posted
The last I heard, congress is in the process of approving or not approving three different highly effective vaccines for HPV. If you don't know, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that, while of itself is really really itchy an can be cured over time, has been sited as the cause for tens of thousands of cases of cervical cancer in women. HPV lies dormant in most people, especially males, so it is transferred constantly without anyone knowing it. Highly contagious and spreading rapidly.
Now on to the AFA. They have proven to be highly influential in the workings of congress, holding sway with the right-wing republican majority. They are now trying, and very nearly succeeding from what i can gather, to have these vaccines rejected on the grounds that they would promote premarital sex. It has been said, and i agree, that this shows that the AFA would rather have thousands of women die a year than have teenagers continue to have the sex that they have always had.
How do you feel about this? is it an appropriate step in protecting family values? is it a gross violation of the medical rights of every american? you can probably guess my answer, but i wanted to know how the good people of Hatrack felt about it.
(also, the AFA has influenced the right-wing christian fundies (no offense to all you right-wing christian fundies out there) at Target to allow their pharmacists to refuse prescriptions based on their personal beliefs. The day after getting raped, a woman went to Target (the only pharmacist in her town to carry what she needed) and was refused emergency contraceptive. It makes me very angry.)
postscript: i got my information from a publication that i find very reliable. if, in fact, some of the info i have posted is incorrect, i apologize, and try to let me know without flaming.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, you've already discussed HPV vaccines and whether they promote premarital sex. I failed to see where in the thread the mention of the AFA or their ability to suppress the availability of such vaccines was mentioned. granted, i would assume it is the parents right to decide whether or not they want their child to be vaccinated, or the individuals right to decide if they want to wait until they can get the vaccination on their own before they engage in sexual activity.
this is not what i was asking about. The suppression of the HPV vaccine is merely an instance of the AFA using its influence to push their own moral agenda on the populace. i think it is an infringement of rights. if there is an safe, effective vaccine, it should be made available, even if it could, possibly, set up a small number of people to be exposed to sex early. i was curious as to whether people agreed. i am interested in hearing intelligent argument both for and against the AFA in order to learn more about it. if no one wants to talk about it, thats fine, just let it drift off the 1st page.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need a link to more official information. What do you mean Congress is in the process of approving vaccines? I thought that was the FDA's job.
Also, a link to AFA's statement would be nice, so we could actually know what we're supposed to be discussing.
By the way, I went to the AFA's website and typed "HPV vaccine" as a search term and didn't get a single hit. When I typed "HPV" by itself, all I got were articles about STD's in general, nothing about the vaccine. So, if the AFA has a position, it's not on their website that I can find. Maybe someone else might have better luck.
posted
Ok, congress was the wrong word. you got me on that one. my bad.
I'm not sure how to post links, but here goes nothing. The first link is where i heard of it, the rest were found using a quick google search.
you may want to skip down to the bottom of that first link (where it says "straight Rights Updates") to find the info i'm refering to, as the rest may be highly offensive to some people. also, i would go ahead and give this a mature rating, so if you parents don't want you reading naughty words, this is the place to find them.
posted
The most interesting thing I found on the AFA site about HPV is this link. And the only thing worth noting is:
quote: HPV is incurable, and is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States, according to the CDC. There are some 20 million Americans infected with it, and 5.5 million new cases are reported in the U.S. each year.
EDIT: What was noteworthy to me is that they did not mention a vaccine may already be delveloped that helps in stopping the spread of HPV.
posted
Okay, vonk - nothing I've read even from your own links supports this statement
quote:They are now trying, and very nearly succeeding from what i can gather, to have these vaccines rejected on the grounds that they would promote premarital sex. It has been said, and i agree, that this shows that the AFA would rather have thousands of women die a year than have teenagers continue to have the sex that they have always had.
The only thing I can obtain from your links is that the AFA and some other groups oppose making the vaccine mandatory, saying they think parents should have the choice. I think you'll find there are many people, even those that don't agree with the AFA on any other subject, who will agree here - it should be up to the parent and/or the adult woman whether or not to get the vaccine. There are groups out there who are arguing this very thing for all vaccinations, they have objection to even measles vaccinations being mandatory, so the AFA is certainly not alone in this.
Your first post was alarmist and full of erroneous information. If you're going to start a discussion like this, it's best to get your information verified and fact checked.
There's a huge difference between "We think parents should choose whether or not to get this vaccine for their child rather than making it mandatory for all female children," and "We don't care if teens die or not."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with AFA's position on many topics. To impose one's religious beliefs on another is wrong and they are dangerous because our president happens to agree with them, mixing religion and politics. I hate when a few loud-mouth, ultra-conservative, moral-imposing Christians give the rest of us Christians a bad name.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"It has been said, and i agree..." - i did not say it was fact. it is an opinion, and i still hold it.
"They're the same ***holes trying to stop the Feds from approving a vaccine for two strains of HPV." - that is what is quoted in the first link, where i asserted that i originally got the information, and also that i said i trust to be well informed, not empirically correct.
now, i'm not trying to be argumentative. my main goal of this thread was to here from the AFA's supporters point of view. i assume there are some here and i wanted to hear from them. if you support them, more power to you, could you tell me why? i did not post here to have my language choice and works cited critiqued. if it proves to be the case that i can not discuss something i find interesting and pertinent without having people start with the assumption that i am wrong and an 'alarmist', i won't start anymore threads. i apologize for the inconvenience.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i agree mandy. i think one of the worst things they are doing is misrepresenting americans, american families, associations, right-wingers, republicans, and christians. i think that they are a small faction with more power than they should.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's a 2002 study of a vaccine just now nearing approval. It was tested on young women (aged 16-23), 2392 originally and after they eliminated those that already had HPV or developed it before getting the third shot were left with 1533 adult women. 41 women in the placebo group got HPV and 9 of those developed pre cancerous lesions. The pap smears used to determine if HPV is present are known for giving false negatives. participants were followed for an average of 17.4 months.
Here's my massive problem with this vaccine, it was tested on women aged 16-23 but they're proposing administering it to prepubescent girls by adding it to the regular vaccine regimen.
Given that we can't even convince the CDC that all vaccines should be free of mercury (they relented that infants/children shouldn't get mercury-preservative laced vaccines) I'm untrustworthy of new vaccines being added to the regimen, if you want to get it as an adult, or after adolescence, marvelous, but I think administering this vaccine before adolescence when no studies on that age group have been done, and no followups on a longer term have been made is simply ludicrous. And so far as I can tell, no men have been given the vaccine, but it's also proposed that it be given to prepubescent boys as well.
I'd be happy if they followed up now four-five years later with the group that received the vaccine to see if anyone has developed HPV since they stopped following the group (probably around 2001 or 2002). On the other hand, getting hard data like that holds the potential for negative information which might interfere with drug company profits, so no information is better than good information.
Personally I'd love to know the HPV status of those women now, and if I were in congress I'd be demanding those stats rather than worrying if the vaccine tells prepubescent girls they're safe and okay to have sex.
quote:"It has been said, and i agree..." - i did not say it was fact. it is an opinion, and i still hold it.
Vonk, I think you're missing the point of any objections to your posts. You accused a group of trying to stop approval of this vaccine. To date, you've posted nothing credible backing up your claim that the AFA is, in fact, trying to stop approval of this vaccine.
Based on this accusation, you posted this:
quote: It has been said, and i agree, that this shows that the AFA would rather have thousands of women die a year than have teenagers continue to have the sex that they have always had.
Since the fact you put forward is severely lacking evidence at this point in the discussion, it seems a little early to say accuse an organization of prefering that women die.
You can't expect to post shaky factual claims and not be challenged just because you preface them with "I agree..."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not like them I refuse to go on my site. Those people stressed me out back in college, causing me to have such low grades.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa whoa whoa - you are blaming and organization for your poor grades? That seems a bit petulant.
vonk, someone wise once told me that unless you can state your opponents viewpoint in a way that they agree with it you have no business debating them. I think it's quite likely that no one from the AFA would agree with what you posted about their position. They probably would agree with a statement like "AFA opposes mandatory vaccines for children, preferring that parents make the call instead. That could leave some kids at risk." If you started out with that premise, then you have grounds to discuss whether or not that view is the right one.
I don't know how old you are, I bet I'm older and speaking from experience you get a lot more mileage when debating issues if you try very hard to understand the oppositions' real position and respect their right to hold that position even if you don't agree with it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it's my own fault for LOOKING at that site and stressing myself out. I just don't think they understand the real threats to the family out there. It's not gays, or change or liberals but stuff that is a lot worse, that really debilitates people and makes it difficult for them. But none can be as frustrating as CWFA and their forum which doesnt' exist anymore because of all the rudeness and cruelty. It's one thing to dislike gays, people do have the right to dislike what they want, but, they have to have the facts in place... They have to understand things and they have to not be rude about it too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
