Comments

102
MyChalkLine .... watch it, you'll be labeled as evil in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
103
I've been called an evil queer (and worse) more than once for refusing to participate in "group think". I Have thicker skin than an elephant.
104
@ 101, you may not have that right, but the people do.

Read up on HPV. And, for the sake of argument, tell me where the line should be drawn.
105
Oh I don't think MyChalkLine is evil; he/she is absolutely entitlted to his/her opinion. And in any event the fact that he/she is in no position to make public policy makes him/her completely harmless.
106
I think having HPV vaccines available are good, and I hate the utterly uninformed and anti-scientific yammering from Republicans. I'm vaccinated. I think it, along with safer-sex practices and my long term monogamous relationship, is likely to reduce the chance that I get cervical cancer. I want everyone, male and female, to have easy access to it and the information to make an informed decision to (in most cases) get it. If I had kids, I'd vaccinate them (as long as they had no previous vaccine-related reactions).

However, the mandate for vaccinating for this disease is problematic for me for several reasons.
1. Unlike other standard vaccinations, this disease has a very, very small public health impact. Most people have had or do have some strain of this disease, and there are only around 4000 deaths per year from it in the US. (Fewer than deaths caused/contributed by the diarrhea-inducing C. difficile, for which vaccines are in the pipeline that are unlikely to ever be mandated.)
2. Vaccines have side effects, and that should be taken into account.
3. Vaccines are not free, someone has to pay for them.
4. The efficacy of this vaccine is limited to only 2 strains of carcinogenic HPV and 2 that cause warts, and the strength and duration of immunity are not well established. Of the 4000 deaths/year caused by cervical cancer, not all of those would have been prevented by universal implementation of this vaccine. Some women would have gotten it despite vaccination - either the immunity was not strong enough to repel the infection, the immunity started off strong but waned to susceptibility before the woman was exposed to the virus, or the cancer involved a strain not covered by the vaccine.
5. It is unknown how many of those cases could have been prevented by timely Pap-smears, or how many cases are prevented by timely smears regardless of strain.

The risk-reward information I have seen is that this vaccine may not be sufficient to justify a mandate, particularly when it hasn't been out long enough to establish long-term benefits or potential hazards. I have vehemently defended this vaccine in many fora, but I can't defend the mandate on this one. MMR? DPT? Those are important mandates. This one is much greyer than we are letting on. Let us not allow our distrust of anti-science superstition lead us to make similar mistakes. If a broader, cheaper, more effective vaccine for HPV comes along, that might get to the point of justifying a mandate. Gardasil does not.

Vaccination was a good idea for me: I am healthy and had no previous vaccine reactions, I knew that I would "age out" of the current recommended age to be vaccinated if I waited a long time for additional data, and I understood that the vaccine provided limited protection from 2 strains of carcinogenic virus. I had insurance that covered it. My risk was minimal, and my gain weighed out greater. This is highly variable.
107
Addendum: "Complely harmless" unless of course MyChalkLine is one of those who are unaware that they are infected with HPV and is merrily spreading it about like a chalk drawing of Typhoid Mary. And considering that HPV has been found under people's fingernails, and one can be infected by skin to skin contact that doesn't necessarily involve any kind of penetration, he/she could very possibly be doing just that.
Ya neveh know.
108
@104 I have explained where the line should be drawn. If you pose a risk to the public through casual contact then you're a public health hazard.

@105 You are correct I am as harmless as you are and my vote, like yours, counts just once. Neither of us are in a superior position to make public policy. We do that together through debate and voting. I find you equally harmless and incapable of dictating public policy. :-)
109
@107 Agreed if we took the advice of some people commenting here we'd mandate tetanus vaccines. Some people lack the mental abilities to know when they are intruding on other peoples choice. But of course these same people find other choices (like abortion) to be sacrosanct. A case could be made for or against abortion (for the public good), with lunatics taking extreme positions on each side, but it always comes down to a womans right to do with her body as she pleases.
110
Sorry that last comment was directed @106 not the troll @107
111
If facts are trolling, then by God, bring on the trolls.
112
Actually "unregistered" @111 I didn't see any facts posted by 105/107 just ignorant accusations that i might be infected with HPV and an attempt to diminish my opinion. Basic trolling 101.
113
So you want to draw the line at individuals? How do you determine who is a threat without violating individual rights?

That strikes me as pretty damn much the opposite of a libertarian principle.
114
@109 We do mandate the tetanus vaccine (it's the T in DPT). We mandate all sorts of vaccines that pose no threat of infection through casual contact, but have severe consequences if a person has not been innoculated.
115
@114 [vaccines *for diseases* that pose no threat of infection through casual contact]
116
@112: "ignorant accusations that i might be infected with HPV "

It's a fact that you may be infected with HPV and not know it. As mentioned earlier, children and nuns/others with no possible sexual history have been found to carry anogenital HPV. Warts can also be transmitted prenatally and during birth.

Putting your hands over your ears and going NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH doesn't make your argument any stronger, you know.
117
If you're too lazy to research your own disproven claims-

http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/conten…

"Comment: Children may become infected with HPV at any time and via various modes of transmission. Given these realities and possible viral latency, evaluation of the mode of transmission is extremely challenging. In this study, all infants under age 1 year had innocent transmission. In this small sample, children older than 6 had a high rate of suspected or proven sexual abuse, and most abused children were girls. However, there are no reliable rules. "
118
@116 It's also equally a fact that i may not be infected. Are you really so naive as to not recognize trolling ?

I also do not recall putting my hands over my ears, I can understand people just fine without personal insults and accusations meant entirely to elicit an emotional response.

Your facts about HPV do not warrant a mandate. Woman can potentially transmit any number of diseases to their fetus. I recognize the reasons someone SHOULD CHOSE to be vaccinated. I do not recognize the authority to mandate it without public health being in jeopardy.
119
@118: "Your facts about HPV do not warrant a mandate"

And that's your personal opinion/worldview, which I'm not going to address. Your excuses about why it's not such an issue for people having sex are what I'm going after.

"It's also equally a fact that i may not be infected. Are you really so naive as to not recognize trolling ?"

That's not trolling. She's right. Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like KittenKoder to react positively.
120
Er, that should read "Your excuses about why it's not an issue for the chaste or people with one monogamous partner in their life"
121
@ #113 - That is because Chalky has no idea what it means to be a libertarian. It just makes Chalky feel better to label itself that way.
122
@113 "How do you determine who is a threat without violating individual rights?"

It isn't the individual that is being discussed it is the mandating of vaccine for a disease that is not communicable through casual contact. You aren't violating anyones individual rights by recognizing certain diseases are a communicable threat to us all. Mandating an individual to be vaccinated must be because the disease if contracted would threaten someone else who is not engaging in risky behavior with another individual but through casual contact.

Tetanus BTW requires ongoing boosters until death, which is not mandated. You can never become immune to Tetanus.

From the CDC: "Each state has immunization requirements, sometimes called "school laws," that must be met before a child may enter school. These may include vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and hepatitis B. Some states have added varicella (chicken pox) vaccination to the list of required vaccines. Smallpox vaccination was once required, but the disease has been so successfully eradicated that this vaccination is no longer needed.

In most states, a parent must bring written proof of a child's immunizations from the health provider or clinic at the time of school registration. If a required vaccination has not been obtained, and there is no health condition or religious objection preventing immunization, the child must receive the vaccinations before school entry.

These required vaccinations DON'T JUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN in a classroom. They protect the teachers, parent volunteers, visiting grandparents, and everyone else who enters the classroom or provides services to the school. The blanket of protection provided by rubella ("German measles") vaccination is especially important for women who are pregnant. Rubella can cause serious effects on the developing fetus, including deafness, blindness, heart disease, brain damage, or other serious problems, including miscarriage. Today's middle-aged adults may remember how common this disease was before the rubella vaccine became available. Rubella was feared for its effects, including ear infection, pneumonia, diarrhea, seizures, brain damage, and death"
123
@119 That's IS trolling. "Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like Lissa to react positively."

Facts do not include personal insults and are never directed at a particular individual but at the topic being discussed. You should know better.
124
@122: Not everyone died from Polio, but we sure managed to eradicate that for everyone's benefit.

People who harp on HPV because of sex-related "moralization", and because there's no test for men. You at this point carry several strains of HPV. You could also be carrying a strain of highly cancerous HPV and you wouldn't know it.

You're not giving any legitimate health-related reasons against vaccinations other than "FREEDOMS".

Which, again, is your opinion, but you're not being very persuasive about it or bringing up any points of interest.
125
@123: "Facts do not include personal insults and are never directed at a particular individual but at the topic being discussed. You should know better."

KittenKoder and yourself can get the vapors all you wish. "Troll" isn't someone who insults you while offering information. It's a fallacy to say that someone's a moron and therefore not to listen to them, it's not a logical fallacy to say that you're a moron BECAUSE x. It may not be nice speech, but when you're both offering judgments and not researching your arguments, it gets people riled up.
126
@124 "You're not giving any legitimate health-related reasons against vaccinations other than "FREEDOMS".

That's because i think people should be vaccinated. I do not believe people should be mandated to do so. I don't need to prove anything.

@125 You seem not to understand the definition of "Troll" here it is sweety:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Now if I were to say you were a "MORON because" you seem not to understand this i would be "Trolling" regardless of accuracy.
127
Quoth @122:
Mandating an individual to be vaccinated must be because the disease if contracted would threaten someone else who is not engaging in risky behavior with another individual but through casual contact.
It's worth pointing out that not all "risky behavior" is voluntary. Roughly 2% of American women are sexually assaulted each year, and the incidence of HPV infection in the sexually active population is roughly 30% (likely higher for rapists). Which means the average woman probably has a greater chance of being exposed to HPV through no choice of her own than I do of being exposed to polio.

The factor that most makes me support mandatory vaccination is not the transmission rate but the fact that the vaccinated are children. I agree that there is a right to bodily autonomy, and it makes me uncomfortable when the government starts saying "you must do X with your body" or "you must not do X." That's one of the principles that renders me pro-choice. But I do not think that right extends in full to your children.

For instance, I am allowed to make dumb medical decisions for myself. I can refuse a blood transfusion or other basic medical care, even if that refusal costs me my life. I cannot, however, kill my kids by refusing to allow them a blood transfusion or keeping them at home for prayer instead of taking them to the hospital. And I completely agree with those laws: my right to my own crazy does not allow me to fuck up my kids.

So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
128
@126: "I don't need to prove anything."

Right, then why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

@125: Trolls are unconstructive. Lissa's a productive member of the forum and offers more than opinion, unlike yourself.
129
Gracious MyChalkLine has called me a troll! I am actually quite tickled by this. :)
But seriously MCL, (may I call you MCL?) since HPV is pretty much asymptomatic it is entirely possible that you could unknowingly be both infected and infecting others, as for that matter, could I, which could mean neither one of us is harmless.
HPV is not an indictment of your moral purity; it is a virus. But the fact that you took offense at this hypothetical scenario is indicative of the weight that you personally give one virus over another, and it is that tipping of the scale with cultural baggage that can get in the way of effective medical practices.
But I’m sorry if I got your dander up.

Signed
A Harmless Little Bunny
130
@122 Vaccine mandates apply exclusively to children. There is no such thing as an adult mandate for vaccination in the US. Most vaccinations require boosters throughout life in order to maintain immunity, but we do not require adults to do this.

Also, you are wrong in your assumption about the rationale for vaccine mandates. Vaccines are not mandated exclusively because a disease is a threat to others via casual contact, but because the vaccine benefits public health to a degree that outweighs the cost of the vaccine itself. This is the rationale for most public health interventions.

And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons), non-cervical HPV-related cancers have been steadily increasing for decades now, and we do not have effective screening tests for these sites as we do for the cervix. The potential public health impact of this vaccine is much greater than kaliann @106 assumes.
131
@126 Also: Lissa is not a troll. She is a much more frequent commenter here than you and always posts on topic, and does so without resorting to petty name-calling.

I hate to get involved in these kinds of spats, but when you start calling people names that tacitly accuse that person of derailing the thread and illiciting an emotioanl response, well, that irony is just too delicious to pass up.
132
@128 "Lissa's a productive member of the forum and offers more than opinion, unlike yourself."

Take your own advice: "Your sophistry and willful ignorance aren't preferable to fact-based posts. Don't try to combat facts solely with opinion and expect anyone but fellow head-in-the-sands like XXX to react positively."

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You seem to have taken my opinions seriously and have reflected nothing but your own opinion back. If you are unwilling to admit when someone is trolling then rational debate with you is useless and a waste of time.
133
@131 [*emotional*]
134
@129 My dander is not up. I take offense only by the arrogance on display in comment 105. As i stated before neither of us is more capable of dictating public policy than the other. We are both here commenting on the story and the mandate. We both know this was a coy attempt to insult me. Harmless as it is, it's not on topic.
135
@132: You're not debating, you're saying "I don't like this". One doesn't debate with personal opinions, unless you're going to get deep into wanky sophistry.

@130: "And while I agree with the point made @106 that it's too soon to mandate the HPV vaccine (it's only been on the market for 5 years, among other reasons)"

At least a point to work with (far too nuanced and substantial for Chalky), though Gardasil has been in development and testing for the last thirty years.
136
@132: "You seem to have taken my opinions seriously and have reflected nothing but your own opinion back"

I've pointed out that infants and virgins get cancerous strains of HPV on a regular basis.

You've offered fluff and huff and vague, undigested libertopian virtue.
137
@131 "Lissa is not a troll. She is a much more frequent commenter here than you and always posts on topic, and does so without resorting to petty name-calling."

First of all frequency of commentating doesn't mean Lissa wasn't trolling. Second I believe i was associated with "Typhoid Mary". Third it doesn't matter how many people explain how important Lissa is to the discussion it doesn't mean she wasn't trolling in this instance. I don't fear your little mob. My opinion remains unchanged. I support personal choice to be vaccinated but not the mandate to do so. The only thing that would change my mind about that is the discovery that HPV could be transmitted casually; such as riding an elevator, being in a plane, or eating food prepared by an infected person.
138
@136 You may not recognize a debate when you see one but then again you don't recognize "trolling" either. (This is a nice example BTW)

The statement about "infants and virgins" does nothing to further your argument that this vaccine should be mandated. Which is by the way what is being debated.
139
@137 I am not trying to disabuse you of your opinion; I’m only pointing out that your personal rationale for vaccine mandates is at odds with what we do in practice. Fortunately you’re not in charge of vaccine mandates, for if we applied your reasoning there would be a bunch of vaccines added to the mandate list (flu, pneumococcus, TB...) and boosters would be required throughout life.
140
@134: Well, I'd sure hate to further aggravate your dander. I guess I better accede to your assertion that letting people go unvaccinated against HPV couldn't possibly endanger the public health.
141
There's nothing worse in life than getting all rufflefeathered because one doesn't understand basic concepts like "herd immunity".
142
Don't be unfair venomlash, Chalky believes in vaccines..but only for diseases you can catch from elevators (or something like that).
143
@139 What we do in practice is provide a "philosophical or religious exemption" to all vaccines so in truth mandates for vaccinations are nothing more than bureaucracy a person/parent opposed to such a vaccination need to deal with.

Oh and if we mandated vaccine of Flu and Pneumococcus we would prevent far more deaths per year than by mandating HPV vaccine, so there goes the entire argument for a mandate.
144
Oh and in case anyone is confused Virgins and Nuns die from the Flu too. (of course this is another example of "trolling")
145
"Oh and if we mandated vaccine of Flu and Pneumococcus we would prevent far more deaths per year than by mandating HPV vaccine, so there goes the entire argument for a mandate."

If one immunization (rather than a yearly immunization) would be enough, we probably would.

We just don't have the sort of infrastructure in place to do that every year.

146
@144: "Oh and in case anyone is confused Virgins and Nuns die from the Flu too. (of course this is another example of "trolling")"

You must be new to the internet or way thinskinned if you think that's trolling.
147
@143 Preventing death is not the argument in favor of a vaccine mandate. It's providing a public health benefit (this is measured in dollars not lives, although the two are related) that exceeds the cost of the state assuming the financial burden of administering it to everyone. And, as you yourself just pointed out, if one objects to a mandatory vaccine as vehemently as you do, you are welcome to petition for an exemption. Problem solved, everyone wins! Now remind me, what is your problem again?
148
@132, 134 &137: Goodness such a fuss!
I apologize, MyChalkLine, for the invocation of Typhoid Mary, and truly am sorry I ruffled your feathers. I was making a flip, but on topic and accurate observation, and I assure you it was in no way a coy attempt to insult you. If I want to insult you I promise I will be direct about it.

The fact remains that due to the generally asymptomatic nature of HPV, virtually any one could have it, and spread it. This includes you, and as I’ve pointed out in attempt to take the sting out of this fact for you, it includes me as well.

I, and most of the posters here, feel it prudent to ere on the side of caution, since a mandate would incur negligible harm vs measurable good, and find it baffling that any one would object to something proven to save lives. Your main objection, since you agree that the vaccine indeed does save lives, seems to boil down to a variation on You’re Not The Boss Of Me. And that’s not really a good enough argument from our perspective.

You are, absolutely, of course, entitled to your opinion on this subject, as well as giving one virus more moral weight than another if you choose to, but you are unfortunately not entitled to the rest of us being in agreement with you, or to be spared being told so.

And I still don’t think you’re evil. So there. :P
149
@146 If i had not implied your "confusion" by citing Virgins and Nuns you'd be correct. But it was clearly a personal message based solely on eliciting an emotional response. The facts are clear without resorting to such childish behavior. But when in Rome do as the Romans do, if it makes me look "thinskinned" or new to the internet so be it. I'm sure you believe yourself capable of educating me about the error of my ways.
150
@MyChalkLine, well, let me put the question in a rational way.

You claim that it is OK for the government to mandate a vaccination if people who do not engage in risky behavior are nevertheless endangered by some unvaccinated contracting the disease.

Then you claim HPV doesn't qualify because you get it via sex, so people only get it by engaging in 'risky behavior' (i.e. having a partner with HPV) which they could in principle avoid. Hence other people are only harmed willingly, with their own cooperation. Which is why the vaccination shouldn't be obligatory.

Is that so?

But now--if HPV can be so non-symptomatic that many, probably most, people who have HPV don't even know they have it, how can a person actually know s/he is engaging in risky behavior by having sex with someone who honestly believes s/he does not have HPV? Sort of having a crystal ball that tells you who is and who isn't dangerous, that is impossible.

So in order to avoid infection, the only truly guaranteed alternative is complete abstinence. Which I hope you agree is not a reasonable expectation to make. (It would be like saying that a disease transmitted by food could in principle be avoided by not ever eating, by getting one's nutrition only from pills instead -- so no need to mandate vaccination against such a disease.)

My argument would be: since honest people in most cases cannot know if a potential partner has or doesn't have HPV (said partner him/herself most often doesn't either), then barring abstinence it is not possible to say that one is going to engage in 'risky behavior'.

Wouldn't that be enough to make a public health case defensable for obligatory vaccination, even according to your criteria?
151
@148 You comments speak for themselves. Thankfully as you've previously stated to me You, and most of the posters here are in no position to make public policy which makes you completely harmless.
152
@150: "So in order to avoid infection, the only truly guaranteed alternative is complete abstinence."

Even kissing, as the HPV strain responsible for most cervical cancer is linked to cancer of the mouth and throat.
153
"But now--if HPV can be so non-symptomatic that many, probably most, people who have HPV don't even know they have it, how can a person actually know s/he is engaging in risky behavior by having sex with someone who honestly believes s/he does not have HPV? Sort of having a crystal ball that tells you who is and who isn't dangerous, that is impossible."

The same can be said for HIV, that's why it's a epidemic and you're risking your safety by engaging in sex with someone who has not been tested or refuses to use protection (which is comparable to being vaccinated) We of course have an opportunity to discuss such things with a partner before deciding to engage in sex with the. Someone who is a walking Flu virus is not giving the public such a choice. It's as simple as asking a partner if they've been tested/vaccinated and trusting them. They could certainly lie and the mandate wouldn't provide certainty since an exemption could easily be obtained.
154
@153: "The same can be said for HIV"

All you're "proving" here is that you have a poor understanding of HPV transmission and behavior. It's far easier to test for HIV, and possible to test for HIV in men. It's also easier to transmit HPV without direct genital contact.
155
Oh and in case anyone is confused again you could get the flu and die by kissing someone who has it. In fact you don't even need to kiss them you could die just by sharing their air space. (oops i'm trolling again)
156
@155: "Oh and in case anyone is confused again you could get the flu and die by kissing someone who has it."

I explained why we don't mandate vaccinations for influenza.

"oops i'm trolling again"

No, you're just exposing your ignorance.
157
"It's far easier to test for HIV, and possible to test for HIV in men."

Which is why i compared it to being vaccinated for HPV. That's kinda easy too but still should be a choice and if you refuse you only harm yourself or a potential sex partner you're not being honest with. Maybe we should mandate HIV testing?
158
@156 is the HPV mandate meant to prevent death or not? It is clearly comparably to a disease that kills far more every year that a vaccine is also available for but is not mandated. But hey that's just me exposing my ignorance again.
159
Oops, looks like someone got nominated for a Moore Award.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/…

160
Someone needs to take a stand for all the innocent "Virgins and Nuns" dying from the flu. Any idea how many more die each year from the Flu vs. HPV? But maybe it's all about the cost and not the lives the flu vaccine would save.
161
@148: Awww who's all butt hurt now? Good thing I'm so harmless isn't it? ;)

(Now that,FYI MCL, is trolling!)
162
@161 I happen to know I'm trolling (I'm surprised you noticed) but if you hadn't said anything the fake Ayn Rand would have never recognized it. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
163
@159: Ahahhaah, speaking of butthurt. Sully wants to be coddled 24/7 and told he's not like other Conservatives. This is a good example of how wrong it is to treat him as somehow "special", because he can't see horrible behavior from other conservatives, he's got a complete myopia to their ills.

@158: "But hey that's just me exposing my ignorance again."

It is, seeing as you still did not read why it is that we don't.

Since you have issues with reading comprehension, I'll repeat myself. HPV and influenza aren't the same virus. It's crazy! Influenza strains mutate far too quickly for a childhood (or last year's!) vaccine to work for long. If we could perform a childhood vaccination for something so harmful, reality might be shaped differently.
164
Oh and Lissa you shouldn't confuse my willingness to throw a jab at those who've thrown one in my direction as being "butt hurt", I'm simply treating you as you treat others. I guess you're really saying you were "butt hurt" when you made your derogatory comments about my opinion and my person.
165
"if you hadn't said anything the fake Ayn Rand would have never recognized it"

Because I'm only concerned whether you've got any signal-to-noise in your posting. Trolling isn't about how "mean" you sound, it's about whether you're babbling or actually providing a base for your arguments. The best trolls sound sweet at anything and don't ever get heated, they just blather and blather and waste everyone's time.
166
@163 We can provide a vaccination on a yearly basis that will evolve as rapidly as the Flu does. Doing so would save far more lives than vaccinations for HPV. I read your nonsense already i dismissed it because of course it would be costly but after all the intention is to save lives not money. Right Ayn? I'm sure you'll educate me and correct my "ignorance" though you seem to have a need to qualify yourself as the most knowledgeable person here so do it already.
167
Generally speaking... When people on the left tell facts and act civil, no one pays a damn bit of attention. When people on the right shout about death panels and Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim, OMG MAJOR NEWS EVENT.

And sometimes, public need is more important than personal choice. See national health threat prevention, police officers, fire fighters, environmental regulations...

So who here has actually gotten the vaccine? Had their children get it? Planning on getting it?

168
@165 Oops you got that wrong again dear

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

or maybe you like this definition better "Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can."

or this one "The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue."
169
@166: "We can provide a vaccination on a yearly basis that will evolve as rapidly as the Flu does."

Your inability to read past posts is tiring.

We do not have the infrastructure to give it to everyone, barely enough for senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. My aunt works for a public clinic giving vaccinations to schoolchildren (and others) if you'd sincerely like further clarification I'd be happy to research.
170
@169 No need sweetheart we are capable of providing the vaccine to everyone if it's made a priority the "infrastructure" could be in place. But then again we can't very well provide HPV and enough Flu vaccine at the same time. One happens to be far more dangerous and deadly than the other. The wrong one is being mandated because as you said "virgins and nuns" are in danger. Oh my.
171
@170: "we are capable of providing the vaccine to everyone if it's made a priority the "infrastructure" could be in place"

Influenza primarily kills senior citizens, children, and those with compromised immune systems. There is no reason to mandate a flu vaccine every year when it would do very little good in the long run. It mutates much quicker than HPV.

You have very little interest in educating yourself and all interest in pretending that you know what you're talking about. If you're interested in learning more, I can contact people who administer public health and ask for their opinions.
172
But I need you to present actual questions to bother wasting someone's time, not repeating the same false assumptions over and over.
173
@ #166 - Now that is some good trollin'! I knew you would be coming around sooner than later!
174
There is simply no false assumption.

There is only on question that makes a difference to me and the answer should be the same for whether we issue a mandate or not.

Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?

That's the only question that matters to me for a basis to let the government vaccinate by mandate. The answer for the Flu would clearly be yes. How about HPV?
175
Oh and will this HPV vaccine mandate also apply to dentists, doctors, hairstylists, or anyone else who has to touch us to do their job? (You know since it's under your fingernails and all)
176
@168: A truly successful troll may or may not make people angry. The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time. Trolling is a art, and like all arts, it takes skill to pull off.
177
@174: "Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?"

We do not currently *know* this for similar reasons to why we can not test males for HPV unless their partners present evidence. (Or they present visible warts, I suppose.)

Again cancer-causing strains of HPV were found in children with no sexual contact and no indications of those same strains of HPV in the mother. Science doesn't say for sure until it can prove with empirical, non-anecdotal evidence, but it isn't outrageous to think that it may be possible.
178
"The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time."

You said it, brother.
179
@170 - actually, no, we can't. We have to guess, every year, what the antigen shifts in that year's strains of influenza will be. Sometimes we guess wrong. The vaccine cannot be manufactured and distributed without some lag time. We are quite often wrong, especially when there's an extreme shift in the surface proteins.
180
"The mark of high-quality trolling is that it causes people to waste their time."

And you've spent plenty of time explaining your position to me again and again. Thanx
181
"Again cancer-causing strains of HPV were found in children with no sexual contact and no indications of those same strains of HPV in the mother."

Then it's too late for them to be vaccinated. Since as you've said there is so much unknown and yet to learn we should proceed slowly before mandating vaccines that may or may not work and focus that attention on preventing disease we know far more about.

@179 no we can't what? put the infrastructure in place to provide enough vaccine or provide the right vaccine for the strain being passed around?

We most definitely can create the "infrastructure" to provide enough vaccine. But you're right it's a gamble on the strain. This has never before stopped the CDC from recommending yearly vaccination for the Flu. Nor can we guarantee the HPV vaccine to be 100% effective so i guess we should just give up.
182
@162: No, no, no, honey! My comment at 161 was an example of me actually trolling you.
Golly, since you didn’t get that I guess I really must suck at being a troll.
Sigh, so much for my little hopes and dreams….
183
Here's some of that good ole edumakation about HPV i must be lacking that allows me to think other virus are far more dangerous and in need of our attention.

"More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types — different from the ones that cause skin warts — may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer. HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. However, most infections with these types do not cause disease.

Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. Seventy percent of infections are gone in 1 year and ninety percent in 2 years. However, when the infection persists — in 5% to 10% of infected women — there is high risk of developing precancerous lesions of the cervix, which can progress to invasive cervical cancer. This process usually takes 15–20 years, providing many opportunities for detection and treatment of the pre-cancerous lesion. Progression to invasive cancer can be ALMOST ALWAYS prevented when standard prevention strategies are applied, but the lesions still cause considerable burden necessitating preventive surgeries, which do in many cases involve loss of fertility"

Well now i see why these virgins and nuns are in such danger. How could i have been so wrong about the need to force school children to be vaccinated for an STD by mandate.
184
@182 You've been trolling me since comment 105 i'm pretty sure i noticed sweety.
185
@174 "There is only on question that makes a difference to me and the answer should be the same for whether we issue a mandate or not."

"Can a person contract HPV by; Riding in an Elevator, an Airplane, or eating food prepared by an infected person?"

Really? That's your only question? Time to mandate everyone carrying lighting rods, grounding straps and insulated boots then!
186
@ 184, you're really wearing out your welcome.

If everyone else is a troll, why not be the big person and stop responding?
187
@182: Nope.
Just 161. And possibly this comment. :P

Ok, I'll be good and stop teasing you now.

::scampers off to join the other harmless fluffy bunnies::

188
@184 I mean.

::scampers off again::
189
@ 167,

Both our daughter and son have been vaccinated, which takes three doses. Neither had any negative reaction. There is every indication that their IQs are just fine. The eldest was vaccinated nearly 4 years ago.

@ankylosaur,
Thanks.
190
@186 :"you're really wearing out your welcome"

I wasn't aware i was in your house or that i needed an invitation to be here. You always have a choice to ignor what I've posted or kick rocks yourself sweety. However not "everyone else is a troll" I didn't say such a thing. If you don't recognize that comments 105/107 are trolling (which caused me to troll lissa & her defenders as she had trolled me) then you need to figure out what trolling is.

@187/188 Yeah i've heard you sing that tune already. I'm just not buying it.
191
oh christ, are you STILL bickering about what a "troll" is?

I'm sure you're excited by the new world promised to you in the Internet For Dummies series, but grow the fuck up and get a thicker skin. Nobody cares that your feeling were hurt. People will lash out at you if you're a poorly informed asshole. Go back to AOL or ageofautism or RedStare, wherever spawns dumb people with no conception of immunology.
192
@191 "unregistered" My position is not that someone/anyone should not receive the vaccination. so i don't know who you're referring to as "dumb people with no conception of immunology." and "People will lash out at you if you're a poorly informed asshole."

I think i've seen some idiotic statements like infants have been documented to get HPV to make a case for mandatory vaccinations at age 12. These are not people I would consider to be well "informed assholes".

Being against a government mandate is simply not the same as being against vaccinations. I have said since my very first comment (87) here that I agree people should chose to be vaccinated but not forced since the threat to others is minimal.
193
@ 190, are you new to the internet, or something?
194
@192: As I pointed out @127-- which was apparently lost amongst all the trolling allegations-- my biggest concern is that we're not talking about individual choice but rather parent choice. Bodily autonomy does not apply here, and parental autonomy is not nearly as strong a right.

IMO, neither extreme position works regarding parenting rights. If the health of the kids always trumps, then the government would be able to mandate three meals per day, an hour of exercise, etc. If parental rights always trump, then child abuse allegations vanish (the kids are just being "disciplined"), and on a less sinister level parents could refuse routine, life-saving medical procedures for their kids. So there's some line at which children should be protected from the stupidity of their parents, and I'm wondering where you think that line is.

On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children?
195
@193 Not at all.

@194 You became lost in a fog of rape being a reason we need to mandate HPV Vaccine.

After you quoted me rape statistics as a part of your argument you lost me and I honestly stopped reading. I have gone back and read your question.

"So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, why should crazy parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?"

This isn't a question at all just a judgement you seek to validate that these parents are "crazy" and most certainly "crazy parents" shouldn't barely be allowed to exist let alone make a decision concerning their offspring.:-)

"On a related note: do you agree with laws mandating car seats for young children? "

I said i was a Libertarian not an Anarchist. There is a difference.

Maybe you'd support a law banning children from cars for their own safety?

That'll save far more innocent children from being placed in harms way by "crazy parents" driving their kids around. :)
196
@ 195, then what's your reason for not knowing the rules?
197
Not all vaccines are equally effective, and this should be taken into account when considering mandates as a part of the risk-benefit analysis. (In other news, there are serious concerns about the efficacy of flu vaccines in pretty much every species they are given to, and not just for reasons of genetic shift.)

I don't think that HPV is so completely inconsequential that a mandate should never be considered, but I don't think that the current levels of disease incidence, mortality rate, relative costs, and vaccine efficacy are sufficient to justify a mandate at this point.

I've looked at the data on this, published by the CDC. It was at least a year ago that I did so, but I do remember that the efficacy, while present and statistically significant, was not particularly impressive, and was less for the cancer-causing strains than the benign ones. It was enough to justify me getting the vaccine, but a higher standard should be applied to a mandated vaccine.

For example, about 50-70% of cases of cervical cancer involve the strains covered by the vaccine. There is some question as to the efficacy of cancer prevention, but about the best "prevention of cancer" number I could find in the intended treatment population was about 40% (other, non-cancerous lesions were decreased at a higher percentage).

In addition, last I heard, the company currently makes no claims for duration of immunity after 3 years. Most recent studies show efficacy at 8 years out (I don't know at what level). Think about when that would imply the effect potentially wearing out... vaccinate 9-11, immunity might be gone by the time they are 21.

What I don't have on hand is the mortality reduction of the vaccine compared head-to-head with the mortality reduction of the current standard of care (gyne exams, paps, colposcopy, and removal of abnormal tissue). That's pretty relevant.
It is my understanding that, for ethical reasons, once you are in a vaccine study like this, you are ensured access to the standard of care treatments; the variable is whether or not you also got the vaccine. Standard of Care vs Standard of Care+vaccine. I don't think there are data on people actually vaccinated at 11 and then followed to see if they get cancer at 20 (and definitely not at 47, the median age of cervical cancer diagnosis per the CDC), or people who (like many women) don't have access to the standard of care.

My concern: if we vaccinate every 9-11 year old girl in the country and only improve mortality over the current standard of care by 10% [totally hypothetical number], but cost millions of dollars that could have been spent ensuring access to the standard of care to more women... did we do the right thing? Or did we allow people to die because we didn't work through the implications of our actions?

And if a vaccine only gives a 10% bump to your chances against death from a cancer, do we have a reasonable case to mandate that vaccine despite both financial cost and potential side-effects?

Needs MOAR DATA :-)
198
@196 What rules are you referring to the rules of the internet you seem to think I'm new to?

Is that like letting the guy on the right at a four way stop go first?
You'll need to be more specific Matt.
199
@195: You're evading the question. You believe vaccines are a good idea, yes? E.g., @126:
That's because i think people should be vaccinated. I do not believe people should be mandated to do so.
Let me rephrase since you got hung up on "crazy":

So given that the vaccine is undoubtedly a good idea, and given that the best time to administer it is at age 12-13, should parents be allowed to imperil their daughters' lives by refusing to allow those girls to be vaccinated?
200
@195: It must suck to be lost in a fog of rape.
201
@195: FWIW, I do not think the prevalence of rape is "a reason we need to mandate HPV Vaccine." In my post @127, I was pointing out that the distinction you made between vaccines for diseases contracted through "risky behavior" and vaccines for diseases contracted through "casual contact" does not withstand scrutiny. While women can take steps to protect themselves from voluntary HPV contact, a woman who is assaulted is just as "innocent" of the contact as I would be of running into a person with polio in the elevator. And by those statistics, a woman is more likely to have involuntary contact with HPV than I am of having involuntary contact with polio-- because polio is so damn rare.

Or does your "casual contact" rule only apply to more prevalent communication diseases? E.g., you would be opposed to mandatory polio vaccinations because polio is rare, but not mandatory measles vaccinations because measles is more common?

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.