This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
When it comes to vaccine intervention for disease control, should personal liberty go before the benefit to society?
This question is extremely important when one considers current news on the Human Papillomavirus vaccine. The main vaccine, Gardasil, has been widely used on women ages 9-26 since its introduction in 2006. The vaccine first made waves in 2007 when Texas governor Rick Perry issued an executive order to mandate the vaccine for all young women in Texas. Even though it was met with much opposition and ultimately failed, the question still remained: should we have a mandatory HPV vaccine for all women? The two sides of the argument clash, each bringing significant evidence to bear on the issue. Mathematical models indicate that with a vaccine as effective as this one (about 100%), mandating the vaccine will stamp out the virus types targeted by the vaccine. HPV is the most common STI with 45% of college age women currently infected. Freeing society of such a dangerous virus, the number one cause of cervical cancer, is a highlight of the pro-mandate argument. The opposition suggests that personal liberty is at stake, and that parents should have the choice to vaccinate their children if they believe the vaccine is worth it for them. What do you think? Is it reasonable to limit personal liberty for the good of the community in the face of a spreading killer virus?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Steve Sikora
http://search.mercola.com/search/pages/Results.aspx?k=gardasil
There are dozens of articles at the above listed link. Here are direct links to some of them:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/25/prominent-scientist-warns-of-hpv-vaccine-dangers.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/08/Hundreds-of-Thousands-of-Reactions-to-Gardasil-Is-Your-Child-Next.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/24/spain-withdraws-gardasil-after-illnesses.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/17/time-for-the-truth-about-gardasil.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/20/does-gardasil-actually-increase-your-risk-of-cervical-cancer.aspx
Besides these articles I've linked from Dr. Mercola's site, there are several other internal links within these articles to research, tests and statistics from studies not just in the United States, but in other countries as well, that contradict many of the claims being made in an effort to have this vaccine given.
Please do not follow the herd, as sheep are usually sheared.
Kevin McNaught
Dr. Mercola cites information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is a reputable government agency cosponsored by the FDA and CDC. But, he does not put the information on the adverse effects reported in context. Just because an adverse effect is reported to a particular vaccine, this does not mean that they were caused by the vaccine itself. Investigators do follow up on the adverse reactions, but rarely find any cause-effect relationship.
For example, if I took the Gardasil vaccine, then a few days later died in a fatal car crash, I may be included in the VAERS numbers. Maybe the vaccine did cause me to lose consciousness and swerve off the road, but this is all subject to speculation. People assume that the VAERS reports imply a causality, but this is not the case.