Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sixpence on February 04, 2007, 01:01:11 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-02-texas_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Wow, take money from a company and issue an executive order for them. Isn't there a conflict of interest here? How the hell does he get away with that?
Texas governor orders anti-cancer vaccine for schoolgirls
By Harry Cabluck, AP
AUSTIN (AP) — Bypassing the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
By issuing an executive order, Perry apparently sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to get Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.
"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said in announcing the order.
"If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well-being of these individuals to have those vaccines available," he said.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil 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, Perry's 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.
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.
-
Now you know why I hate Texas Republicans. Bush did the same thing with insurance companies. You should take a close look at their new redistricting. It's a joke.
-
I hope the people of Texas take the needles and stick them right up his ass
-
teh boosh had cervical cansars? O NOES!!!!!1111:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek: eek
-
The problem with that issue is that it's a damned good preventative step, but the retard special interests and scaredy-cat politicians are going to argue it to death out of fear of being seen as pro or anti something or another. Heck, both sixpence and rpm took the bait on the first cast, as intended by whoever wrote that article.
IMHO it's a good thing that the governor said to hell with the political risk and people who have nothing better to do than worry if a smart medical treatment might send one message or another, this is a good thing so let's get it done.
The fact that he got money from the medical industry is unfortunate, but if politicians were forbidden to make any policies that affected anyone who contributed to their campaigns, well then... what would the politicans be able to actually DO? That is more of a campaign funding issue than a problem with this particular policy regarding the vaccination.
You also have to realize that he probably took even MORE campaign funding from people and groups who oppose this vaccine, so wouldn't that make a lack of action also a conflict of interest? If he didn't put this policy in place, you can bet his political opponents would be shouting that some religious whackjobs paid him off to block a measure that would save lives. You can count on this with 100% certainty, and you can count on the fact that the media would report it that way. No matter what he does, it will be reported as a corrupt decision based on "payoffs from special interests!!!!111one"
If I had the power to do so, I'd make the same decision. STFU about what it MIGHT do, because what it WILL do is prevent a pretty horrible type of cancer in a lot of people who will have either had sex, or gotten that virus regardless of what BS message the do-gooders and politicians give to people. As a voluntary sort of thing, it would probably take a long time before the cost of the treatment came down to a reasonable level. And let's face it, merck put a lot of resources into a product that really will improve people's lives and save money in government funded medical costs over the long run, so why not kick off the treatment's use with a govt program that will rapidly get the treatment to people and reduce long term costs at the same time?
To not fund this vaccination sends the message "we'd rather you get cervical cancer and die or suffer horribly than to have a microscopic but highly vocal percentage of the population think we're really saying that premarital sex is ok" That kind of "message" used to get politicians shot or tarred/feathered, but it's the typical poltician response nowadays.
-
sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.
LOL these conservatives really blow your mind with their logic. Yeah, let's spread a DEADLY virus among our children just to make sure they don't enjoy their sex life normally. That is so wrong on so many levels.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-02-texas_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Wow, take money from a company and issue an executive order for them. Isn't there a conflict of interest here? How the hell does he get away with that?
Now we know why iraqi's are fighting so hard to keep this 'democracy' out of thier country.
-
My wife and I had a conversation about this yesterday. She is sorta opposed to the vaccination being mandatory. I asked if she felt the same about smallpox, polio, rubella or whatever else may be required by law. Well, smallpox is no longer required but you get the idea. This vaccination is really no different than those others. If you're gonna get yer panties in a wad over this then you should be protesting the others as well.
-
Originally posted by lukster
My wife and I had a conversation about this yesterday. She is sorta opposed to the vaccination being mandatory. I asked if she felt the same about smallpox, polio, rubella or whatever else may be required by law. Well, smallpox is no longer required but you get the idea. This vaccination is really no different than those others. If you're gonna get yer panties in a wad over this then you should be protesting the others as well.
But a Republican is pushing it, so it must be bad.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by lukster
My wife and I had a conversation about this yesterday. She is sorta opposed to the vaccination being mandatory. I asked if she felt the same about smallpox, polio, rubella or whatever else may be required by law. Well, smallpox is no longer required but you get the idea. This vaccination is really no different than those others. If you're gonna get yer panties in a wad over this then you should be protesting the others as well.
If the disease is a sexually transmitted disease it is very different. How would you like to be forcfully vaccinated against genital herpes or warts if you have been married and faithful for the last 20 years. Keep in mind, usually a vaccination consists of a variation of the disease itself and a small number of people actually contract the disease from the vaccination. This vaccination is in its infancy and there is no way they could have done long term research on the side effects of this drug. In fact, this wreaks as one of those govt. human guinea pig deals. I would move my family out of the state before I let them force my daughter to be injected with some experiment.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
If the disease is a sexually transmitted disease it is very different. How would you like to be forcfully vaccinated against genital herpes or warts if you have been married and faithful for the last 20 years. Keep in mind, usually a vaccination consists of a variation of the disease itself and a small number of people actually contract the disease from the vaccination. This vaccination is in its infancy and there is no way they could have done long term research on the side effects of this drug. In fact, this wreaks as one of those govt. human guinea pig deals. I would move my family out of the state before I let them force my daughter to be injected with some experiment.
You kinda changed the scenario. We're talking about vaccinating kids who have not yet entered into a monogamous relationship. I think it's a safe bet to assume that most of these will be eventually exposed to this virus. If there were a vaccine to prevent AIDS would you raise the same objection?
-
Man,
I gota somehow get off of this planet!
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think it's a safe bet to assume that most of these will be eventually exposed to this virus. If there were a vaccine to prevent AIDS would you raise the same objection?
Really? What percentage of girls aquire cervical cancer? Hold on, Im gonna do some Internet research.
-
I agree that it should not be mandatory and... it would seem that it is not.
I also agree that it is different than small pox or other vacinations that protect the whole of the people from a disease. The methods of how they are spread it the crux of the thing..
Also.. does anyone feel bothered by even more public school intrusion in our lives and families?
The school should have nothing to do with any medical procedures. If there is a disease like small pox that can be spread they simply need to see proof of vacination before admission to school so as to not endanger the other students.
lazs
-
Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife. Half of women diagnosed with this cancer are between the ages of 35 and 55. It rarely occurs in women younger than 20. Although cervical cancer does affect young women, many older women do not realize that the risk of developing cervical cancer is still present as they age. Slightly over 20% of women with cervical cancer are diagnosed when they are over 65. It is important for older women to continue having regular Pap tests at least until age 70, and possibly longer. See the section, "Can Cervical Cancer Be Prevented?" for more specific information on current American Cancer Society screening recommendations.
I hardly think that this supports your statement that most of those targeted for the vaccine will be exposed to the virus. Take a look at the money and see if there is a connection between the drugmaker and the lawmaker. If so, then its just politics as usual.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife. Half of women diagnosed with this cancer are between the ages of 35 and 55. It rarely occurs in women younger than 20. Although cervical cancer does affect young women, many older women do not realize that the risk of developing cervical cancer is still present as they age. Slightly over 20% of women with cervical cancer are diagnosed when they are over 65. It is important for older women to continue having regular Pap tests at least until age 70, and possibly longer. See the section, "Can Cervical Cancer Be Prevented?" for more specific information on current American Cancer Society screening recommendations.
I hardly think that this supports your statement that most of those targeted for the vaccine will be exposed to the virus. Take a look at the money and see if there is a connection between the drugmaker and the lawmaker. If so, then its just politics as usual.
I know that the virus causes cervical cancer in some later in life. That's the whole point of the vaccination. I'm missing the point of your restatement of this. Perhaps "most" is inaccurate but the virus is a very common std.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Really? What percentage of girls aquire cervical cancer? Hold on, Im gonna do some Internet research.
I'll haveta look it up but I remember reading that something like 75% of people. Both male and female are exposed to or conctract HPV at some point in their lives.
Ahh did a quick search
According to the CDC
"
Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the noodle, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own.
Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or noodle. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped.
Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV.
At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm)
----EDIT-----
But to answer your question
"All types of HPV can cause mild Pap test abnormalities which do not have serious consequences. Approximately 10 of the 30 identified genital HPV types can lead, in rare cases, to development of cervical cancer. Research has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection becomes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer.
A Pap test can detect pre-cancerous and cancerous cells on the cervix. Regular Pap testing and careful medical follow-up, with treatment if necessary, can help ensure that pre-cancerous changes in the cervix caused by HPV infection do not develop into life threatening cervical cancer. The Pap test used in U.S. cervical cancer screening programs is responsible for greatly reducing deaths from cervical cancer. For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I agree that it should not be mandatory and... it would seem that it is not.
I also agree that it is different than small pox or other vacinations that protect the whole of the people from a disease. The methods of how they are spread it the crux of the thing..
Also.. does anyone feel bothered by even more public school intrusion in our lives and families?
The school should have nothing to do with any medical procedures. If there is a disease like small pox that can be spread they simply need to see proof of vacination before admission to school so as to not endanger the other students.
lazs
I agree with you in principle but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm glad that polio and smallpox were virtually eliminated due to mandatory vaccinations if you wanted to participate in social evironments like public school, military, or food service.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I know that the virus causes cervical cancer in some later in life. That's the whole point of the vaccination. I'm missing the point of your restatement of this. Perhaps "most" is inaccurate but the virus is a very common std.
A PAP smear can find the virus nearly 100% of the time. So after 3 or 4 PAP smears, if one had the virus it would most certainly show up. And since the virus is 100% treatable before cancer developes, maybe, just maybe , there is a better way to handle this than forcefully injecting young women with powerful drugs whether they need it or not. Thats my point.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
A PAP smear can find the virus nearly 100% of the time. So after 3 or 4 PAP smears, if one had the virus it would most certainly show up. And since the virus is 100% treatable before cancer developes, maybe, just maybe , there is a better way to handle this than forcefully injecting young women with powerful drugs whether they need it or not. Thats my point.
So, you are for forcing pap smears on women then?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I'll haveta look it up but I remember reading that something like 75% of people. Both male and female are exposed to or conctract HPV at some point in their lives.
Ahh did a quick search
According to the CDC
"
Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the noodle, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own.
Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or noodle. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped.
Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV.
At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm)
----EDIT-----
But to answer your question
"All types of HPV can cause mild Pap test abnormalities which do not have serious consequences. Approximately 10 of the 30 identified genital HPV types can lead, in rare cases, to development of cervical cancer. Research has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection becomes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer.
A Pap test can detect pre-cancerous and cancerous cells on the cervix. Regular Pap testing and careful medical follow-up, with treatment if necessary, can help ensure that pre-cancerous changes in the cervix caused by HPV infection do not develop into life threatening cervical cancer. The Pap test used in U.S. cervical cancer screening programs is responsible for greatly reducing deaths from cervical cancer. For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening"
We don't know exactly what causes cervical cancer, but certain risk factors are believed to have an effect. Medical history and lifestyle - especially sexual habits - play a role in a woman's chances of developing cervical cancer.
-
Can Cervical Cancer be Prevented?
Early-stage cervical cancer and precancerous cervical conditions are almost 100% curable.
The most common forms of cervical cancer begin with changes in cervical cells.
If these changes are detected early enough, treatment can be started immediately to prevent cervical cancer from developing.
The best way to detect early cervical cancer and precancerous conditions of the cervix is to have a gynecologic examination and Pap test.
Let me guess, some drug company spent a lot of money to develope this vaccine
and they arent going to eat it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
So, you are for forcing pap smears on women then?
no, are you for forcing injections on women?
-
Not only is the governor acting like a tyrant but he is using the tax dollars of people who may be against vaccination to carry out his agenda.
Just because one agrees with the agenda doesn't mean the governor is following the principles of democracy or freedom. Ruling by edict is bull****.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not only is the governor acting like a tyrant but he is using the tax dollars of people who may be against vaccination to carry out his agenda.
Just because one agrees with the agenda doesn't mean the governor is following the principles of democracy or freedom. Ruling by edict is bull****.
Absoulutely correct, this wasnt a fricken popular vote and 'for the greater good' this is one fricken arse whipe with a bundle of drug company dollars in his pocket selling out a group of people for some useless drug.
-
agree with thrawn... the public schools just want more intrusion an power over our lives.
lukster... I would indeed throw out the baby with the bath water if that is what it took... If you want to participate in society then show my your vacination... want a job? show me the vacination for small pox and such. The schools should not be involved. Military is different as is prison... both are institutions where you lose your rights the way they are set up.
Without a draft you could do away with any vacinations that were not voluntary also... Want to be in the service? get your shots. Just like the work place.
When did we all decide that public school was the only way to teach and raise our kids?
lazs
-
Comparing a sexually transmitted disease to smallpox and polio? I didn't know you could say no to smallpox. Would this be another one of those straw man arguments?
If we we are going to do that, then I guess we should outlaw smoking or make the patch mandatory by the age of 14 to make sure they don't smoke to prevent cancer. Maybe when the patch companies have more money than tobacco that will happen.
So I guess you would have no problem with the governor issuing an order for that too?
Look, the big issue here is that this wasn't something that was done the right way, it was done in the form of being a dictator. It's sad that some people have no problem with this.
-
That's what I love about this place. Sixpence and I are on VERY opposite sides of an issue in another thread, but we stand united on this issue.:aok
Guys, it's very simple:
FOLLOW
THE
MONEY.
(http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/01/5-4-01.jpg)
-
I skipped half this thread.
I do not know what the big deal is. If a politician wants something to happen, you can damn well bet there is some type of monetary compensation involved.
No matter what politician you put in charge, they all have the same motivation. Wave a dollar in front of them and watch em dance around like a puppy after a fresh cut of meat. They will do anything you want for that dollar/cut of meat.
There is not a politcian anywhere who is not acting on his/her own behalf. If it happens to make people happy, that is just a side benefit.
-
Trust me, it's gonna happen.
I think vaccination is a very good thing, this is just the wrong way to go about it. As I understand it the shot cost $600. If you are requiring it for school admission then the state should buy the vaccine at a bulk price and sell them back to the public at the reduced cost. This is the same way they did vaccinations when I was a kid and we wiped out smallpox and polio.
The way this is set up, it only maximizes profit for the drug company.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I skipped half this thread.
I do not know what the big deal is. If a politician wants something to happen, you can damn well bet there is some type of monetary compensation involved.
No matter what politician you put in charge, they all have the same motivation. Wave a dollar in front of them and watch em dance around like a puppy after a fresh cut of meat. They will do anything you want for that dollar/cut of meat.
There is not a politcian anywhere who is not acting on his/her own behalf. If it happens to make people happy, that is just a side benefit.
That pretty much sums it up. TO go a bit off topic, its not beyond the stretch of imagination to predict some corporations actually aspire to place their 'people' in strategic positions, for the sole purpose of furthering the monetary goals of that organization.
-
The state has become very tyrannical when it has control over the children, and not the parents.
The revolution is not far off.
-
HHAARRRRRRRRRRR!!1:D
-
The parents do not want to be in control. They want the state to take care of raising thier kids, so they (the parents) can be friends with thier kids.
Everything seems to be happening the way we (collectively) want it to happen.
The politicians let us rant and rave about it, as they know that is as far as it will ever go, and why should they care? Next week we will be right behind them licking thier butts.
And before anyone says, "speak for yourself", go look in a mirror and ask the folloiwing question, "What have I actually done, besides voting, to try and make it better?".
If the best you got is, "I rant and rave on a bulletin board!", then you got nothing. Go to the back of the room and allow folks to get to the front who are actually trying to make a difference.
-
I was the township co-chair for this, still didn't make any long term difference.
the bums (http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/date/november03/11_22_1983.html)
shamus
-
Skuzzy, speaking of walking the walk, I have something that might be of use to you and/or your plan for a neutral medium to set politicians' words in stone.. but it could be a few months before I can introduce you to it.
Can I PM you once it's ready?
-
Sure moot. I am still thinking this one over. I really would like to have it all up and running for the 2008 election. Would be a good kickoff for it.
Time is my nemisis.
-
[SIZE=9]TEXAS WOMAN R EASY[/SIZE]
-
Time... ain't that the truth :)
Keep at it.. I think it must be attempted.
I'll help it work any way I can.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If the best you got is, "I rant and rave on a bulletin board!", then you got nothing. Go to the back of the room and allow folks to get to the front who are actually trying to make a difference.
Still, one can do what they are in a position to do. Knowledge and truth are the enemy of corruption. Looking the other way only serves to embolden the corruption.
-
Skuzzy 4 teh Presadunt!
-
This is in response to the liberal whine machine. Don't think that just because someone is a dem or rep , they are doing the right or wrong thing. They may be folding under pressure or 'making a statement' for the other team to alleviate other pressures.
This is a wag the dog...sorta. More to this story bigtime!
-
This is the heart of the issue:
(http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/27918791/2430184)
-Sik
-
Is this how they do things in Texas?
Dont worry about it...how's that.
-
The vacinations aside, him recieving money from the corporation to me isn't much at all. $6K is the max donation I beleive he can recieve from them. I wouldn't be surprised if the drug maker contributed that amount to a bunch more politicans on both sides of the isle.
His frmr cheif of staff workin for them is another story. That's kinda fishy.
-
off topic, but I just got back from a trip to Austin Texas.. The capitol building is pretty nice..
-
"If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense"
I wonder if he will issue an order to outlaw smoking
-
so those retards dont drink tap water either.. because its got flourine and other chemicals the state mandates must be in said water.
-
Originally posted by Tac
so those retards dont drink tap water either.. because its got flourine and other chemicals the state mandates must be in said water.
Most drill a well
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The vacinations aside, him recieving money from the corporation to me isn't much at all. $6K is the max donation I beleive he can recieve from them. I wouldn't be surprised if the drug maker contributed that amount to a bunch more politicans on both sides of the isle.
His frmr cheif of staff workin for them is another story. That's kinda fishy.
Guns, there is so much scum surrounding Perry it's a wonder he can stand upright.
Check out his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry) and take a look at Rick. Most notably look at the TransTexas Corridor. Another of those deals where one of his staff went to work for the people the deal was with. Actually this one is worse because Dan Shelly worked for Cintas, ran for office, won and made the deal then quit and went back to work at Cintas all with Perry's endorsement. He sold our highways to Spain for 50 years and hid the details of the deal. They are turning public roads into toll roads, installing invisible toll booths (cameras that take a pic of your license and mail you a bill) and banning maintence on alternative routes to the toll roads.
He's a lying, 2 faced, egocentric, Mofo that needs to git on down the road.
-
So this works, but they don't have long term affects results because women generaly don't manifest cervical cancer for another 20-30 years...kinda like another drug in the 50's that had long term birth defect issues. Same same..don't you think....we don't learn from HISTORY do we????
Thalidomide is a sedative, hypnotic, and anti-inflammatory medication. It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost fifty countries under at least forty names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex, Contergan, Neurosedyn, and Softenon. Thalidomide was chiefly sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and 1960s to pregnant women, as an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and as an aid to help them sleep. Unfortunately, inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug's safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies.
From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.[1] In 1962, in reaction to the tragedy, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S.[2] Other countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades.
-
Originally posted by bustr
So this works, but they don't have long term affects results because women generaly don't manifest cervical cancer for another 20-30 years...kinda like another drug in the 50's that had long term birth defect issues. Same same..don't you think....we don't learn from HISTORY do we????
Thalidomide is a sedative, hypnotic, and anti-inflammatory medication. It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost fifty countries under at least forty names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex, Contergan, Neurosedyn, and Softenon. Thalidomide was chiefly sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and 1960s to pregnant women, as an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and as an aid to help them sleep. Unfortunately, inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug's safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies.
From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.[1] In 1962, in reaction to the tragedy, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S.[2] Other countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades.
Except a vaccination is not a drug. The worst side-effect it may have is the patient catching the original virus it was supposed to protect from. And even then the patient will have a few % chance of getting cancer, actually the same odds as catching one the traditional way (then the needle that does the injection is more meaty and dull).
Comparing a vaccination to thalidomide is FUD of the worst kind and probably part of the conservative lobbying campaign.
-
Chavez would be proud
-
skuzzy... two things for you to think about.. One, do you have kids? I know... what difference does it make? I think it does when it comes to knowing what parents want... believe me... I don't know any parents who aren't feeling a little like the state is going too far.
two... and I could be wrong... Ranting and raving on a bb is not "nothing" it lets you collect your thoughts and makes you think it through.. it lets others see what you think and maybe... makes them think... it is the alternative to the talking heads and such.
If I can change a few minds or make a few people see things in a different light and think things through.. it is not a waste.. it isn't nothing. If a few people here can make me look into things and maybe change my mind... that is even better and worth more.
It is like reading a book but... you are interacting with the author.. I am not saying there is anyone on here like it but say... say Ayn Rand was on the BB. or Marx... whatever... you would be part of history. Some of the people here are as bright as some of the recognized authors in my opinion... they will also never write a book in my opinion either.
The people on here I most dissagree with have taught me the most.. they have either modified or solidified my positions and got me out of ruts at times.
That is not "nothing" to me. When the pendulum starts to swing.. it will be powered by things like this BB... the pendulum may make shorter arcs and move faster because of bb like this one.
in my humble opinion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
in my humble opinion.
lazs
Liar!!!!!
:lol
-
I'm working on it.
lazs
-
I have four kids. 2 girls, and 2 boys. All adults now.
I consider the rants and ravings on a bulletin board, along with the accompanying supporting sound bites from the media, to be an extracurricular activity, void of any substance as it pertains to any political agenda.
Yes, I rant and rave on this board and I consider my own rants and raves to be nothing more than white noise in the void. I maintain logical conclusions cannot be derived from a bulletin board as most people use some form of Internet link to support thier arguments.
Well, anyone can create a WEB site today. And they can add any content they like to it. There is nothing that says that content has to be accurate or remotely close to being truthful. I see the media in the same light.
When I want to know what a politician supports, I write a letter and ask the questions I want answered. If I get an answer back, that is a plus. If I get no answer back, then I will not vote for that person and actively campaign against that person.
I do not expect a hand written letter personally from the politician. But they do work for us, and they have the responsibility to answer to us.
I digress. I see no purpose in political rantings on a bulletin board, unless the politicians are participating in the discussions. You will note, I never push any candidate on the readers of this board. I will, however, make my opinion known about candidates which I find to be unacceptable for office.
Whether or not anyone pays any attention to that is not my concern. People are going to do what they are going to do. I chose to get a little more into the process than most do. In doing so, I think I get a little more agitated towards polticians who treat people like sheep. When you actually witness politicians doing that, it puts that politician in a whole new light for you.
-
This isn't about the politician or the vaccine, but in the way it was done.
It would have been one thing to say "we have a new vaccine, I would like to discuss an option for parents to have this available in our schools"
No, he took money from this company and issued a mandate. He basically said, "look, this company gave me alot of money, so I am issuing an executive order to give your tax dollars to them and at the expense of your children"
Well, this works good for me, whenever someone from Texas has something so say about a Massachusetts politician again, all I have to do is point to this guy.
-
Skuzzy, ideas are precursor to actions, so this little wildlife of ideas certainly serves to weed out the chaff, and in turn have a positive effect on the forum readers' concrete actions.
I don't mean to sound naive, but this says it pretty well - "Reading maketh a full man, writing a precise man, conference a ready man."
While none of us are Politicians, a large part of us do vote.
Chlorine in the pool, etc.
-
well said moot.
lazs
-
Are you ok with 90% voter turnout if 80% of them have no idea who they really are voting for? Not saying this is the case, but it might explain a lot of things.
I like a good debate, but boards like this one are replete with people who 'nab and grab' anything they can to support thier point. I think if you looked hard enough you would be able to find support for anything you like.
This is not good for debate or knowledge gathering. Quite the opposite I am afraid. You wil never be able to find out what a politician really intends if your only sources are the media and the WEB.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
no, are you for forcing injections on women?
and I'll tell you which they'll choose. Even with a deathly fair of needles my wife would take the injection. Have you seen the equipment used to take a pap smear whitehawk?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
and I'll tell you which they'll choose. Even with a deathly fair of needles my wife would take the injection. Have you seen the equipment used to take a pap smear whitehawk?
No, my wife gets one yearly though and have yet to hear a complaint. She does it from her own FREEWILL and pays the 10% that the insurance doesnt cover/ She is not forced to do this. Now,if your wife is in the high risk group and prefers a 'blanket' 'carte blanche' protection, then she may well CHOOSE to take the injection. Key word, CHOOSE. You said it, I just cleared it up.:p
-
Perry is a liar. Check his stand on the border before and right after the election.
As for the girls in question, who is going to pay for this. I have heard on the news of costs exceeding $1000.00 USD each.
-
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons.
If all you have to do is fill out an afidavit to avoid having the kid stuck how is it mandatory?
You have more strenuous obligations regarding education of the child than this injection. Just curious why you are so "the sky is falling" over this. If this injection is objectionable, how about the others that are required by the state before the child enters school? Are they bad since they are required as well?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons.
If all you have to do is fill out an afidavit to avoid having the kid stuck how is it mandatory?
You have more strenuous obligations regarding education of the child than this injection. Just curious why you are so "the sky is falling" over this. If this injection is objectionable, how about the others that are required by the state before the child enters school? Are they bad since they are required as well?
The point went right by you
-
Sixpence,
There was more than one point involved in the injection controversy here. Pun intended. ( I figured I'd better tell you it was a pun in case you thought every reply was about your posts even though this one was.) I was replying to one of the more "strenuous" objections both in this thread and also in the news, not all of the objections.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sixpence,
There was more than one point involved in the injection controversy here. Pun intended. ( I figured I'd better tell you it was a pun in case you thought every reply was about your posts even though this one was.) I was replying to one of the more "strenuous" objections both in this thread and also in the news, not all of the objections.
ok, were I started the thread I thought it was me. My bad.
It's been disgusting, watching legislators take money from companies and draw up legislation and propose it. Never in my wildest imagination would I see a governor take a bribe and issue an executive order.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
ok, were I started the thread I thought it was me. My bad.
It's been disgusting, watching legislators take money from companies and draw up legislation and propose it. Never in my wildest imagination would I see a governor take a bribe and issue an executive order.
Well, this begs the question Six, if this happened in, say, oh...Iowa, would you have still been so vocal about it? This seems more of a grudge against Texas, for whatever reason.
-
skuzzy... I believe that it should be difficult to vote. I agree (if that is what you are saying) that most people shouldn't vote since they don't know squat about what the issue is.
now... debate and info gathering... What would you suggest? Like you, I write to politicians... I get a form letter with a carefully worded position on it.
I have yet to see then say anything in said position that contradicts what their overall voting record is or... that is far from the legitimate sources that are linked here. I have also seen minds changed here... I have seen debates where it was simply a contest of skills and no ones thinking was changed.. like mental tennis.
As for the law in question... at the very least (if you accept the schools intrusion into your life) at the very least, the thing is backward. the way it should read is that if you want your child to get the free shots then you should have to return a permission slip granting permission.
When did that all change?
lazs