Tuesday, September 18

all, nothing, or somewhere in between?

Every time I see the commercials for this new "cancer" va*cine, I cringe. For one thing, I feel like the population is being duped into thinking that you can be va*cinated for cancer. This va*cine is supposed to treat certain types of sexually transmitted HPV that have been shown to cause cervical cancer. I cannot fathom giving a series of va*cinations to my little girl (yet to be) for something contracted almost entirely by chosen behavior. Especially not at the earliest recommended age (NINE YEARS OLD?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?) and even more especially not because they have been on the market for such an incredibly short period of time and I am very uncertain of any possible side affects and even the claimed benefits.

Today, I got an email from my friend Sarah which had this link in it. Another "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!" came out of my mouth. It might be partially my perspective, but methinks the price tag on this round of "treatments" might be motivating the campaign to make this a mandate in some states.

So how much of this is necessary? Is there a point where we should stop believing what the drug companies and the CDC tell us about the health of our children? What would you do if your daughter was denied enrollment in school unless she received this va*cine? What are your thoughts?

By the way, I'm not interested in starting a heated or angry debate, just some friendly, lively discussion. We've discussed our wide and varying positions on the other recommended va*cines. I don't really want to go there. BUT I am curious on your perspective for this ONE va*cine.

20 comments:

Tracy said...

Like you, I disagree on requiring this vaccine for my children. Since it is transmitted sexually, and I want to exhort my children to remain pure until marriage I feel like giving them this vaccine is giving them permission/ a way out of suffering the consequences of their sin.

Also, I have a problem agreeing to any vaccine that has been on the market for such a short time. What's to say this vaccine isn't going to cause another type of cancer/ negative side effects.

Conleys said...

I'm with both of you on this one. There's no way I would consider this vaccine at 9 years of age. I can't believe- but I can believe so many doctors have bought into this. MY ob/gyn has the posters everywhere at our office about how "this is the best choice for your daughter", etc. So ridiculous.

Rachel said...

No, no, no and again NO!! My (any future) daughters will never receive this vaccine. My hubby and I would never look twice at a school that required this for enrollment. I'll get off of my hobby horse now or I may be here for awhile:).

Autum said...

I am also NO! on this as well. I have made choices even in what ones I have given my boys. For a long time I have thought this was a bad idea.

I just hope the state doesn't start mandating it (like it was talked about in Texas, I am not sure if it passed or not.) I will definately use my rights as a parent under state law to refuse it for any future daughters or any similar type of vaccine for my boys.

Alicia said...

Hear, hear! I've not heard much about this vaccine, but I'm with you all the way. But then again, I don't let Chloe get flu shots either. I'm assuming Christian schools wouldn't require this for enrollment? And there's always homeschooling - yeehaw!

Reads said...

I agree with the above, it is sad that our country has come to giving a vaccine, instead of us teaching our children to remain pure! The sad thing is that it is a false sense of security, like there isn't a whole host of other STD's that they can get besides this.
On another note, I do believe that you can opt out of any vaccine (I know it did mention you could in this article) "for moral or religious reasons." I know that is the case were we live. I guess a consolation that we should and can do what we feel is best for our families. Although were we live now, homeschooling would be our main option.

Mary Ann said...

Just a question...is it possible to still be a carrier of the virus even if you remain pure until marriage? Our bodies play host to many icky germs & viruses that don't always manifest themselves by causing an illness. In that respect, the vaccine could still be useful.
Truthfully I haven't fully considered the issue of this vaccine so I don't have a very informed opinion. Your post actually just gave me more questions...

TwoMuths said...

Mary Ann,
Great question - as far as I understand, the vaccination is created to be effective for types 6, 11, 16 and 18, which are spread through sexual contact. Other types of papillomavirus (which do NOT cause cancer) can be contracted through public showers and other contaminated surfaces.

Hope that helps!

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled...no matter what public schools tell you: Vaccines ARE NOT MANDATORY!! Schools often try to scare parents into making sure their children have all their shots. Parents have the right to sign a waiver/exemption for any/all vaccines. Public schools can not turn children away.
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in!

TwoMuths said...

Hey, Anon! Wish you would've left your name, but I do appreciate the "2 cents." You're right, waivers are available for all states, however, in some states you are not allowed to "selectively" vaccinate in order to attend school, (it's either all or nothing) and since this particular shot is in the process of being pushed toward mandatory status, my questions are geared toward that issue. Thanks for stopping by!

pamela s said...

Just from the information I have read & heard, I would definitely agree to opt out of this va*cine for my children.
My biggest concern was the rush to make it mandatory. Makes me wonder if Merck is trying to make a profit using a scare tactic. It's not completely obvious by the commercials that this prevents the cancer from the STD form. I wonder if any Texan politician has a nice campaign check somewhere signed by Merck. Hmmmm.

ruth said...

I appreciate Mary Ann's question since it was one of my own.

Based on what I understand (from the two articles you linked, and the advertisements I've seen) my preliminary opinion that making the vaccination mandatory is a serious infringment on parental rights. And I absolutely would NOT accept it for my daughter (or son.)

That being said, I can't say I'm completely against the vaccination as a whole, any more than I'm opposed to a cure for an STD--these diseases affect people who are morally pure as well as those who are not. And even if people choose to live an immoral lifestyle, I don't think I can oppose an effort to prevent an epidemic.

But take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I haven't ruminated on them much before hitting the "publish" button.

Michael & Sandra Herriage said...

I agree with those who wouldn't give this to their daughter (even though I don't have kids to base this on). I do know that many parents have just listened to the commercials and the little rhyming sing-song. Many of my girls on my volleyball team have bragged about getting the "one less" shot and they love to sing the song (which drives me crazy).

Isn't it sending mixed messages when you teach your children to be pure and abstinent before marriage, but give them a shot that will protect them just in case?

Karen said...

It's impossible for me to talk at any length about any vaccination without getting heated--or at least FEELING heated. But this HPV vaccine RRRRRREALLY makes my stomach turn! I'm with y'all. I'll leave it at that.

TwoMuths said...

I'm with you, Karen, I really am! ;-)

Kelly Glupker said...

Just a quick comment in case you're all stil discussing this:
For many reasons, I would NOT have my daughter get this vaccine. However, a friend of mine (who is married) had a pap exam a few months ago where they found the HPV virus and she has been and is sexually, morally pure. She freaked out because she had an STD but apparently her doctor said there are other ways to get it.

TwoMuths said...

Kelly, I would have freaked out, too. I hope your friend is ok! I wonder if she had one of the particular strains that this vaccine supposedly protects against? From my understanding, those strains are only transmittable through sexual contact. I could definitely be wrong on this - it's just what I have understood from my research on the topic. That's why I'm wondering if she knows the strain. Interesting.

Kelly Glupker said...

You know we haven't talked about it since she first found out. I am not sure what other details she has about how she got it.

The Barkers said...

Pamela S--Yes there are policiticians getting checks from Merck in TX as well as other states like MI who are trying to make this mandatory. And! Don't forget about the doctors getting their schooling paid for by scholarships from pharmaceutical companies. They give out more scholarships than anyone! I do believe there is a conspiracy going on. The pharm. companies are funding our government as well as the other way around. Its very scary to think about. Sorry Jenny. You can discipline me in person in a couple weeks for ranting... :-)
(I've obviously not been brave enough to post on my own blog about this.) :-)

Anonymous said...

You guys are getting all bent up about HPV but think about Hepatitis B. They give that shot at birth, and babies are in a very low risk category unless their mom is positive for it. You get that from the same kind of things as you would get HPV.