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

Vaccines save lives.

End of discussion.

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.

Teenagers experiment. Always have done, always will do, and there's (a) nothing wrong with it, and (b) nothing anyone can do to stop it. HPV passes from one person to another from more than just intercourse - any form of oral sex, for example, which is generally what teens get into before they go for the full package, can cause a HPV infection which leads to neck or throat cancer. I believe this is actually feared more by doctors as a HPV-caused cancer than cervical cancer - at least that's the impression one gets from the media. I suspect, if this is the case, that government bodies and other mainstream voices focus on cervical cancer due to the high proportion of idiots out there who have a moral problem with oral sex and naively assume that their innocent darlings aren't interested in anything that "gross".

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.

I don't think there's any suggestion of that. Personally I'd very much support a move to allowing teens to get it without parental consent though.

Literally the only reason the HPV vaccine is so controversial stems from right wing Republicans in the US who have a very thinly veiled world view that (a) the threat of getting cervical cancer is a useful tool in preventing "immoral" (ugh) behaviour among young people, and (b) that those who to contract STDs of any kind deserve it. The worst of these loopers are those who believe STDs to be a punishment from God.

It's no coincidence that one of the primary voices behind the anti-vaccine movement here with regard to HPV is Fidelma "fornication is a legitimate concept in the 21st century" Healy Eames. F*ck the lot of them.

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.

Are you trying to say that women who have sex get what they deserve?

You know that men can also develop cancer from HPV? And given that the vast majority of us will have sex in our lifetime, it makes sense to get the vaccination.

I'm gonna put some chicken in my mouth very shortly.

endacl wrote: »

Vaccines save lives.

End of discussion.

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

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

by the way... you exist because your mother had sex....

HPV can even be passed on to your baby via blood stream or during vaginal birth.

Anything that can minimise the risk from high risk HPV strains is good. The virus spreads easily, there needs to be more awareness that pretty much every sexually active person will get in contact with it at some point in their lives and while many infections clear up themselves and go without symptoms it's still there.
If you've ever been to a CervialCheck clinic you realise how incredibly common harmful cell changes are and it can hit every woman from every social background at every age.

Anything that reduces the chances of a woman developing cervical cancer is a good thing.

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?

Because they imagine scaremongering works.

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 first part is true, the second part in bold is a bit more complex than that.

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.

You’re not entirely wrong. Nobody will be given vaccines against their will, nor against their parents wishes. What Simon Harris appears to be advocating for is denying parents public services if they refuse to have their children vaccinated. Simon Harris knows well that such a policy actually has the opposite effect, but hey - more votes, because his report card as Minister for Health is nothing to write home about.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I'm getting the HPV vaccine.

Lots of people don't seem to realize you can get it into your 20s.

You can but it's more likely than not too late.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Men and boys can get the vaccine too. They should

Oh I'm aware, I was replying to a poster who said s/he couldn't imagine any girl or woman actually enjoying giving head, to which I replied that when we talk about teens engaging in oral sex, it's not just f -> m oral sex we're talking about.

That same poster balked at the mere idea of anyone enjoying giving cunnilingus so I'm forced to conclude that s/he has lived a life devoid one of the finer pleasures

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.