logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-29 05:26:28 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Serious Business

  gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: gardasil made mandatory for immigrants  (Read 1124 times)
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« on: 2009-09-30 15:58:25 »
Reply with quote

this is the most disturbing news i have heard in a long long time. it is one thing to test for HIV or some such...and insist on vaccinations for communicable diseases, but to insist that gardisil, an experimental vaccine for cervical cancer at best, is compulsary for all young women who want to live in this country is bordering on fascism. is this country really worth all this nonsense?

it sounds like american pharmaceutical companies are experimenting their drugs on immigrants.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/gardasil-vaccine-roadblock-citizenship/story?id=8542051


Born in Britain in 1992, Simone Davis got off to a rough start in life. Her biological mother abandoned her as a baby, and her father couldn't care for her.
Share
A look at whether the benefits of a cervical cancer vaccine outweigh the risks.

At 3, her paternal grandmother Jean Davis got court orders giving her complete parental rights and responsibility to raise Simone until the age of 18.

Davis married an American in 2000 and moved them to Port St. Joe, Fla., but there was no equivalent guardianship in the United States. So for the last near decade, Davis has embarked on a quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.

Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.

Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety .

And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.

"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."

Since 2008, the government has required that female immigrants between the ages of 11 through 26 applying for permanent resident or refugee status receive Gardasil, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.

Simone and her adoptive mother she still calls "Nanny" sought a waiver for moral and religious reasons and were recently rejected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

That ruling threatens to separate Simone and Davis, and could dash the teen's plans to attend Pensacola Christian College, where she was conditionally accepted.

They were given 30 days to appeal or the teen would face being "removed."

The 1996 Immigration and Naturalization Act requires girls and women within a specified age group to receive the vaccination against certain specified diseases "and any other vaccinations recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.

Gardasil was added to the list of vaccines in 2008.

"The decision to include HPV as a required vaccine was made by the CDC," said Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan.

"We follow the law," she told ABCNews.com. "The objection to a waiver would have to be to all vaccines, not just Gardasil."

The CDC is expected to publish new criteria to determine which vaccines should be recommended for U.S. immigrants in about a month, according to spokeswoman Christine Pearson.

Simone's struggle began in 2000, when U.S. authorities did not recognize the British adoption papers, and the process began anew.

"We never heard from her mother again after she sent a third birthday card, and was never given a contact address," said Jean Davis, who is now 63, divorced, and a teacher. "I had no idea where she was."

The Salvation Army Missing Person's Bureau traced Simone's biological mother, and the American adoption was finalized in 2006.

Local churches helped pay more than $1,700 immigration application fees for Simone's permanent residency status, the first step toward citizenship. For another $585, Davis can appeal, but says she doesn't have the money.

If Simone does not become a permanent resident by her 18th birthday in January, she willl have to reapply as an adult and wait five years before she can even be eligible for citizenship.
HPV vaccine required for immigrants
Simone Davis, 17, and her adoptive mother, Jean Davis, of Port St. Joe, Fla., have struggled for nine years to secure the teen's American citizenship. But a law that requires Simone to have the controversial vaccine Gardasil stands in the way.

"I kind of feel like they may be experimenting with immigrants to see how we will react and then give the vaccine to citizens," said Simone. "I told Nanny that if it is such a great vaccine, why isn't it mandatory for everyone?"

Gardasil must be administered before the age of 26 to be effective, according to FDA guidelines. It protects against HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18. Almost 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts are linked to these four strains.

About 12,000 women a year are diagnosed with cervical cancer, which kills about 4,000 annually, according to the CDC.

The vaccine can cause fainting, redness and inflammation at the site and fever. The most dangerous side effect, which has alarmed some gynecologists, is an increase in blood clots, which, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), may have caused 32 unconfirmed deaths.

In an accompanying editorial, the journal complained about the lack of concrete evidence that the vaccine is effective.

When Gardasil was added to the vaccine list last year, it drew anger and protests from immigration advocates, who argued that it placed an unfair financial burden on women. A three-shot series of the vaccine can cost between $300 and $1,400.

Some health care policy experts suggested the requirement was excessive and unnecessary. Of the 14 required vaccines, 13 are designed to combat infectious diseases that are considered highly contagious. But Gardasil targets a virus spread through sexual contact.

Though 18 states are currently debating whether to make the vaccine mandatory, none, so far, require it.

"I am most definitely surprised and I would love to know how it ever became policy," said Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in New York City. "I wonder if the drug company could have had any influence."

"It's a voluntary vaccine, and for the U.S. government to make it a mandatory decision to come to this country is crazy," he told ABCNews.com. "It has no public health value that has been shown."

Merck & Co., which makes Gardasil, said it had no involvement in the enactment of the mandate.

"Merck recognizes that many individuals and groups are concerned over this requirement and emphasizes that, while we encourage all women to be educated about HPV-related diseases, the company does not support mandatory vaccination of new female immigrants," said Merck spokeswoman Pam Eisele.

The company said it has an "extensive and ongoing" safety-monitoring program and does not believe that reported deaths have been caused by Gardasil.

"Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety of our medicines and vaccines," she told ABCNews.com. "We are confident in the safety profile of Gardasil.

The company garnered $1.4 billion in sales last year. According to the business publication Medical Marketing and Media, the company has "captured lightning in a bottle" with its direct-to-consumer marketing to mothers and their daughters, encouraging them to talk to their doctors about protection from HPV.

Just this week, an advisory panel recommended that the FDA allow doctors to prescribe Gardasil to boys and men ages 9 to 26 to help prevent genital warts, which have been linked to the transmission of HPV.

Moritz, himself, has chosen not to have his 11-year-old daughter vaccinated, as long as good cervical cancer screening tests, like the Pap smear, exist.

"I'm pro-preventing cervical cancer," he told ABCNews.com. "But I'm not that pro that the physicians don't know the risks and side effects."

But Dr. Mark Einstein, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in New York, disagrees.

"Every scientific stakeholder has advocated for use of this vaccine," he told ABCNews.com. "The more serious side effects may not be vaccine related. The most recent report in the JAMA was positive, reinforcing the safety of a vaccine that been delivered to 26 million in the U.S."

Einstein said cervical cancer was "not just a Third World Disease." American women are struck in their "reprodictive prime," and radiation treatments can cause sexual dysfunction and child-bearing problems.

"I have a busy clinical schedule," said Einstein. "The death rate is low because the treatments are very effective. But the treatments are toxic and have very serious side effects through life.

"We have a lot of opportunity to prevent [cervical cancer] before it happens and shift the future of a disease," he said.

Einstein also debunks Simone's claim that she doesn't need the vaccine because she is not having sex.

"Quite frankly, from a science standpoint and outreach, everyone does ultimately as an adult have sex," he said.

But her adoptive mother, Jean Davis, said the issue is about more than chastity.

"All we want is the rights of a U.S. citizen," said Davis, who has scoured the Internet for research on Gardasil and sent letters to all her political leaders, including the president. "It's not mandatory for them to get this. That's our objection.

"My choice to make an informed decision for the health of my child has been taken away," she told ABCNews.com. "I have been like a crazy woman, I have been so upset about this. I am really in a panic."

"How can they call this America, the land of the free?" she asked. "Where are my parental rights?"
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #1 on: 2009-09-30 17:39:57 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Perhaps she could apply for refugee status in Canada? This would set the cat amongst the pigeons in no uncertain terms I think. A white South African was recently judged to have qualified for refugee status in Canada on the basis of what was alleged to be de facto racial persecution evidenced by the several times he had been the victim of serious crimes comitted by black criminals. This was a bit of a stretch in my view - but only a little bit. The Simone Davis affair seems much more clearly cut.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/02/2674765.htm

Updated Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:52am AEST

A Canadian tribunal's decision to grant a white South African man refugee status has outraged the ruling party in South Africa.

...Ishmael Mnisi, a spokesman from South Africa's governing party, the African National Congress (ANC), says the decision itself is racist...

[Bl.] The gnashing of teeth. The rending of shirts. The pompous public posturing. Oh how we laughed.

"Nil illegitimae carborundum" as The Hermit might, or might not, say. The Canadian refugee board could be a very good friend to Simone Davis...


Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #2 on: 2009-09-30 19:31:46 »
Reply with quote

Both Hermits agree that the facts are readily accessible from the literature, and conclusively demonstrate that the Gardasil immunization against HPV is completely effective and extremely sensible. The risks and side effects of the vaccination are miniscule in comparison to the risks and side effects of treatment for anogenital carcinomas. There are no doubts whatsoever in scientific circles about its efficacy. We conclude that the only people whining about it are the usual suspects. Nutters against all immunization, who don't realize that immunization is only effective when most of a population is protected, and religious fruitcakes who would rather children die of cancer than allegedly "encourage sexual behaviour" by protecting them from an STD. An STD which is rife in the USA and which is 100% implicated in cervical cancer.

From the CDC:
  • Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with genital human papillomavirus (HPV) in the United States (U.S.). As many as half of these infections are among adolescents and young adults, ages 15 through 24 years of age. HPV is so common that most sexually active adults become infected at some point in their lives.
  • Of the more than 40 types of HPV that infect human mucosal surfaces, most infections are asymptomatic and transient. However, certain oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer and other, less common anogenital cancers, including cancers of the anus, penis, and vulva. Other, non-oncogenic HPV types can cause genital warts and, rarely, respiratory tract warts in children.
  • Every year, about 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and almost 4,000 women die from this disease in the U.S. About 1% of sexually active men and women in the U.S. have genital warts at any given time.
  • The quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil®, is the first vaccine developed to protect against most cervical cancers and genital warts. The three-dose vaccine is routinely recommended for 11 and 12 year old girls. The vaccine series can be started at 9 years of age. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for 13 through 26 year old females who have not yet received or completed the vaccination series.
  • This prophylactic vaccine works by preventing four HPV types: HPV 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cervical cancers, and HPV 6 and 11, which cause 90% of genital warts. The vaccine has no therapeutic effect on HPV-related disease, so it will not treat existing diseases or conditions caused by HPV.
  • The vaccine is made from non-infectious HPV-like particles (VLP). It does not contain thimerosal or mercury as a preservative. [Hermit : Assuming the effectiveness were as demonstrated for Gardasil, even if it were produced from an active virus, and preserved in a combination of thimerosal or mercury, I would still advocate it because the risks would be minuscule in comparison to the definite benefits.]
Which sufficiently explains the CDC's stance. Just because a teen doesn't think she is going to have sex is no reason to assume that it won't happen. Statistics show that a "virginity pledge" lasts, on average, less than a year and that 85% of Americans will have their first STD before they turn 25. HPV can be spread by a woman for years while she remains asymptomatic. This makes HPV one of the most difficult STDs to control, while its implication in cervical, vulva, anal and penile carcinomas make it one of the most serious to acquire. Which is why Iowa recommends that all females receive this inoculation between the ages of 9 and 11 and why our daughter will receive it at that age. Sadly, like other immunizations, it is only possible to recommend it to Americans. It is, however, possible to require it of people wanting to immigrate to the USA and it makes total sense so to do. Despite the USA's crappy medical programs (Again from the CDC):
    Covering the Cost of the Vaccine;
    • Children age 18 and younger may be eligible to get vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, for free through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program if they are: Medicaid eligible; uninsured; or American Indian or Alaska Native. Doctors can charge a fee to give each shot. However VFC vaccines cannot be denied to an eligible child if the family cannot afford the fee.
    • State and private programs offering free or low-cost vaccines may also be available for eligible persons. Contact your State Health Department to see if your state has such a program.
If this fundamentalist has a problem with it, I'm sure that she and her guardians (who could have avoided the problem by adopting her) can move elsewhere where she would be welcomed as a potential HPV carrier and oncology patient. There are, after all, enough fundamentalists in the USA already.

PS Blunderov, I would not, but I might think something like it.
« Last Edit: 2009-10-05 01:59:02 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #3 on: 2009-09-30 20:06:23 »
Reply with quote

i am not a 'fundamentalist', but i certainly dont support multiple immunisations and vaccinations for children(and women) instead of accepting that they are perfectly capable of making sensible life style choices if that's what they want to do.

secondly, it is still a choice. choice should never be wrested away from *anyone*. of late, it seems like women are the ones whose freedoms are slowly eroded every single day...

thirdly, to make it mandatory for immigrant children/women while not making it mandatory for the citizens simply stinks. especially when the vaccination course runs anywhere between 500-1500 dollars. it seems as though they are testing the vaccine on immigrants first.

fourthy, point #3 again. wtf?

fifthly, (to blunderov), this isnt about refugee status..the young woman's grandmother has adopted her(and has raised her) and is an american citizen. i doubt if canada would take her and even if she does, one doesnt have to run away to another country to establish one's rights to decide what is good
Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #4 on: 2009-09-30 20:12:56 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-09-30 20:06:23   

i am not a 'fundamentalist', but i certainly dont support multiple immunisations and vaccinations for children(and women) instead of accepting that they are perfectly capable of making sensible life style choices if that's what they want to do.

secondly, it is still a choice. choice should never be wrested away from *anyone*. of late, it seems like women are the ones whose freedoms are slowly eroded every single day...

thirdly, to make it mandatory for immigrant children/women while not making it mandatory for the citizens simply stinks. especially when the vaccination course runs anywhere between 500-1500 dollars. it seems as though they are testing the vaccine on immigrants first.

fourthy, point #3 again. wtf?

fifthly, (to blunderov), this isnt about refugee status..the young woman's grandmother has adopted her(and has raised her) and is an american citizen. i doubt if canada would take her and even if she does, one doesnt have to run away to another country to establish one's rights to decide what is good

p.s. there is no long term study. merck isnt giving enough info for research. on what basis is gardisil declared 'safe' by the hermits? how is your pronouncement scientific?
Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #5 on: 2009-09-30 22:54:24 »
Reply with quote

I don't know what "fundamentalists" have to do with this, it seems to be your term.

Let me reiterate. Anybody who suggests avoiding effective low risk immunization programs against life and quality of life threatening diseases caused by infectious agents is acting anti-socially because once a sufficiently large reserve of disease vectors is available the disease will become endemic in any susceptible community, putting the community rather than merely select individuals at risk. This isn't something hypothetical, epidemiological methods have long given us the ability to make very precise estimates of the expected death levels for any disease and subsequently validate them, based on the susceptible population size and percentage of vectors.

That means that there really isn't a choice if you want to participate in a society on any sort of ethical basis.

When the research is as conclusive as the research on public immunization programs is, then any opposition outside of the identified risk areas (e.g. allergic to eggs and an egg based inoculant) is scientifically and sociologically unsupportable. Meaning that it takes somebody supremely ignorant or wilfully anti-social to reject immunization for themselves or their families. In short, a "nutter." In this specific instance, even before the immunization became available, there were loud squeals from various clearly defined religious fruitcake mixes. I didn't previously decide whether you were or were not in one of these categories but if the cap is a good fit for you feel free to wear it (preferably with a spermicide :-P ). At any rate, advocating the myth that "sensible life style choices" can mitigate HPV and its likely consequences is as irresponsible as it is stupid. As I know that you are capable of research and not stupid, I assume this is wilful. You might want to think about that for a bit.

About this program, the information is in the literature. The literature is widely available and your assertions are consequently nonsensical (Google is your friend*). You might begin at the referenced CDC pages as the studies are linked there. There is more than sufficient information to draw the conclusions stated rather than repeating hysterical rumours.

*One place you should end up is here - http://www.cdc.gov/features/HPVvaccineSafety/
Notice that in excess of 26 million Americans have now been inoculated, building immunity in the target community.
« Last Edit: 2009-10-05 01:54:28 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Heretic
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 1.66
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #6 on: 2009-09-30 23:21:58 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.66) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2009-09-30 23:24:58 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #7 on: 2009-10-01 00:27:23 »
Reply with quote

i dont understand your argument. it is completely unrelated to my concerns.


Quote from: Hermit on 2009-09-30 22:54:24   

I don't know about "fundamentalists." That seems to be your term.

Let me reiterate. Anybody who suggests that effective low risk immunization programs against life and quality of life threatening diseases caused by infectious agents is acting anti-socially because once a sufficiently large reserve of disease vectors are available the disease will become endemic in any susceptible community, putting the community rather than merely select individuals at risk.

That means that there really isn't a choice if you want to participate in society.

When the research is as conclusive as the research on public immunization programs is, then any opposition outside of the identified risk areas (e.g. allergic to eggs and an egg based inoculant) is scientifically and sociologically unsupportable. Meaning that it takes somebody supremely ignorant or wilfully anti-social to reject immunization for themselves or their families. In short, a "nutter." In this specific instance, even before the immunization became available, there were loud squeals from various clearly defined religious fruitcake mixes. I didn't previously decide whether you were or were not in one of these categories but if the cap is a good fit for you feel free to wear it (preferably with a spermicide :-P ). At any rate, advocating the myth that "sensible life style choices" can mitigate HPV and its likely consequences is as irresponsible as it is stupid. As I know that you are capable of research and not stupid, I assume this is wilful. You might want to think about that for a bit.

About this program, the information is in the literature. The literature is widely available and your assertions are consequently nonsensical (Google is your friend*). You might begin at the referenced CDC pages as the studies are linked there. There is more than sufficient information to draw the conclusions stated rather than repeating hysterical rumours.

*One place you should end up is here - http://www.cdc.gov/features/HPVvaccineSafety/
Notice that in excess of 26 million Americans have now been inoculated, building immunity in the target community.

Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #8 on: 2009-10-01 11:30:01 »
Reply with quote

Well Mermaid, you made up and repeated a large number of trivially refutable lies and outdated information about Gardisil, some apparently based on the fallacious idea that the development of antibodies to a disease can somehow cause harm and the rest seemingly based on nothing at all. For example:
  • Gardisil is "an experimental vaccine for cervical cancer at best"
  • "it sounds like american pharmaceutical companies are experimenting their drugs on immigrants."
  • the controversial vaccine Gardasil
  • I kind of feel like they may be experimenting with immigrants to see how we will react
  • if it is such a great vaccine, why isn't it mandatory for everyone?
  • the lack of concrete evidence that the vaccine is effective.
  • Gardasil placed an unfair financial burden on women [ Hermit : Assuming that the current tests on men shows an equivalent degree of protection, I would strongly advocate requiring the vaccine for men as well, but for now that is an off-label use so while I recommend it as it is unlikely to cause much harm and will probably do much good, it would be wrong to mandate it. ]
  • My choice to make an informed decision for the health of my child has been taken away [ Nobody can "take away" that which does not exist, and from her words, if accurately reported, it appears evident that this hysterical fervid fanatic would have difficulty making an informed decision even if she studied enough medicine to begin to comprehend vaccination. ]
You also repeated ABC news implying that the side effects allegedly experienced by a tiny number of users somehow invalidated the protection Gardisil has provided some 26 million Americans.

Then, after a response trying to inject some reality into the process, including multiple strong arguments for immunization, you asserted the fallacies that:
  • i certainly dont support multiple immunisations and vaccinations for children(and women) instead of accepting that they are perfectly capable of making sensible life style choices if that's what they want to do. [ Hermit : Practically everyone will have sex, and when they do they will become potential carriers and susceptible to carcinoma triggered by this endemic STD which imposes a massive cost on society as a whole. ]
  • secondly, it is still a choice. choice should never be wrested away from *anyone*. of late, it seems like women are the ones whose freedoms are slowly eroded every single day... [ Hermit : If you expect members of society to behave ethically, and share risks equally, then vaccination against endemic infections is not optional. ]
  • to make it mandatory for immigrant children/women while not making it mandatory for the citizens simply stinks [ Hermit : It does not, "stink", it merely reflects the reality that it is easy to add sensible regulatory requirements to putative immigrants and not so easy to impose them on Americans. See MoEnzyme's post about Texas - one of the most STD riddled states, as a case in point. Please note that I am addressing only the requirement for vaccination, not all hurdles to immigration are equitable or sensible. ]
  • especially when the vaccination course runs anywhere between 500-1500 dollars [ Hermit : Consider that the cost of vaccination is irrelevant in comparison to the cost of adding somebody to the population capable of transmitting an STD implicated in development of carcinomas. It might be sensible to require testing and reporting of HPV status and barring carriers from immigrating to the USA even though the cost would be even higher and the inequity greater. You might do better with an argument that INS' apparent approach that immigrants are more likely to be or become promiscuous or sex workers than Americans may be inequitable unless supported by data (which it may or may not be, I have not attempted to perform the necessary research.) ]
  • it seems as though they are testing the vaccine on immigrants first [ Hermit : Given that around 26 million Americans have been inoculated and some tiny fraction of that are in the eligible age group of the already much smaller number of immigrants, this assertion is nonsensical. ]
  • "fourthy, point #3 again. wtf?" [ Hermit : Mere repetition of an unsupported assertion does not add support to it. ]
And you follow up this triumph of assertion over reason with, "i dont understand your argument. it is completely unrelated to my concerns."

You are probably too old to develop understanding of an argument if you have not developed this capacity already, and I'm not at all sure how you determine relevance if you don't understand something, but I plead that your "concerns" being opaque and befuddled by fallacies, I attempted to demonstrate with compelling argument why an ethical member of a society would not regard immunization as optional.

Perhaps if you tried to express your "concerns" in a way that states them in the form of substantiated arguments, explaining why you think that it is sensible or fair to add unprotected potential carriers of a nasty endemic STD that is often implicated in etiologies requiring expensive treatments and carrying the additional cost of mortality in about 1/3 of the cases to a population, without relying on unsupported assertions and unstated implications to convey these "concerns," then I could  attempt to address these "concerns" in a way you might find possible to follow.
« Last Edit: 2009-10-05 01:56:29 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:gardasil made mandatory for immigrants
« Reply #9 on: 2009-10-01 16:11:07 »
Reply with quote

wow..lies, eh?

you just reminded me why we are not friends anymore. you may continue to argue with yourself. i am out.


Quote from: Hermit on 2009-10-01 11:30:01   

Well Mermaid, you made up and repeated a large number of trivially refutable lies and outdated information about Gardisil, some apparently based on the fallacious idea that the development of antibodies to a disease can somehow cause harm and the rest seemingly based on nothing at all. For example:
  • Gardisil is "an experimental vaccine for cervical cancer at best"
  • "it sounds like american pharmaceutical companies are experimenting their drugs on immigrants."
  • the controversial vaccine Gardasil
  • I kind of feel like they may be experimenting with immigrants to see how we will react
  • if it is such a great vaccine, why isn't it mandatory for everyone?
  • the lack of concrete evidence that the vaccine is effective.
  • Gardasil placed an unfair financial burden on women [ Hermit : Assuming that the current tests on men shows an equivalent degree of protection, I would strongly advocate requiring the vaccine for men as well, but for now that is an off-label use so while I recommend it as it is unlikely to cause much harm and will probably do much good, it would be wrong to mandate it. ]
  • My choice to make an informed decision for the health of my child has been taken away [ Nobody can "take away" that which does not exist, and from her words, if accurately reported, it appears evident that this hysterical fervid fanatic would have difficulty making an informed decision even if she studied enough medicine to begin to comprehend vaccination. ]
You also repeated ABC news implying that the side effects allegedly experienced by a tiny number of users somehow invalidated the protection Gardisil has provided some 26 million Americans.

Then, after a response trying to inject some reality into the process, including multiple strong arguments for immunization, you asserted the fallacies that:
  • i certainly dont support multiple immunisations and vaccinations for children(and women) instead of accepting that they are perfectly capable of making sensible life style choices if that's what they want to do. [ Hermit : Practically everyone will have sex, and when they do they will become potential carriers and susceptible to carcinoma triggered by this endemic STD which imposes a massive cost on society as a whole. ]
  • secondly, it is still a choice. choice should never be wrested away from *anyone*. of late, it seems like women are the ones whose freedoms are slowly eroded every single day... [ Hermit : If you expect members of society to behave ethically, and share risks equally, then vaccination against endemic infections is not optional. ]
  • to make it mandatory for immigrant children/women while not making it mandatory for the citizens simply stinks [ Hermit : It does not, "stink", it merely reflects the reality that it is easy to add sensible regulatory requirements to putative immigrants and not so easy to impose them on Americans. See MoEnzyme's post about Texas - one of the most STD riddled states, as a case in point. Please note that I am addressing only the requirement for vaccination, not all hurdles to immigration are equitable or sensible. ]
  • especially when the vaccination course runs anywhere between 500-1500 dollars [ Hermit : Consider that the cost of vaccination is irrelevant in comparison to the cost of adding somebody to the population capable of transmitting an STD implicated in development of carcinomas. It might be sensible to require testing and reporting of HPV status and barring carriers from immigrating to the USA even though the cost would be even higher and the inequity greater. You might do better with an argument that INS' approach that immigrants are more likely to be or become sex workers than Americans may be inequitable unless supported by data (which it may or may not be, I have not attempted to perform the necessary research. ]
  • it seems as though they are testing the vaccine on immigrants first [ Hermit : Given that around 26 million Americans have been inoculated and some tiny fraction of that are in the eligible age group of the already much smaller number of immigrants, this assertion is nonsensical. ]
  • "fourthy, point #3 again. wtf?" [ Hermit : Mere repetition of an unsupported assertion does not add support to it. ]
And you follow up this triumph of assertion over reason with, "i dont understand your argument. it is completely unrelated to my concerns."

You are probably too old to develop understanding of an argument if you have not developed this capacity already, and I'm not at all sure how you determine relevance if you don't understand something, but I plead that your "concerns" being opaque and befuddled by fallacies, I attempted to demonstrate with compelling argument why an ethical member of a society would not regard immunization as optional.

Perhaps if you tried to express your "concerns" in a way that states them in the form of substantiated arguments, explaining why you think that it is sensible or fair to add unprotected potential carriers of a nasty endemic STD that is often implicated in etiologies requiring expensive treatments and carrying the additional cost of mortality in about 1/3 of the cases to a population, without relying on unsupported assertions and unstated implications to convey these "concerns," then I could  attempt to address these "concerns" in a way you might find possible to follow.

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed