter. Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe. FDA says it is. I believe them. Start shooting it into kids arms and we'll beat HPV in a generation, and can move onto the next virus.

Jello wrote:

Bottom line: they just want to stop a disease epidemic that starts spreading in schools.

HPV is not spreading IN schools.

I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease. I don't care how they're transmitted. It doesn't matter. Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe. FDA says it is. I believe them. Start shooting it into kids arms and we'll beat HPV in a generation, and can move onto the next virus.

The FDA also approved Vioxx if you recall. The FDA is sometimes wrong about things, they are not infallable.

Since you give the State blanket authority to vaccinate you for any disease they see fit, I expect you to get in line for HPV pronto! You are irresponsible and wreckless if you choose to be vulnerable to malaria too, so you should get that as well. While you're there, get your anthrax vaccination. Grab a bubonic plague, cholera, typhoid, and meningitis for good measure. And don't forget to write your Congress and Senate critters (both State and Federal!) to advocate that all citizens should receive every conceivable vaccination known to man BEFORE they are allowed to leave quarantine. If there's a vaccine available, you should be required to get it, period. To do otherwise is just making an irresponsible choice to be vulnerable.

Hijexx wrote:

Jello wrote:

Bottom line: they just want to stop a disease epidemic that starts spreading in schools.

HPV is not spreading IN schools.

I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease. I don't care how they're transmitted. It doesn't matter. Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe. FDA says it is. I believe them. Start shooting it into kids arms and we'll beat HPV in a generation, and can move onto the next virus.

The FDA also approved Vioxx if you recall. The FDA is sometimes wrong about things, they are not infallable.

Since you give the State blanket authority to vaccinate you for any disease they see fit, I expect you to get in line for HPV pronto! You are irresponsible and wreckless if you choose to be vulnerable to malaria too, so you should get that as well. While you're there, get your anthrax vaccination. Grab a bubonic plague, cholera, typhoid, and meningitis for good measure. And don't forget to write your Congress and Senate critters (both State and Federal!) to advocate that all citizens should receive every conceivable vaccination known to man BEFORE they are allowed to leave quarantine. If there's a vaccine available, you should be required to get it, period. To do otherwise is just making an irresponsible choice to be vulnerable.

Having fun building that straw man? What a bastard he is! BURN HIM! Whoop his tail! I'll get the pitch fork! Get that nogoodsunumbitch!

Jello wrote:

Having fun building that straw man? What a bastard he is! BURN HIM! Whoop his tail! I'll get the pitch fork! Get that nogoodsunumbitch!

Your position was clearly stated. You feel that individuals should not have the right to choose to be vulnerable to diseases that can be prevented with vaccination. My example was not a misrepresentation of your position.

Your statements:

"I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter."

"I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease."

"Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe."

From your statements alone, it is reasonable to assume you have no qualms about forced vaccinations for any disease.

Hijexx wrote:

Jello wrote:

Having fun building that straw man? What a bastard he is! BURN HIM! Whoop his tail! I'll get the pitch fork! Get that nogoodsunumbitch!

Your position was clearly stated. You feel that individuals should not have the right to choose to be vulnerable to diseases that can be prevented with vaccination. My example was not a misrepresentation of your position.

Your statements:

"I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter."

"I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease."

"Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe."

From your statements alone, it is reasonable to assume you have no qualms about forced vaccinations for any disease.

First you are not against vaccinations in general. Then you proceed to make a serious of passionate arguments against them in general. And yet we are supposed to believe that an otherwise rational person doesn't have sexual hangups? HPV vaccine does not make your daughter a whore. I get every impression your gut tells you it does.

How nice that memestreams is, as you put it, "a marketplace of different ideas and opinions," where you can disagree with someone and immediately be called a fascist. :)

First you are not against vaccinations in general. Then you proceed to make a serious of passionate arguments against them in general.

You obviously have not paid serious attention to my position. You paint this as if it is a black and white issue. Nothing is black and white. For example, I stated I approve of mandatory vaccination for measles. Measles, by its very nature, is highly infectious. Left unchecked, measles can spread so rapidly that it would cause an epidemic in short order. It has the potential to disrupt the infrastructure of schools, hospitals, and the community in general. If measles broke out at a large school or college, think about the lost time and productivity as community hospitals and health clinics were inundated with trying to deal with it. Parents that would have to leave work. The quarantine that would be required. For these reasons, measles is a disease we vaccinate for.

HPV is not in the same league as it relates to the impact on public health. And cervical cancer is definately not in that league. Therefore, I am against mandatory vaccination for HPV. The Executive Order that is now in effect in Texas is worded to be vaccination for cervical cancer.

The debate is not about whether it is a good idea to try preventing cervical cancer or not. It is, should it be mandatory? I contend that it should not be mandatory, no more than it should be mandatory to be vaccinated for every conceivable disease known to man.

For example, I can receive a vaccine today for malaria. I choose not to because there is no compelling public health crisis in America today as it relates to malaria. If tomorrow, Executive Orders were being handed out in states that mandated vaccination for malaria, with no evidence to back up the necessity in the face of a public health crisis, I would be against it as well.

You have expressed your position in absolute terms:

"I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter."

"I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease."

"Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe."

From your statements alone, it is reasonable to assume you have no qualms about forced vaccinations for any disease, regardless to context of whether it is a public health crisis or not. When I presented an extreme example of such absolutist ideology, you deem it a straw man.

I am not demanding that you explain your position with more nuance, I am just trying to understand it. When someone says, "I think this," I tend to want more detail, not just "Because that's what I believe." There is nothing wrong with having a belief and not wavering from it mind you. Some people may call that a principle.

I have attempted to elucidate my position here: ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:

First you are not against vaccinations in general. Then you proceed to make a serious of passionate arguments against them in general.

You obviously have not paid serious attention to my position. You paint this as if it is a black and white issue. Nothing is black and white. For example, I stated I approve of mandatory vaccination for measles. Measles, by its very nature, is highly infectious. Left unchecked, measles can spread so rapidly that it would cause an epidemic in short order. It has the potential to disrupt the infrastructure of schools, hospitals, and the community in general. If measles broke out at a large school or college, think about the lost time and productivity as community hospitals and health clinics were inundated with trying to deal with it. Parents that would have to leave work. The quarantine that would be required. For these reasons, measles is a disease we vaccinate for.

HPV is not in the same league as it relates to the impact on public health. And cervical cancer is definately not in that league. Therefore, I am against mandatory vaccination for HPV. The Executive Order that is now in effect in Texas is worded to be vaccination for cervical cancer.

The debate is not about whether it is a good idea to try preventing cervical cancer or not. It is, should it be mandatory? I contend that it should not be mandatory, no more than it should be mandatory to be vaccinated for every conceivable disease known to man.

For example, I can receive a vaccine today for malaria. I choose not to because there is no compelling public health crisis in America today as it relates to malaria. If tomorrow, Executive Orders were being handed out in states that mandated vaccination for malaria, with no evidence to back up the necessity in the face of a public health crisis, I would be against it as well.

You have expressed your position in absolute terms:

"I don't feel that losing your right to choose to be vulnerable to HPV is a serious matter."

"I don't see a difference between this, and any other disease."

"Immunity is better than non-immunity if the vaccine is safe."

From your statements alone, it is reasonable to assume you have no qualms about forced vaccinations for any disease, regardless to context of whether it is a public health crisis or not. When I presented an extreme example of such absolutist ideology, you deem it a straw man.

I am not demanding that you explain your position with more nuance, I am just trying to understand it. When someone says, "I think this," I tend to want more detail, not just "Because that's what I believe." There is nothing wrong with having a belief and not wavering from it mind you. Some people may call that a principle.

I have attempted to elucidate my posi... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
You feel that individuals should not have the right to choose to be vulnerable to diseases that can be prevented with vaccination.

That is exactly correct. You don't have an inalienable right to be vulnerable to communicable diseases. This question was resolved in the 1800s.

Decius wrote:

That is exactly correct. You don't have an inalienable right to be vulnerable to communicable diseases. This question was resolved in the 1800s.

Please provide a citation. I would like to research this.

Hijexx wrote:

Decius wrote:
That is exactly correct. You don't have an inalienable right to be vulnerable to communicable diseases. This question was resolved in the 1800s.

Please provide a citation. I would like to research this.

If you insist: JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person....

It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state.