wmw999 2,584
Recommended Posts
QuoteI suspect that pretty much ANYONE's wish list would be attacked vigorously by dz.com'ers.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Of course!
Chuck
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think, the big thing was the side-effects of the drug
What side effects?QuoteThere was a lot of mis-information about the drug.
Almost exclusively from the anti-vaccine side, I would imagine.
New vaccinations are always a magnet for uninformed hysteria, and when you multiply it by the standard religious conservative reaction to anything even remotely connected with sex you're going to end up with a whole lot of people talking a whole lot of bollocks.
A lot of it was the idea of government telling people how to raise their kids. Also, the fact that Merck employed one of Perry's former 'people' and Perry had recieved campaign donations from Merck. The fact too, at the time Perry wanted this done, the 3-injections totaled $350.00. A lot of folks can't afford that. Yes, later on, insurance companies covered the injections. Here in Texas, there are too many folks who can't afford insurance. Too many people would've been between a rock and a hard place.
None of those could be classed as side effects or misinformation. Are you changing your mind about what "the big thing" was?
I looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list... The site you posted was nowhere near what I found.
I was listing some of the reasons folks were against it.
Chuck
jakee 1,594
QuoteI looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list...
Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims?
You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Quote
QuoteA lot of it was the idea of government telling people how to raise their kids. Also, the fact that Merck employed one of Perry's former 'people' and Perry had recieved campaign donations from Merck. The fact too, at the time Perry wanted this done, the 3-injections totaled $350.00. A lot of folks can't afford that. Yes, later on, insurance companies covered the injections. Here in Texas, there are too many folks who can't afford insurance. Too many people would've been between a rock and a hard place.
Chuck
I don't think anyone can be required by the Government to vaccinate their kids, I know the state of California "requires" the whooping cough vaccine be given to all public school students this year, but in reality, if it is against the parents "beliefs" they can opt out.
From what I found, vaccinations for children have become more 'traditional' than mandated.
The original topic of this thread was Perry being a kook. I don't like the guy because I think he's self-centered and self-serving. I wouldn't call him a 'kook' but rather someone who uses his position to gain power and what that power can bring 'him'. I believe he'd kiss the ass of the highest bidder.
Chuck
Skyrad 0
Quote
Ask him about Cameron Willingham.
I will when I see him.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
QuoteQuoteI looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list...
Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims?
You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil.
I did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever.
It just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable? Make sense?
Chuck
jakee 1,594
QuoteI did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever.
So in other words... no critical evaluation and no fact checking.
I just looked at the first result for 'side-effects of gardisil' and it lists 19 common side effects either documented in the trials or commonly reported while in use. That may indeed count as a laundry list, but it's worth noting that the most serious of them are fainting (common to all injected vaccines) and diarrhea. Now, interesting thing is that the article also list some extremely rare side effects such a Guillan-Barre syndrome, which is indeed a very serious illness and which has indeed been reported by people who have recently had the Gardasil vaccination. However if you check the CDC FAQ you will see that the rate of occurence of Guillan-Barre syndrome in people who have recently had the Gardasil vaccination is the same as the rate of occurence of Guillan-Barre syndrome in people who have not recently had the Gardasil vaccination, and there is no evidence that the two are linked.
I'm getting at two things here, 1st, of course you will find a long list of genuine side effects, because you will find a long list of genuine side effects for any vaccination, several of them simply from the fact of the injection itself. This is normal and to be expected, it's not a problem. Second, if you're just randomly looking up articles and listing side effects with no critical evaluation as to the source, then you are selecting sources that badmouth the product. If you look up enough articles that way you'll eventually end up with a list of 'side effects' that include every single illness suffered by any person who had recently received an HPV vaccine of any kind, plus a few more that some journalist somewhere has simply made up*. And yes, that is going to be a very scary list but it's also completely bloody useless.
QuoteIt just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable?
I linked to the CDC. It's their job to monitor vaccines and post warnings about credible health risks associated with them. You paid no attention whatsoever to where your information came from on a subject that you already know creates histeria and misinformation because you've already fallen for it. Make sense?
* Did you read the article I linked to in my last post? Please do. Seriously.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteI wouldn't call him a 'kook' but rather someone who uses his position to gain power and what that power can bring 'him'.
Thank you for explaining it better than I could. His proposala are fundamentally to eliminate rule of law. Perry is suggesting that judicial review should be eliminated - that if the Supreme Court declares something Unconstitutional that 2/3 of the Legislature can pass a law overruling the SCOTUS. This scares the hell out of me!
Note: plenty of SCOTUS cases are matters of statutory conflict and construstion that really don't have a Constitutional argument associated. Congress already has the authority to pass new statutes that pass muster.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Yes, I did in fact, read the article you posted.
Chuck
Chuck
Quote
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country
First, let me say that I AGREE with No. 4. I also have a philosophical agreement with No. 3.
...
4. Going back to state Legislatures electing senators. I'm all for it. A Senator is little more than a six year representative. Take away the public campaigning and we take away the electioneering.
First, I found it a bit amusing that Perry advocates #4 as a states' rights bit, but then no longer believes in them when it comes to marriage or abortion.
On the election of senators, I do not see any gain from having them named by the state legislature. Wouldn't that mean Boxer and Feinstein would be senators for life in California? How would any senior, corrupt Senator ever get tossed out? You would remove the people's ability to pick a man or woman and instead let them merely vote for a party. That's hardly progress.
The key distinction between the two chambers is the bias of representation towards the smaller states in the Senate. And yes, the 6 year term does remove a lot of the election year fever issues around the Representatives.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list...
Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims?
You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil.
I did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever.
It just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable? Make sense?
Chuck
You could probably find a million side effects for small pox and polio vaccines online too. I think the CDC has been very consistent in providing vaccine data.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
Look what happened when people followed the advice online of not having their children vaccinated due to the concern of autism; dead children.
winsor 236
QuoteRick Perry is also the one who pushed for young girls in Texas to be innoculated for cervical cancer with a drug that had not even been approved by the Food & Drug admin.! Perry recieved campaign contributions from Merck, the producer of the drug. Too many of his actions would lead one to believe, he's bought-off. His big push to get more Chinese crap to the 'dollar' stores and other things he's done... yeah, he's sneaky!
Chuck
When he found out it had nanothermite in the list of ingredients, he figured he could not go wrong.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list...
Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims?
You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil.
I did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever.
It just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable? Make sense?
Chuck
You could probably find a million side effects for small pox and polio vaccines online too. I think the CDC has been very consistent in providing vaccine data.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
Look what happened when people followed the advice online of not having their children vaccinated due to the concern of autism; dead children.
Just proves, people need to be more careful in their research. Just random hits on the internet could prove disasterous. Then too, some people will believe what they want to believe and it's usually the scariest information out there.
Chuck
QuoteQuoteRick Perry is also the one who pushed for young girls in Texas to be innoculated for cervical cancer with a drug that had not even been approved by the Food & Drug admin.! Perry recieved campaign contributions from Merck, the producer of the drug. Too many of his actions would lead one to believe, he's bought-off. His big push to get more Chinese crap to the 'dollar' stores and other things he's done... yeah, he's sneaky!
Chuck
When he found out it had nanothermite in the list of ingredients, he figured he could not go wrong.
Chuck
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteRick Perry is also the one who pushed for young girls in Texas to be innoculated for cervical cancer with a drug that had not even been approved by the Food & Drug admin.!
Smells like bullshit. Lets see what a little checking reveals...
Yep. It's bullshit. The HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved in june 2006 (and CDC recommends its use), Perry added it to the required vacination list in february 2007
I stand corrected! It's true! You really can look-up one subject and get two different storien from the internet!
Chuck
You got snookered on that one too, Chuck.
By making it 'mandatory', the cost was covered by the state. The mandate itself had an opt-out built into it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Perry has great hair. He always did -- it was a joke when he first ran for Agriculture Commissioner (or was it RR?) in Texas, and it still is. He doesn't compromise his nature for politics; his nature is to pander for the sake of politics. He believes in power for power's sake, and enjoys exercising it.
Ask him about Cameron Willingham.
Wendy P.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites