Sunday, October 04, 2009

Aw, shit.

**new: found this Monday morning: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/iyc-vve/fiction-eng.php#a


British girl dies after HPV vaccine


As if the anti-vaccine nutjobs needed any more reason to deny girls a lifesaving shot.


Not only do anti-vaccination people grate on me (the Jenny McCarthy types who refuse to inoculate their kids and encourage others to do so based on the completely unfounded assumption that booster shots lead to autism) but the anti-HPV crowd have to go and throw sex in the way.


See, according to these silly folk (who could have used a few more hugs as children...or maybe a few more smacks upside the head. Maybe a combo.) young teenaged girls shouldn't get these shots, because it's only the fear of dying from horrible cervical cancer that keeps them in check and ensures that they keep their naughty bits in their pants.


Once young girls get vaccinated against HPV, it's like society is giving them license to spread their legs at will and contribute to our moral decay. So basically, HPV is the new AIDS. Well, at least what AIDS was in the 80s. Oh? A gay man got AIDS? Well, that's too bad, but really, his lifestyle choice was a sin against God, so the bum-lover deserved it. What? A woman died of cervical cancer? Well, it's probably because she was a promiscuous tart and this is her comeuppance.


Like abortion and birth control before it, the HPV vaccine threatens society's assumed right to control women's sexuality. What? You want to control your own body? Nay. The patriarchal overtones inherent in even the most progressive Western societies dictate that women's bodies are proprietary, and thus a threat to our civilization entire if left uncontrolled.


Now, a young girl dies from a vaccination. This is a statistical reality: some people react to shots. It's tragic, yes. But does that mean that girls should stop getting vaccinated? Hell no. Trust me, if there was a magical testicular cancer vaccine on the market, there would be no arguments on any side. Because it would be about men's health and vitality. Sure, testes are sexual organs, but it's men's lives we're talking about. Cervical cancer, though? Well, women's sexuality is always everyone's business, so if she develops cancer from HPV, it's most likely because she was a slut and deserved it. We can make assumptions about her because of an illness, no matter how unfounded. And what message would be sending to young girls if we encouraged them to get vaccinated? Either way, apparently, they'll end up dead.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your points are certainly sound and well-taken.

I think what should be learned from the case you refer to is how patients can be better screened in advance to determine whether or not they might be at risk of having deadly reactions or developing other complications so other options might be explored while also looking at how the vaccines may be improved.

But I have to be honest, if some guy got a magical vaccine shot in his nuts and they fell off a week later, as a man, you'd better believe that I'd be having discussions and debates about the safety and viability of such medical wonders and their potential side effects.

Cheers.

Alex P said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex P said...

How much have you researched the "nutjobs" side of the story?

Yes, reactions happen. Yes, the immunization discussed is not going to remove the good sense of young girls. I get your argument that this death will be misused. You pointed point blank at the issue and this was good. I loved what you said, and it is true. Nasty sexist world we live in. I would love to see you delve into this stuff further. You obviously have a passion for the empowerment of women in an everyday perspective.

But as for reactions not being researched... I am not full of info on the subject. But I do know that they also haven't been able to disprove correlations either, which is what some people believe is a true test of science. I could say "all swans are white," and just stop looking after I find 100 swans and think i proved my point. Then one black swan shows up, and its ground zero again. I personally read a psychologists perspective of a child after an intensive immunization reaction which left him so traumatized that he had been left in a very internalized state, which was overcome with intensive one on one therapy, and how he believed that children may be misdiagnosed with autism after an immunization when in fact they were just presenting similar symptoms based on the fear and physical pain endured because of the reaction. I also don't think its awesome that there's mercury and formaldehyde in things that someone wants to shove into my body, let alone that of my little niece, who's far tinier. MMR is also a questionable. I just know that kidlets are pretty precious and I wouldn't shove chemicals into their body without doing a lot of my own research, and seeing as how many other things which were thought to be modern and problem solving (for instance: thalidomide, those rolling baby things which they stopped making since kids started rolling down the stairs, and baby formula in third world countries with bad water supplies, belts and drawstrings on the outside of kids clothing) ended up having a nasty flip side to their wonder effects, I would be cautious. I don't know exactly where I stand, because its not my call with a wee one, and yes, I DID turn out ok after getting my shots. BUT... I respect people who reserve their judgment on the issue until after they have read information from many different sources. Such as this Duke U article which discusses the issue, and while trying to be pro immunization, still leaves it up to the parent...
http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/AdviceFromDoctors/YourChildsHealth/mmr_vaccine_and_autism

Ms. Fitz said...

My objection is to the HPV vaccine in particular, which has been subjected to "moral" objections, rather than medical ones.

As for the arguments against:
1. of COURSE parents have a right to choose whether to innoculate. I am just of the opinion that the risks of not immunizing yourself outweight the risks of doing so.
2. Thalidomide was an anti-nausea drug given to pregnant women who then gave birth to deformed children. The effect was in utero. It isn't a vaccine.
3. We shove chemicals into our bodies on a regular basis. The mercury she'll get from her first tuna sandwich, if not a shot. Again, it's about weighing the pros and cons. Pro: no horrible, disfiguring childhood ailment that could actually kill her. Con: chemicals that could affect her health.
4. There's no causal link between vaccinations and autism. That was my argument. There are links because vaccinations and other side effects, which they tell you before you get vaccinated. There are statistical probabilities for these. I don't believe that they negate the necessity of a vaccination. This article links to the most recent US court case:
http://www.slate.com/id/2211156/. So they have, in fact, disproved the correlation for autism. Whether the amounts of mercury and other chemicals? Not sure. But I'd argue as above that we get that and worse from environmental toxins, which hurt us without the side benefit of protecting us from viruses.

Good discussion, though! I'm glad we've opened up a big ol' wormcan. :)

Alex P said...

Yeah. Worm can. I especially appreciate the numbered responses addressing all my overwhelming wrongness.
1) I know that you're objecting to the moral objections. that's why i didn't get the sub rant, and why I stated so in my response.
2) I never said thalidomide was a vaccine. Thanks for assuming I'm an asshat though, I appreciate the education. Really made me feel like you actually read my comment. I'm surprised you didn't feel the need to explain the rolly jumpers name and that drawstrings on clothes are not a medical treatment either.
3) I know we shove chemicals into our bodies. A lot of parents are now trying to minimize that issue for their children- because they don't know what might crop up 5, 10, 20 years down the road as a big nasty "oops, we didn't know it did that". That's why organics and natural foods are a huge market for families- we are now finding weird effects from things we thought were safe (IE cramps in your legs from chlorine buildup in your muscles from artificial sweeteners), so why not minimize exposure to little ones since they are just that- little. Buildup in their system is bound to be more powerful, and we don't always know what the effect is. Hormones in meat are being studied to see if that's why girls are menstruating sooner.... People know that an organic carrot has risks of choking or allergy (slim, but there) but also that the same risk is there for a normal mega farm grown carrot, except the organic has at least some lesser chance of some scary unknown chemical. Additionally, a lot of parents choose not to feed babies and children tuna and other fish because of possible allergy issues and metal buildup, until they're older. Pregnant women avoid a lot of fish because of mercury buildup in utero (again, I understand that this is not a medical treatment, and not a vaccine, its an edible product, but you can make that point in response if you feel the need). Also, I think that the absorption of mercury within your digestive system may be a little different than an IM injection, where the mercury or preservatives wont have anywhere to go (unlike your stomach, where some of it may head 'out') but just sit in your muscles for as long as you are here. Your muscles have in/out systems for oxygen, blood, but since immunizations are foreign, there's no system in your body DESIGNED to get the additives out... Again, I'm not a doctor, and I haven't done any real research, I am just thinking of stomach as a through put system and muscles as more of a closed system.
4) because one set of judges review the documentation and decide to close the cases at hand based on their understanding of the information does not a perfect proof make.Wow. Government paid judges find a way to save the government money. Strange, and a shade hmmmmmm bias. I found an article encouraging people to make their own decisions, and you found an article that poops on people of one opinion and calls their theory crazy. They interviewed a bunch of people on one side of the issue.

Like I said, I don't know everything, and I would reserve judgment until I had a kid and needed to read up on this because then I would actually actively search out more than just a magazine article or public health notice, but find the real research myself.

Good condescension though! I really appreciate it!

Meggory said...

Wow, Ms. Fitz, you've already attracted some angry internet types. Kudos.

Unless your child has a medical condition that precludes vaccinations (e.g. allergies, fragile immune system, et cetera), a child should be vaccinated. Period.

Choosing not to vaccinate has led to children dying of measles in Great Britain last year. Frakkin' measles! What is this, the Dark Ages?

My children will be vaccinated, because I don't want them crippled from polio or killed by rubella.

Alex P said...

Wow. Im a cranky internet type. Interesting. Perhaps I am cranky on the internet. Oh wells. My bad. Allergies are really common on both sides of me and my sig. others family, so I am permitted by Meggory to have concerns. Lucky me.

Ms. Fitz said...

you don't say? Isn't that why you can't partake in fun things like coconut, soy, etc?

:) hee hee.

ps - stop itching. I can tell you're doing it. Leave your foot alone.