The governor of Texas has mandated that all little girls between 9 and 18 have to receive the gardasil vaccine.He bypassed a vote by the Texas legislature. As a mother and grandmother of 4 little girls I am very concerned. I do not believe this product has been thoroughly tested. Could it lead to sterility?
2007-02-07 16:14:10 · 9 answers · asked by silent watcher 2 in Health ➔ Women's Health
This is Ridiculous..... Merck is lining their pockets, banking on the hope that people ages 9-18 would practice risky sexual behavior.... Yes I said it.... HPV is a totally preventable virus that has been around for decades....but has just now been ballooned into the next big medical breakthrough.....and could be avoided by not engaging in RISKY SEXUAL BEAHVIOR...
So get this...whether or not your child is practicing abstinence they will still b required to be injected with this so called "vaccine"... Any adult who chooses to be a guinee pig for this drug company can do so at their own peril...but how dare the governor try to force little children to participate...
Since when do we allow the government to dictate what is best for our children????? As a man i cannot stomach the fact that companies are allowed to prey on our young !!! If i lived in Texas i would do everything in my power to have this overturned...
leg cramps = restless leg syndrome.....there's a pill for that
shyness= social anxiety.....there's a pill for that
cant sleep? try lunesta....there's a pill for that
want a shorter period? ....There's a pill for that
here's a word to the simple:
Everyone age 18-40 has the power to make sure our next generation is not taking thousands of pills by the time their 60..simply ask questions and do your own research instead of allowing the goverment and especially drug companies "DICTATE" whats best for you......
after all who needs a word to the wise...when its the simple ones who need it most? (like pandora, who thinks if it wasnt safe the fda wouldnt have approved it..) how much of a brainwashed idiot can you be??? the fda approves us putting flouride in our baby's drinking water....(did you know flouride was used in the extermination of some jews during the holocaust)....so much for safe huh?
2007-02-09 09:22:23 · answer #1 · answered by Common Sense 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that is a wonderful question. First I have to comment on a couple of the answers thus far. One said that "if it weren't safe for young girls the fda would not approve it's use on them" , This is not true. I am sure the FDA would not purposly put a drug on the market that would harm large masses of people (??) but, you have to realize after researching this product, there has simply not been enough long term testing to see the results/effectivess of this drug. Like another poster stated look at some of the drugs in the past. I know my daughter was given a drug when she was a newborn to help with her enlarged liver. I was watching tv a few years back and saw where that drug was recalled because it had caused serious problems and death in many patients. Thank goodness my daughter had not taken it long enough to consider her at any risk.
Another poster stated.. "Who wouldn't think that having a shot to protect millions of girls from getting cancer wouldn't be great. They have had innoculations for measles, mumps, and a number of other illnesses. Just because this one happens to be sexually transmitted makes no difference." In another world that might be the case, but we have to think outside the box. It's not what the commcercials tell us, it's not what it seems. One Less just doesn't give us the amount of time they have spent on studying this drug. We don't know if this drug can cause those who are being injected with it to become sterile because they haven't studied it that long.
Granted, we do not know if the drugs we take today are going to be recalled tomorrow, but these are our daughters. I have 4 children, 3 girls, and I will NOT have anyone tell me that they HAVE to be given these shots for any reason. This is not like chickenpox or measels, you cannot pass this along to others. It should NOT be taken into the hands of our legislature. Let them do further testing and see where they are in 5 plus years, but until then, I do not think this a good route for parents to be taking.
2007-02-09 03:05:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
It is good that the government is willing to pay to assist children with their needs. However this is a ploy due to the relationship of the Texas government and the supplier of this vaccine. It is a money thing unfortunately and really has more to do with dollars then helping the children. Also, parents should not be mislead and taken advantage of by the government. I believe it should be the parents decision as to the health of their child. In the case of a parent who has been deemed unsuitable to take care of her child, then the mandate may be more appropriate. I think this sends a message that parents are not able to make wise choices for their children. Wake up everybody these are people we elected and put into office. They will continue to do as they wish as long as we tolerate what they do.
2007-02-07 16:24:36 · answer #3 · answered by VLEEKS47 3 · 8⤊ 1⤋
you have a good point, but sterility is not the issue.
the drug trials that they do to introduce a drug into the market usually test a few thousand volunteers...if no really serious side effects crop up, they can expand their trials to many more thousands...when it looks as though there are no serious side effects, the drug is released into the market (this may take a few years, though)
once out into the market is when the REAL clinical trials start...because millions or people might be exposed to this drug and this is where you may start seeing problems (thalidomide in the 60s for nausea during pregnancy) and trovan (an antibiotic for infection)....of course you will always find an attorney to make trouble for someone (merck and vioxx)
drug companies do not go out of their way to make a drug to harm you, but things can happen...it is no ones' fault...just a glitch in the works...
sorry to drag on...but I think that it is another way to force government to make us their kids and force something on us, but some people do such a lousy parenting job, and cervical cancer is deadly not to mention that HPV is not a pleasant STD to get either...that they feel that they have to intervene so that they can reduce their expenditures when you do get cancer they end up having to treat you....
if you look at it from another vaccine point of view...think of all of the lives and morbidity that we have saved from MMR, polio, tetanus, dioptheria, varicella, and so on....
the reports of autism and vaccines are unfounded and vaccines are still considered very safe overall for the majority of the population
i would get them vaccinated because even though you talk to your kids until you are blue in the face...peer pressure can play a lot on a budding teenager when all of your friends have lost their virginity and you have not...you would like them to use a condom as well...but that doesn't happen always either...so in those times of heated passion and condoms are too late, this would be one disease thay they might not get
good luck
2007-02-07 16:43:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
i live in texas and I think it sends the wrong message to young girls..."go ahead and have sex...you're protected from diseases!" the best way to avoid STD's is to not have sex until you're married and in a monogomous relationship. the idea behind the vaccine is that it lowers a girl's risk of acquiring cervical cancer by protecting her from STD's. well, shouldn't we be teaching our kids to NOT HAVE SEX until they're married?? Why do parents lower their standards for their kids by assuming they will do it anyway? as parents we need to be teaching this important value to our sons as WELL AS our daughters. I have four sons but if I had daughters I'd opt out of the vaccine.
2007-02-07 17:00:26 · answer #5 · answered by 4 Shades of Blue 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who wouldn't think that having a shot to protect millions of girls from getting cancer wouldn't be great. They have had innoculations for measles, mumps, and a number of other illnesses. Just because this one happens to be sexually transmitted makes no difference.
2007-02-07 16:24:35 · answer #6 · answered by bettyboop 6 · 4⤊ 9⤋
Feel sorry and sad! Avoid it if you can!
2007-02-07 16:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by Sami V 7 · 8⤊ 4⤋
i think it is a wondeful idea to protect girls from cervical cancer at a young age. if it weren 't safe for young girls the fda would not approve it's use on them.
2007-02-07 16:19:12 · answer #8 · answered by pandora078 6 · 4⤊ 9⤋
I think it's a great idea.
2007-02-07 16:42:57 · answer #9 · answered by missstevi 3 · 4⤊ 7⤋