sorry, broken link....

another perspective: how you can still get out of the vaccination and why you might want to

Ya'll really do some great work on here. I've been reading for a while but have never posted before.
I'm actively taking on the role of dad in a matter of months, and one of our biggest concerns is that our child not be exposed to what we consider to be a highly toxic medical culture. A look at the evidence, widely available yet not in our faces (as most issues of social justice), shows that mandatory vaccines have regularly caused sickness and undermined the immune systems they are supposedly trying to help out. If the governor of Texas really cared about the health of students, he would change the educational code to allow non-processed (that is whole or raw) foods to be prepared in the kitchens.
Here's a partial list of the HPV vaccine ingredients being shot into young girl's bloodstreams , from vaccineawareness.org, aluminum-containing adjuvant/catalyst: amorpous aluminum hydroxphosphate sulfate; sodium borate.
Meanwhile, "no evaluations of Gardasil for carcinogencity or genotoxicity." "no studies on co-injection of Gardasil with other vaccines."
And the biggest "birth abnormalities within 30 days of mother's vaccination: narrowing of pyloric sphincterthat blocks food passage from stomach into duodenum; kidney distension/obstruction, hip abnormality, club foot" (hint: if it hurts a fetus, then it won't be good for you either."
Anyways, check this out from the CDC:
"The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced." -yes, so vaccines are regularly introduced without understanding of their long-term effects. That's bad medicine and has lead to such continuing nastiness as using mercury as a preserving agent in those childhood vaccines.
"It is very important that girls/women get all three doses of the vaccine." Three! Do you think garnering repeat customers was a research paradigm in the labs of whatever university was given grants to create the vaccine?
Here's some reassurance, "The FDA has licensed the HPV vaccine as safe and effective." Don't forget your Vioxx.
"$120 per dose" The drug company behind it, Merck & Co.
The "adverse reactions"...
#

appendicitis;
# arthritis: juvenile, reactive, rheumatoid;
# asthma;
# bronchospasm;
# cough;
# diarrhea;
# dizziness;
# fever;
# gastroenteritis;
# headache;
# injection site itchiness, pain redness, swelling;
# insomnia;
# joint pain
# nasal congestion;
# nausea;
# pelvic-inflammatory disease;
# upper respiratory tract infection;
# vomiting;
# weakness.

Predictably the CDC fails to mention in the prevention of HPV section anything about nutrition or the curative properties of herbals. Garlic for instance is a highly effective anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, known to be useful (by me anyways) in the treatment of genital herpes, yeast infections, and athlete's foot/jock itch.
The best prevention is a diet of 50-75% raw foods (as organic as you can), lots of hot tea instead of cold water, more time in the early morning hours for eating (that's when you digest the best), and a bare minimum of those hard to escape unpronounceable names near the end of ingredient lists. I almost said a clove of garlic mandatory every day, but nothing in medicine is one size fits all.

!@#$@##$

I'm sorry: you would be appropriate in banning me due to my stupidity...

Women's Space has an article that is an interesting perspective

Eww. I clicked the Silver Ring Thing link and found this: Application to Date My Daughter. Questions include:

"Do you have one MALE and one FEMALE parent?" "What does 'DON'T TOUCH MY DAUGHTER' mean to you?" It's so gross. Ew. Shower time.

I am concerned that Perry has his hands in the pockets of Merck. Their PAC donated money to his re-election campaign and now he is working with them to boost the sales of their products. Although this could be good I think it is just another pharmaceutical company exploiting young women.

"if it hurts a fetus, then it won't be good for you either."

Wrong. Lots of things can hurt fetuses. For example, my ability to process alcohol, while admittedly low, is probably much higher than a fetus's. Indeed, drinking a certain amount of alcohol is absolutely beneficial to me in terms of happiness etc. Other things that are nice for me but not fetuses include painkillers and sushi.

"mandatory vaccines have regularly caused sickness and undermined the immune systems they are supposedly trying to help out."

Whatever your feelings about vaccines, this statement is a best misleading, and reveals a lack of understanding of the state of public health prior to vaccines. Polio used to sweep through populations and devastate children--but when was the last time you saw somebody in an iron lung? An elderly gentleman I knew once reminisced about how his town had a school for the deaf, the great majority of whose students had been victims of mumps. And when was the last time in this country an infant was born with severe birth defects due to rubella? These diseases were devastating, and now we barely notice them.

I routinely eat as much garlic as possible, and it has had no effect on the yeast infections and colds I've contracted; as to eating mostly in the early morning hours--that is deeply impractical for somebody with my metabolism.

Wow, Texas? And South Carolina? Is this the Twilight Zone?

I just looked at that Application to Date My Daughter. HILARIOUS!!

"Do you have one MALE and one FEMALE parent? Are they normal?"

WTF? Normal? Do they mean missionary position only?

"Do you have access to a van or waterbed?"

Freakin' awesome.

I agree with EG. While I am a crunchy hippie type who often uses herbal or natural remedies to cure many of my illnesses or prevent them, I can't agree with sweatymonkey. To start with, you contradict yourself by saying it causes fetal birth defects if a woman becomes pregnant with-in thirty days of her injection. If that is the case then it is extremely important that women get the vaccine before they have sexual intercourse and what better way to do that then to make it mandatory for younger women/girls to have the vaccine. Also, all of the birth defects you mentioned are actually common and not life threatening to the fetus. Besides which, according to your argument alcohol and high doses of caffeine are bad for people as well...when actually alcohol has been shown to help prevent heart disease and high doses of caffeine can relieve pain.

Really, this vaccine is too important not to get. Roughly half of all sexually active women get HPV. While using condoms may decrease a person's chance of getting HPV, it's not a surefire way of preventing contraction of the disease and there is no cure. It does cause cervical cancer in women, which is a life threatening disease. Worst of all, the vaccine itself is not recommended for women who have had more then 5 sexual partners or who are above a certain age, so getting the vaccine before having sexual intercourse is extremely important in a woman protecting herself from HPV and cervical cancer that can come along with it.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, this is one of the most promising vaccinations we've had developed in a long time. It's AWESOME that this major risk to women's health is being taken so seriously by our medical professionals, and as a recent recipient of (shot one of) the vaccine I'm very glad it's available to us.

At the same time, I'm a HUGE believer in personal autonomy. Unfortunately there's no good answer here, since children aren't allowed to make virtually any decisions about their own bodies anyway (disgustingly disturbing). But at the same time, I'm REALLY disturbed by the notion of REQUIRING ONLY WOMEN to receive a vaccination that's had no studies done on its long-term effects. Letting a girl choose to take the vaccine, and providing sufficient funding for her to do so? One hundred percent awesome in my book, as long as there's informed consent. When I received the shot, I did so fully knowing that there could be any number of unforeseen risks -- hell, for all I know I could be a rare case that has dormant genes activated and this thing GIVES me cancer. I really doubt this will happen and if I thought the chance was very high I wouldn't have done it -- but I was aware there were risks.

But you can bet I would scream and holler to high heaven if the government suddenly decided, hey. Here's another way to tell women what to do with their bodies, and this one's under the guise of protecting them from cancer! Sweet!

I don't want ANYONE controlling my body, period. NO ONE. NO ONE.

I think we need to provide funding so that every woman (and soon man -- they need to hurry up and test it on men already -- it's linked to cancer in men too!) is able to take the vaccine, and we need to provide information so the young girls will be pissed off if their fundie parents want them to get cancer, and we need better children's rights so those young girls (and boys) can get the shot even if their repressive, short-sighted parents don't want them to.

But I don't think I'm cool with TELLING these girls they MUST be vaccinated. It's not the same as polio or mumps or something that can be transmitted among schoolchildren who sit next to each other, so it's not the same public health threat as with other mandatory vaccines.

It occurs to me that the unrelenting focus on cervical cancer overlooks the other benefits of being immune to HPV itself. Genital warts are bad news, and gross, and can preclude a vaginal delivery if you want to have a baby. You know what else is interesting? Back when I had my very good sex ed in high school, I was taught that no vaccine had ever been developed against a sexually transmitted disease, we didn't know why. If that's the case, this strikes me was a real advance!

But at the same time, I'm REALLY disturbed by the notion of REQUIRING ONLY WOMEN to receive a vaccination that's had no studies done on its long-term effects.

The studies have looked at the effects of the vaccine over several years - five if I'm not mistaken. They haven't looked at the effects on boys at all, which is why only girls between 9 and 26 are being offered the vaccination at this stage.

When a disease kills a lot of people, they tend to expedite the testing. It's impractical to wait 20 years to see the long-term effects. The most successful vaccines weren't tested for anything even approaching that.

Alon, agreed -- but a part of me simply can't help but wonder if they'd be requiring vaccinations for boys too. Maybe they would; hard to say.

And anyway, even if it's for everyone, I'm still bothered by the personal autonomy implications. Once again, I think it's a GREAT vaccine and incredibly important and I think everyone should get it. But I'm wary of FORCING people to get a vaccine that hasn't been subjected to a ton of testing, and the ONLY reason they can opt out is for "religious or philosophical" objections. I don't think that fears about lack of long-term studies will count as a "philosophical objection" even though in my mind that's the only really valid reason to opt out.

So, as a good feminist libertarian, I don't want the government telling me what to do with my body when we aren't even talking about a public health crisis. If this little bugger gets airborne, I might change my tune.

Alon, agreed -- but a part of me simply can't help but wonder if they'd be requiring vaccinations for boys too. Maybe they would; hard to say.

Are you kidding me? This is the culture that invented Viagra before the HPV vaccine. If there were a vaccine that prevented cancer of the ol' scrotilliac, it would be mandatory for men and women.

"What? So what if they don't have balls! TAKE NO CHANCES!"

The body autonomy issue is what gets to me too.

Reminds me of how women are held hostage to Pap tests in order to get birth control pill prescriptions, even if one is a virgin or similarly at an extremely low risk of cervical cancer (like, yes, I could get raped and get HPV, but other than that I have no risk factors). The Pap test/bcp thing really pisses me off. Why should I be required to be subjected to a humiliating exam in order to get pills for something unrelated? I remember getthepill.com used to offer birth control prescriptions (called into your local pharmacy) because it was not required by the FDA or anyone to have a Pap in order to get pills. Unfortunately someone got to them because after a few years, they only offer Plan B now. It's like requiring someone to get a mammogram before prescribing them medication for an ulcer, they are not related! Medical professionals decided most women needed to be tested for Paps, so they tied it in with BCP because they knew women would do anything to get their birth control. Women don't even think twice that these are related. But I see it as tyranny. Sure you could say the greatest good for the most people is accomplished, but I see it as another bureaucracy controlling my body and my choices. If I don't subject to an exam that I found horrifying, then I don't get birth control and don't get to control my reproduction. It's the same with mandatory vaccines. Where is the individual choice? There is none. It's big government and big medicine making my medical choices for me.

wow, JAJ, i am annoyed that i need to get an exam to get my pills mostly because i move around all over the place and its impossible for me to get a steady doctor, but i never thought of it like that. i dont exactly think of exams as "horrifying' but still, i never thought of why i would need an exam to renew my birth control. hmm.

that said, i still dont think its the same thing with vaccinations. i think of the vaccination as the pill, not the exam to use what you were saying. and theres already mandatory vaccinations, but no outcry over them so im very skeptical of people that bring up the government stuff but only apply it to something that would greatly benefit girls and women

I don't think that the only thing a pelvic exam is checking for is cervical cancer; they're also checking out ovaries and general genital health; I'm not convinced it's a terrible thing to link it to bc pills. I have to see a doctor regularly in order to get my asthma meds refilled, same with my anti-depressants. I think that's just part of the regular monitoring you have to go through when you take a long-term medication, in order to bring you in and make sure that you're not having any weird effects.

What? So everyone complaining is also opting out of giving their girls the Hepatitis B vaccinations too? That can be sexually transmitted! Most who are against it are in the 'it condones sex' or 'my children are too young to talk to about it' (since when do we tell the kids anything more than it will keep them healthy? who explains every shot to their kids?) camps.

One of my best friends would have killed for this vaccine years ago. She was one of the few that didn't contract it from sex, but from sharing a swimsuit with a friend. She was 14, had chemo for the cancer at 16. She had a little boy three years ago, and last year, at the age of 23, had to have a complete historectomy... all because of this virus.

You know, making it mandatory doesn't actually REQUIRE anyone to take it. People can opt out. But if it's mandatory, insurance has to cover it. I believe Medicaid would have to cover it too?

I live in Austin and work with the local Democratic party and various jobs within the capitol, and I was, at first, very surprised to hear this kind of news. In a four-way race, Perry won with just over a third of the votes casted and has been written off as a lame duck governor by almost the whole of the State. After some research, I also believe he's doing some business with Merck that provided his incentive to go over his staunch pro-life policy. Rick Perry is no feminist, that's for sure.

Perry has Mereck deep in his pockets.

The New Jersey-based drug company 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 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.

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

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.

elektrodot, actually the shot is pretty painful. I mean, hardly the worst thing in the world -- but for me anyway, WAAAAAAAAY worse than, say, a flu shot.

Preferable to chemo? Abso-fucking-lutely. But still not a walk in the park.

Jane, I had never thought about the BCP/Pap thing either... it's a good point. I certainly don't enjoy having a stranger (no matter how much I like my current doctor) literally digging around inside my va-jay-jay. You also raise an excellent point about virgins, etc., just not needing it. A good friend of mine (married and long past the de-flowering stage) is going to start on Accutane (an acne medication), which can cause severe birth defects. Get this: any woman who takes accutane is REQUIRED by the government to be on TWO FORMS of birth control (i.e., the pill and she has to PROMISE to always use a condom) and has to get regular pregnancy tests. I shit you not. My friend is certainly irritated, but I'm probably the one flipping out more about this (or at least, using more profanity in our emails to each other) :0) Hey, losers, here's an easy solution: if the woman accidentally gets preggers on accutane, she aborts the deformed kid unless she wants it or something. Duh.

Oh, but no, that would mean actually respecting women's right to choose and trusting women to be careful on their own. Because we all know that women use abortion as a primary form of birth control. No woman would ever take the pill and use condoms unless the government forced her to do it. We're stupid, you know, and unable to think through the risks of medication on our own. Plus we actively enjoy having abortions. We'd much rather have someone dig out a fetus from our insides than pop a pill each morning.

But, really, it's not our faults. We have magical stupifying ovaries which impede the flow of blood to the brain.

Oh, but no, that would mean actually respecting women's right to choose and trusting women to be careful on their own.

Public health is based on the notion that people don't do what is in their best interest. For example, it's in everyone's best interest, including the woman's, that they not give birth while on accutane. But a large number of women would give birth anyway if they got pregnant regardless of fetal deformities, because of moral objections.

For example, it's in everyone's best interest, including the woman's, that they not give birth while on accutane.

I'm not seeing how this is true. It seems to me the only one this hurts is the fetus. Who else does it harm?

And this isn't a "public health" issue. A public health issue is -- as we have been discussing -- something like mumps, smallpox, rubella (sp?), diphtheria, hell, even AIDS. These are transmissible INFECTIONS that can be passed from one person to another. I've never heard of anyone *catching* fetal deformities from someone because of their acne medication.

Law Fairy - I always pay attention to your comments because you are so articulate and intelligent. So I'm really glad that you acknowledged some of my points about the BCP/Pap thing. Someone else mentioned that an exam is normal for Rx refills. But I think an invasive pelvic exam and a mandatory test that has nothing to with a medicaation is a little different than having a doctor listening to your lungs and having a little chat before refilling your asthma meds. One health professional that I brought this up to dismissed me with "Well you'll need to get used to discomfort if you're going to have babies!" That really pissed me off. So I have no risk factors for HPV but the value of these tests for me is that it teaches me to get ready for childbirth so I'm accustomed to bodily invasion and embarrassment? Madness, I say. Plus the irony that I was there so I WOULDNT have babies.

Unfortunately I have already heard these things about accutane (re: the requirements). I remember reading articles last year about, I think it was the FDA (could be wrong) all up in arms about "women aren't complying! They're still getting pregnant!" But no women were actually being harmed obviously. But then they tried to create a registry at pharmacies and you had to sign something extra that went into a special gov't database or something. But that didn't work either so they got rid of it I believe. I had a friend that was on accutane and even though she was sexually abstinent at the time, she was required to take a pregnancy test every month. I think she would know if she was having sex! But I don't remember if it was her doctor, or the government that required the test. I agree whole heartedly with Law Fairy that birth defects from accutane are not a public health issue. You made an excellent point about how it's fundamentally different than contagious diseases. It's simply nuts that this is so regulated. Can you imagine if there was some gov't registry you had to sign every time you ordered or bought excessive amounts of alcohol, because you might get pregnant?

Sweaty_monk, something else that is good against viruses, especially herpes, is neem oil. It is also a good contraceptive. Studied have shown it to be 99.7% effective, more effective than BC pills. Neem has been used in India for thousands of years, and is very good for a lot of things.

EG, I think what the person you quoted was trying to say was that what the vaccines are made of is bad for you. There are surely much better ways to prepare them than to make a cocktail of toxic chemicals. I wouldn't go having my children injected with something with mercury in it.

Pharmaceutical drugs aren't the answer to everything. Many of them are harmful, or potentially harmful. If it didn't hurt you, or didn't seem to, then good for you. If you do the research, you will find that there are safe, effective alternatives to so many of the drugs people take these days. Some of these things aren't even herbs or natural supplements. It seems to be these days that if something is not okayed by the FDA, then it is bad, or cannot possibly work or be safe. And it's imply not true.

Perhaps if garlic is not working for you, you should try something else? There are many things out there you could try. Just do a little research. I used to think the same thing that you apparently do. Until I started reading. It's really amazing what herbs and other supplements can do.