The difference between opposing the MMR vaccine and opposing the HPV vaccine.

hatrickpatrick

endacl wrote: »

It’s hardly a ‘sacred cow’. The numbers don’t lie, and facts are facts.

Discussion lends an apparent credibility to the possibility of an alternative view. There isn’t one.

In this case, the alternative view (which they keep trying to conceal behind bullsh!t about side effects etc) is "teens shouldn't be experimenting sexually [for many of these people, insert "before marriage" after this statement] and therefore it's only the bad / naughty / dirty / sinful ones who are at risk of getting cancer". If one follows that to its logical conclusion, it basically means "if you die of an STD, you got what you deserved for being a slut".

Again, one of the loudest voices spouting all kinds of bullsh!t about the HPV vaccine causing autism and other ridiculousness is Fidelma Healy Eames - the woman who genuinely believes, in the 21st century, that "fornication" is a relevant concept which can be brought up in parliament to make a point, and that when everyone takes the piss out of her for it, she's being cyber bullied.

That's the type of puritannical, sex-negative authoritarians we're dealing with in this debate. That's what makes it very different to other anti-vax movements - while others are generally comprised of a random mish mash of conspiracy minded folks, the HPV conspiracy is being heavily pushed by determined social conservatives who are tormented every day with the knowledge that people all over the world are engaging in sexual acts for no reason other than that they're enjoying it, and that it's no longer socially acceptable to have an opinion on what others do with their own bodies. So they hitched their wagon to the "vaccines are dangerous" brand instead.

Before that, you literally had Republicans in the US Congress commissioning scientific surveys to determine whether the HPV vaccine was correlated with an increase in teenage promiscuity. That's the kind of complete and total w@nker (pun intended) we're dealing with here. These are the same kinds of people who probably agreed with the Catholic Church's years long crusade against contraception being used in Africa to prevent the spread of HIV - to them, STIs are a plague sent by God as a divine judgement for people who sin, or something along those lines.

There's no reasoning with these f*ckers. But they managed to dress their ideology up in the trojan horse of the wider anti-vax movement, which is why we're having to have these ridiculous conversations about the HPV vaccine ad nauseum.

endacl

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Things i have learned from this thread

1. OP has never had a blow job

/list

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In this case, the alternative view (which they keep trying to conceal behind bullsh!t about side effects etc) is "teens shouldn't be experimenting sexually [for many of these people, insert "before marriage" after this statement] and therefore it's only the bad / naughty / dirty / sinful ones who are at risk of getting cancer". If one follows that to its logical conclusion, it basically means "if you die of an STD, you got what you deserved for being a slut".

That’s you drawing what from your perspective appears to be the only possible logical conclusion based upon your objection to anyone who disagrees with your bullshìt sexually liberal ideology.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But they managed to dress their ideology up in the trojan horse of the wider anti-vax movement, which is why we're having to have these ridiculous conversations about the HPV vaccine ad nauseum.

As opposed to dressing up mandatory vaccination as a means to prevent cervical cancer in women in order to further your own sexually liberal ideology isn’t the very definition of authoritarianism which attempts to deprive people of their civil liberties. G’way with your nonsense that you give a tinkers fcuk for anyone beyond yourself and your own ideology.

ollkiller

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-mandatory-vaccines-4608031-Apr2019/



Why is the impression given by some journalists in the Irish media that the MMR and HPV vaccines are equally important?


Mandatory MMR vaccination would be justified because measles, mumps and rubella are very contagious and have caused deaths or brain damage.



However, HPV is a sexually-transmitted virus. Many sexually-active adults have HPV but the number of cases in which it leads to cancer is small. If a woman who has never had sex before has sex with a man who has never had sex before then she won't contract HPV and so she won't have cervical cancer.



The impression is being given that there's a possibility that secondary school pupils would be given the HPV vaccine against their will. I hope I'm wrong.

Please tell me you're trolling. Lord above. You said that not getting the mmr vaccine can lead to brain injury and death. What do you think cancer leads to? If you're actually over 18 you need to have a word with yourself.

The Princess Bride

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I'd very much support a move to allowing teens to get it without parental consent.

Once they're 16, they can consent themselves.

The issue is that, it's recommended to be vaccinated before they're sexually active.
So if parent won't give consent, and the teen wants to be vaccinated, well the question is, are they gonna hold off on sexual activity until they can sign their own consent?

Depends on maturity of the teen, I guess.

Gimme A Pound

Wesser wrote: »

whats your point?
Are you saying that because HPV is sexually transmitted it should not be vaccinated against?

There can be a right bunch of Cathy Newmans here - you know they didn't say that at all.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s you drawing what from your perspective appears to be the only possible logical conclusion based upon your objection to anyone who disagrees with your bullshìt sexually liberal ideology.

It's Occam's Razor. That's what these people are getting at. If you put two and two together and only end up with three...

As opposed to dressing up mandatory vaccination as a means to prevent cervical cancer in women in order to further your own sexually liberal ideology isn’t the very definition of authoritarianism which attempts to deprive people of their civil liberties. G’way with your nonsense that you give a tinkers fcuk for anyone beyond yourself and your own ideology.

Where in hell did you see me advocating mandatory vaccination? I have never supported nor defended any such thing. You're absolutely right that it would be a step too far. I can bitterly condemn people who would inflict pain and suffering on their children to keep them away from the "evils" of having a their own individual sexuality, while respecting the principle that mandatory medical intervention of this kind is 100% unacceptable in a civilised society.

I did say that I believe they should be able to get it without their parents' consent if they want to get it. That's a very, very far cry from advocating "mandatory vaccinations". Perhaps you're confusing me with a different poster?

hatrickpatrick

The Princess Bride wrote: »

Once they're 16, they can consent themselves.

The issue is that, it's recommended to be vaccinated before they're sexually active.
So if parent won't give consent, and the teen wants to be vaccinated, well the question is, are they gonna hold off on sexual activity until they can sign their own consent?

Depends on maturity of the teen, I guess.

That's why I'm suggesting that in this case, they should be able to consent to the vaccine when they're younger than the current minimum age to do so. It's the same reason I fundamentally oppose sex ed in school being optional or requiring parental consent - I do not believe that parents should have the right to attempt to stunt or cripple their child's development as a sexual human being during adolescence. It's psychologically damaging in all kinds of f*cked up ways, as indeed we've seen in Ireland now that we're emerging from years upon years of allowing the church to do it to our entire society.

Sleeper12

political analyst wrote:

Mandatory MMR vaccination would be justified because measles, mumps and rubella are very contagious and have caused deaths or brain damage.

HPV is very contagious and the vaccine saves lives.

The HPV vaccine is as important as the MMR vaccine. The idea in both cases is to eradicate the disease. People opting out of the HPV vaccine based on the Facebook scaremongering means that the disease won't be eradicated.

Leo talks a lot of nonsense but children shouldn't be allowed into creshe or school without vacation. I can't leave my dog into the groomers or a kennel without showing vaccination papers

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's Occam's Razor. That's what these people are getting at. If you put two and two together and only end up with three...

It seems obvious to you so it must be true?

Really, I hope that’s not the basis of your argument.

Where in hell did you see me advocating mandatory vaccination? I have never supported nor defended any such thing. You're absolutely right that it would be a step too far. I can bitterly condemn people who would inflict pain and suffering on their children to keep them away from the "evils" of having a their own individual sexuality, while respecting the principle that mandatory medical intervention of this kind is 100% unacceptable in a civilised society.

I did say that I believe they should be able to get it without their parents' consent if they want to get it. That's a very, very far cry from advocating "mandatory vaccinations". Perhaps you're confusing me with a different poster?

Mandatory vaccination is what’s being argued for and is the intended effect of depriving people of their civil liberties. You can’t fail to have noticed that such policies have a direct detrimental effect on societies in which they are implemented, but if I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you haven’t noticed -


The impact of mandates in European countries has been assessed by the EU-funded ASSET project which found no clear link between vaccine uptake and mandatory vaccination. The report, which has been cited by the European Commission in response to questions from Members of the European Parliament states: ‘The enforcement of mandatory vaccinations does not appear to be relevant in determining childhood immunisation rate in the analysed countries. Those [countries] where a vaccination is mandatory do not usually reach better coverage than neighbour or similar countries where there is no legal obligation.’

ASSET experts have also argued that while mandatory vaccination might fix a short-term problem, it is not a long-term solution. Better organisation of health systems and strong communication strategies may prove more effective. ‘Mandatory vaccinations for both healthcare workers and the public can obtain a rapid improvement in immunisation rates, but in the end, have high costs, especially in term of litigation,’ says Dr Darina O’Flanagan, previous Director of Health Protection Surveillance Centre Ireland and a member of the Advisory Forum of the European Centre for Disease Control 2005-2016.

This is echoed by the EU Commissioner with responsibility for health, Dr Vytenis Andriukaitis ‘The legitimate goal of achieving the highest possible immunisation rates can be attained through less stringent policies, and most Member States prefer the adoption of ‘recommendation policies’ or else a mix of obligation/recommendation policies,’ according to EU Commissioner.


Source: MANDATORY VACCINATION: DOES IT WORK IN EUROPE?


And they’re not an anti-vaccination lobby group either.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It seems obvious to you so it must be true?

Really, I hope that’s not the basis of your argument.

The OP said:

"Mandatory MMR vaccination would be justified because measles, mumps and rubella are very contagious and have caused deaths or brain damage.

However, HPV is a sexually-transmitted virus. Many sexually-active adults have HPV but the number of cases in which it leads to cancer is small. If a woman who has never had sex before has sex with a man who has never had sex before then she won't contract HPV and so she won't have cervical cancer."

HPV is massively contagious. The method of transmission is not relevant to that. And it is well documented as causing many other cancers apart from cervical - as I mentioned, several doctors have recently gone on record as being alarmed at the rise in oral and throat cancers caused by HPV, in particular.

The fact that the OP included the anecdote that "if a woman who has never had sex before has sex with a man who has never had sex before then she won't contract HPV" as if this is in any relevant to the question of how contagious this virus should be viewed as, is why I'm making the very, very small logical jump that the OP is approaching this from the point of view of a sexually transmitted infection not counting as "contagious", because people have to engage in sex in order to transmit it. Taken with the OP's apparent opposition to the vaccine, but his/her being ok with others such as MMR because they're "traditionally" contagious, IE no sexual activity required, the logical conclusion is that the OP is approaching this from a "promiscuity should be discouraged instead of vaccinating against the consequences of it" point of view.

Anyone who brings up sexual promiscuity, virginity, number of partners etc in a debate over a vaccine which makes all of those other factors irrelevant, is clearly approaching it from a puritanical point of view. That's my view, anyway.

It would be no different to someone suggesting that a hypothetical vaccine against skin cancer shouldn't be viewed as important because people can just choose not to use tanning beds instead. It's the suggestion that people should make "better" lifestyle choices even when there's a solution available which negates any need for those lifestyle choices.

Mandatory vaccination is what’s being argued for and is the intended effect of depriving people of their civil liberties. You can’t fail to have noticed that such policies have a direct detrimental effect on societies in which they are implemented, but if I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you haven’t noticed -

The impact of mandates in European countries has been assessed by the EU-funded ASSET project which found no clear link between vaccine uptake and mandatory vaccination. The report, which has been cited by the European Commission in response to questions from Members of the European Parliament states: ‘The enforcement of mandatory vaccinations does not appear to be relevant in determining childhood immunisation rate in the analysed countries. Those [countries] where a vaccination is mandatory do not usually reach better coverage than neighbour or similar countries where there is no legal obligation.’

ASSET experts have also argued that while mandatory vaccination might fix a short-term problem, it is not a long-term solution. Better organisation of health systems and strong communication strategies may prove more effective. ‘Mandatory vaccinations for both healthcare workers and the public can obtain a rapid improvement in immunisation rates, but in the end, have high costs, especially in term of litigation,’ says Dr Darina O’Flanagan, previous Director of Health Protection Surveillance Centre Ireland and a member of the Advisory Forum of the European Centre for Disease Control 2005-2016.

This is echoed by the EU Commissioner with responsibility for health, Dr Vytenis Andriukaitis ‘The legitimate goal of achieving the highest possible immunisation rates can be attained through less stringent policies, and most Member States prefer the adoption of ‘recommendation policies’ or else a mix of obligation/recommendation policies,’ according to EU Commissioner.

Source: MANDATORY VACCINATION: DOES IT WORK IN EUROPE?

And they’re not an anti-vaccination lobby group either.

I agree with all of that. I'm aware that some people are pushing mandatory vaccination, but I am not one of those people, contrary to what you seem to think. Again, I wonder if perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? Anyone who suggests mandatory vaccination (or mandatory any medical intervention, tbh) can f*ck right off.

Now, if it's a question of restricting unvaccinated individuals from contact with others who might be at risk of infection (such as the current debate over banning unvaccinated kids from school or segregating them in some way), that's where in my view it gets a lot more tricky. There's no clear cut moral right answer to that, at least as far as I can see - either choice potentially harms someone. So there's a debate to be had about it. But I certainly have never defended mandatory medical intervention against an individual's will, and nor will I ever. I am extremely black and white when it comes to bodily autonomy, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Your body, your choice.

Going by the ugh reaction to oral sex and sex in general from some posters, it explains the other posts I have read from them. Sexual frustration is a bastard.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's the suggestion that people should make "better" lifestyle choices even when there's a solution available which negates any need for those lifestyle choices.

Public health bodies suggest that people make better lifestyle choices all the time, prevention being better than cure and all that. Vaccine programmes absolutely do not offer a solution which negates any need for those lifestyle choices, but what their availability does lead to, as you are clearly demonstrating - is complacency among people who value sexual liberation over public health.

I agree with all of that. I'm aware that some people are pushing mandatory vaccination, but I am not one of those people, contrary to what you seem to think. Again, I wonder if perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? Anyone who suggests mandatory vaccination (or mandatory any medical intervention, tbh) can f*ck right off.

I’m not confusing you with anyone else when in this very thread you are advocating that parental rights be removed from parents in furtherance of promoting your own sexually liberal ideology. The people who would be most affected by any such measures are the people who could least afford to exercise their fundamental human right to privacy of the family because they are dependent upon the State for support. Those wealthy enough who are not dependent upon the State will undoubtedly tell the State to f*ck right off.

Now, if it's a question of restricting unvaccinated individuals from contact with others who might be at risk of infection (such as the current debate over banning unvaccinated kids from school or segregating them in some way), that's where in my view it gets a lot more tricky. There's no clear cut moral right answer to that, at least as far as I can see - either choice potentially harms someone. So there's a debate to be had about it. But I certainly have never defended mandatory medical intervention against an individual's will, and nor will I ever. I am extremely black and white when it comes to bodily autonomy, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Your body, your choice.

Unless they are a child, then it’s their parents choice, and attempting to remove parental consent is exactly the kind of harmful consequences of your sexually liberal ideology. As much as it may gall you as an individual that parents are the primary and natural educators of their own children, they are under no obligation to adhere to your political world view. You can be as black and white about your own bodily autonomy all you like, but that has nothing to do with the State being obligated to protect the human rights and interests of the family as the fundamental unit of society.

That’s why for all his virtue signalling, Simon Harris knows full well he hasn’t got shìt, and he’s likely to be told as much by the AG.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The blame game is something many cancer patients have to field unfortunately.

“Did you smoke?”
“Did you ever eat processed foods!”
“Were you ever overweight?”
“Were you promiscuous?”

Anything, anything for people to convince themselves that they themselves won’t suffer the same fate, sensitivity towards the sufferer be damned.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The blame game is something many cancer patients have to field unfortunately.

“Did you smoke?”
“Did you ever eat processed foods!”
“Were you ever overweight?”
“Were you promiscuous?”

Anything, anything for people to convince themselves that they themselves won’t suffer the same fate, sensitivity towards the sufferer be damned.

I get this, an aunt of mine was told that her bone cancer was caused by the fact that she smoked for a year in her teens. Strange how it took over 50 years to materialise.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DubInMeath wrote: »

I get this, an aunt of mine was told that her bone cancer was caused by the fact that she smoked for a year in her teens. Strange how it took over 50 years to materialise.

Whoever told her that is a spoofer. It’s possible but nobody could say for certain. I’m not sure which bone cancers even have smoking as a serious risk factor.

And even if that was the cause, why kick somebody when they’re down? The worst has already happened.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Whoever told her that is a spoofer. It’s possible but nobody could say for certain. I’m not sure which bone cancers even have smoking as a serious risk factor.

And even if that was the cause, why kick somebody when they’re down? The worst has already happened.

Sorry didn't make the end of my post show that I believe it to be bull.
The doctor leading her treatment told her as much, and that who ever told her this was the cause was an ass.
She never told me who said it to her as she didn't want to cause trouble, but I have an idea who it was as their an outright bastard most of the time.

Gimme A Pound

DubInMeath wrote: »

Going by the ugh reaction to oral sex and sex in general from some posters, it explains the other posts I have read from them. Sexual frustration is a bastard.

Who has reacted to sex in such a way? All that was said about oral sex is that a lot of girls in their teens hardly enjoy it or want to do it... and having been a teenage girl with many teenage female friends, I know that's a fact.

As you get older though, and get involved with people whom you like, and you become more sexually experienced and comfortable, then your outlook changes.

Some awful made-up nonsense gets resorted to here about people who aren't into an extremely laissez faire outlook on sex (despite how big a deal it actually is in certain contexts) - that if you're not into being wildly promiscuous or "freaky", then you must be the most uptight of prudes and there could never be an in between.

Kenneth Eager Slot

Kenneth Eager Slot wrote: »

Who has reacted to sex in such a way? All that was said about oral sex is that a lot of girls in their teens hardly enjoy it or want to do it... and having been a teenage girl with many teenage female friends, I know that's a fact.

As you get older though, and get involved with people whom you like, and you become more sexually experienced and comfortable, then your outlook changes.

Some awful made-up nonsense gets resorted to here about people who aren't into an extremely laissez faire outlook on sex (despite how big a deal it actually is in certain contexts) - that if you're not into being wildly promiscuous or "freaky", then you must be the most uptight of prudes and there could never be an in between.

It's nothing to do with being promiscuous, a term I don't particularly like as it tends to be applied to women more than men in general. I just equate the constant moaning posts to what an ex of mine called the loaded gun syndrome. Sort of similar to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bIYBetDT2Y

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sorry didn't make the end of my post show that I believe it to be bull.
The doctor leading her treatment told her as much, and that who ever told her this was the cause was an ass.
She never told me who said it to her as she didn't want to cause trouble, but I have an idea who it was as their an outright bastard most of the time.

Infuriating. I’m sorry your aunt had to put up with that shït when she had enough on her plate.

I even hate smokers with lung cancer being questioned (and it happens depressingly often). They know they likely caused their illness, the worst has already happened, what does questioning them serve only but to reassure the asker that they are safe? (even though 15% of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers) The afflicted aren’t people any more, just cautionary tales in human form. :rolleyes: Those “cautionary tales” are still somebody’s loved one/friend/lover.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, that's the attitude. Make the the topic yet another sacred cow.

A sacred cow like the way that a nail through the thumb is a bad thing?


You should really stop watching those post Joe Rogan youtube suggestions. There was a time when you made sense here and then you left angrily when you couldn't handle defending your right to prefer women without penises. Now you're just another caricature who feels like he needs to defend the Tommy Robinson types.


That's quite the drop.

Ken.

Seen this a few days ago and been searching for it since this thread opened.

How to break an anti vaxers brain.

political analyst

Kenneth Eager Slot wrote: »

Absolutely. You can be sure plenty of them do it because they feel they have to or they'll be called frigid or whatever.

Does it not occur to them that the effect of performing oral sex is much worse than the effect of being called "frigid"?

political analyst

Sleeper12 wrote: »

HPV is very contagious and the vaccine saves lives.

The HPV vaccine is as important as the MMR vaccine. The idea in both cases is to eradicate the disease. People opting out of the HPV vaccine based on the Facebook scaremongering means that the disease won't be eradicated.

Leo talks a lot of nonsense but children shouldn't be allowed into creshe or school without vacation. I can't leave my dog into the groomers or a kennel without showing vaccination papers

What if a boy or girl doesn't want to get the HPV vaccine on the grounds that he or she would never have sex until adulthood and would never have sex with someone who has 'slept around'?



An alternative to getting the HPV vaccine is asking your partner to take a HPV test before you have sex with him or her.

amcalester

Kenneth Eager Slot wrote: »

Absolutely. You can be sure plenty of them do it because they feel they have to or they'll be called frigid or whatever.

Isn’t that even more reason to have the vaccine.

amcalester

political analyst wrote: »

What if a boy or girl doesn't want to get the HPV vaccine on the grounds that he or she would never have sex until adulthood and would never have sex with someone who has 'slept around'?



An alternative to getting the HPV vaccine is asking your partner to take a HPV test before you have sex with him or her.

The more you post the more it appears that your issue isn’t with the vaccine but what the vaccine protects against and/or how it is transmitted.

political analyst

amcalester wrote: »

Isn’t that even more reason to have the vaccine.

It's more reason to step-up the fight against bullying. A girl who doesn't want to have sex is unlikely to hang around with boys who would call her "frigid" and I can't imagine other girls putting pressure on them to have sex, i.e. the idea of girls sticking together, the sisterhood, feminism and all that.

amcalester

political analyst wrote: »

It's more reason to step-up the fight against bullying. A girl who doesn't want to have sex is unlikely to hang around with boys who would call her "frigid" and I can't imagine other girls putting pressure on them to have sex, i.e. the idea of girls sticking together, the sisterhood, feminism and all that.

It’s not an either or situation though is it?

Of course efforts should be increased to stop bullying, and better sex-ed classes which could incorporate consent would also help. But why not use all weapons at our disposal.

Sleeper12

political analyst wrote:

What if a boy or girl doesn't want to get the HPV vaccine on the grounds that he or she would never have sex until adulthood and would never have sex with someone who has 'slept around'?

A boy or girl are too young to make that decision. Jasus my whole class took the pledge at the time of conformation. Within 3 years most of them drank alcohol.

How many 13 year old girls truly believed that they would never have sex before marrying the man they fell instantly in love with (love at first sight)? Fortunately we don't let children make life & death decisions for themselves.

Capt'n Midnight

political analyst wrote: »

However, HPV is a sexually-transmitted virus. Many sexually-active adults have HPV but the number of cases in which it leads to cancer is small. If a woman who has never had sex before has sex with a man who has never had sex before then she won't contract HPV and so she won't have cervical cancer.

Two different opinions

The Daily Mail - Irish version campaigning for the HPV vaccine, the UK version campaigning against it. :rolleyes:

The other opinion is the hard evidence of the experience in Scotland. Hundreds of lives saved. Simple as.

Also it's a human disease so vaccinating one generation completely could eradicate it forever. The only alternative is to insist on all future generations suffering from it , something I couldn't have on my conscience.



I haven't given an opinion on the likely effectiveness of abstinence for bleedin' obvious reasons.