GOP Anti-HPV Vaccines... Are they out of their minds?

[Zadoc]

Check outhttp://www.wepolls.com/p/2257630/Do-HPV-vaccinations-save-lives"> this poll.

The simple question is, "Do HPV vaccinations save lives?" But 90%, presumably Tea Party Republicans, don't think so. They call it "junk science." Are you kidding me? Are you motherfucking kidding me? God damn it, I hate to back murdering Rick Perry for anything, but providing cancer preventing medicine is a good role for the government. Jesus.

[Deep13]

1. Agreed.

Damn Perry for making me agree with him.

[handmade34]

2. they would rather

have girls get cancer than think the gov't has encouraged the young women to have sex... their thinking is limited by their religious dogma and fear of not being in control

[Deep13]

4. Exactly.

What? Admit my teenage daughter has naughty bits? Never!

[Zadoc]

8. as if

As if teenage girls aren't going to have sex.

[Deep13]

14. Well if they do they deserve to suffer for sinning.

What's that Mom? I'm 43, you know that. What? You're 60, so what? Oh, I see. But you and Dad were married when I was born, so it wasn't sinful. Huh? Sure, you got married in April. Well I was born in August of that year. O-o-o-oh. Sorry, Mom.

[RKP5637]

3. It's amazing, isn't it. The GOP, taking you back 100 years to the

good old times.

[Zadoc]

9. hmm..

So those were the good old times. I guess that's why they call them good old boys.

[Deep13]

13. Dammit, I have a right to die from consumption...

...and to have non anesthetic dentistry! And goddamn indoor plumbing!

[dsc]

5. Given the number of uninsured in Texas I don't know if this was a good use of money or not

This is by no means a cheap vaccine. Would the hundreds of dollars per dose spent on that vaccine been better spent on nutrition programs or cheap medicines which treat or prevent diseases? I admit to not knowing but it is a valid question.

[Deep13]

11. Well, the vaccine has to be given before sexual activity...

...which means girls are dependent on their parents' being able to afford it and being willing to do it. Once the window of opportunity is missed, they risk a disease that is without symptoms until it is too late to stop it. Also, the treatment costs of just a few cases of cancer would probably pay for the whole program.

Those nutritional programs and basic medical care are also important and I would be will to see my taxes increased to pay for them.

[Deep13]

6. To answer the OP's subject line question: yes. nt

[libbyhart]

7. Perry did not "order" HPV Vaccines to save lives

God forbid. From what I understand he made money from the pharmaceutical co that gave the vaccines. Which unfortunately makes since with his anti gov, big business agenda. Not to mention "let them die" philosophy.

[Zadoc]

10. Ya, well...

The result of his greed was at least positive. lol

[Deep13]

12. Well, right thing for the wrong reason.

I figured there had to be something beyond simple humanity behind Perry's action.

[spooked911]

22. indeed, his chief of staff used to work for the vaccine company

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/rick-perrys-2007-hpv-vaccine-decision-haunts-him-at-debate/

[Deep13]

15. Unrecs coming from the anti-vax crowd, I guess. nt

[Warpy]

16. Uh, those people are STUPID. Their empty heads are filled

with whatever nonsense they hear on Pox or on AM radio daily and the "lessons" have to be repeated daily because they don't remember them very long. It's why they don't have whiplash from all the changing opinions they're exposed to and why they think only Democrats flip flop on issues, because they're told that, too.

I don't know what to do about these people. I do know we're going to have to figure something out before they destroy us.

[ProgressoDem]

17. Yes.

They are out of their minds.

[xchrom]

18. recommend

[Myrina]

19. 3 things:

1. Its a matter of choice - between a family and their doctor. Sound familiar?
2. This vaccine hasn't been around long enough to know of long term benefits/drawbacks. I'll wait, thanks.
3. And which Pharma Co is making a massive profit off of a government order? Um, that would be facism rearing its head again.

Hate to say it but I agree with the nutballs on this one.

[spooked911]

21. there are actually a relatively large number of bad side-effects from this vaccine, even deaths

it's not a trivial concern, even pro-vaccine people worry about this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717

[emilyg]

25. Not trivial at all. Thank you.

[Deep13]

26. Therein we do not agree.

I keep hearing it has not been around long enough, but I have not seen anything to substantiate that claim. As far as choice goes, I don't believe in it when it comes to controlling disease. HPV is probably not the best example of this, but I think we have a duty to avoid exposing others to disease or of incurring the cost of disease if it can be avoided. Some people have medical conditions or age restrictions that make them ineligible to be vaccinated and they need to be protected too.

Don't remember who makes Gardasil--an I've read that Perry has a financial interest in it--but vaccines are typically low-profit items that take decades and huge amounts of money to produce. So while clearly profitable, I wonder if the "massive profit" might be overstated.

[spooked911]

20. it's not that simple

they shouldn't be forcing that particular vaccine on anyone, much less young girls.

[Blue_Tires]

23. That's nothing new...The old-school Birchers were against the Polio vaccine, too iirc

[Deep13]

24. Here's the CDC report on possible side effects.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html

Note the report talks about correlation, not causation. That is to say, these possible side effects occurred after vaccination, but that does not mean the vaccine CAUSED the the problems. Out of 35,000,000 doses, less than 19,000 had possible side effects. 92% of those possible side effects were not serious. That means about 1,500 out of 35 million had POSSIBLE side effects that were serious. That means 3 in 70,000 will have a POSSIBLE side effect that is serious. I keep emphasizing "possible" because the report states that correlated serious side effects are no more likely than the odds of the population generally having those disorders. So, someones risk of a blood clot or of sudden death is the SAME WHETHER YOU HAVE THE VACCINE OR NOT. That means in all likelihood, the vax does not cause the possible serious side effects.

Of course the other side of that is that in '07 12,000 women in the USA were diagnosed with cervical cancer and 4000 died from it. So not exactly a pandemic.