Let me start by saying that I am a cervical cancer survivor. Would I wish that experience on anybody, or care to repeat it myself? Absolutely not! That said, there is NO WAY I would have my daughter vaccinated with this brand new vacine, nor would I argue in favor of vaccinating your daughter. While cervical cancer is quite unpleasant, playing guinea pig to the first general population test of a new vaccination does not fit my plan for a healthy lifestyle.
To consider blanket vaccination of all girls for a non-communicable disease that impacts a very small percentage of the population is dangerous and not without severe reproductive and general health ramifications. US Census reports here that in 2005 there were 147,103,173 women in the United States. According to The American Cancer Society, here an estimated 11,500 of those women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year.
Let's do the math -- .0007% of the female population in the US will be affected this year. In the next 50 years, assuming a stagnant 147 odd million women total, less than 4% of the national female population will be affected. Still convinced that vaccinating EVERY 11 year old girl in the United States is a good use of healthcare dollars?
Review the historical record for prescription medications and birth defects. Now imagine EVERY POTENTIAL MOTHER being FORCED to take them before those side effects were known and you might get a glimpse of the potential damage that could be caused by mandating an innoculation program such as this. The company risks bankruptcy at worst. You risk every coming generation of your family.
That is supposing that the Guardasil is even effective in preventing cervical cancer. Read the literature from the manufacturer:
"GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus" Translation: IT MIGHT? guard against related diseases. Or how about this:
"GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone. . " Change the word "everyone" to "anyone" and you have a concrete idea about what they are really saying.
But hey, they are more than willing to gamble with the lives of our daughters on the off-chance that it won't hurt anyone and might just help. At better than $300 a girl--they stand to make enough to pay the lawyers in any potential class-action suits and then some.
Go ahead and get vaccinated, if you want. Have your daughter innoculated even. My family appreciates your donation of your body to science, and we hope that the sacrifice turns out well for you. But as for me and my house, we will pass, thank you very much.
Your comments about "Mexi-fornia" and bilingual culture are ignorant and racist. How did the United States acquire California? Hint: "California" is a Spanish name. For your information, it was actually stolen from Mexico by the United States. Unless you are a person indigenous to the Americas, such as Sioux, Cree, Yaqui or... AZTEC, you are an immigrant! Where did your ancestors come from? Europe? The European immigrants have done plenty of "ruining" around here, so please stop dissing our country's Latinos. As for how California is being ruined, so to speak, due to the influx of people from the southern border, you may want to see the movie, "A Day Without a Mexican." It will perhaps enlighten you. It might make you think about who picks your food, who prepares it, or how hotel rooms get cleaned, etc. And if you think these hard-working folks are taking jobs away from "real Americans," I dare you to go out and get one of those jobs. I bet you wouldn't last one day stooped over, toiling in the hot sun for minimum wage or less. Frankly, I don't want that job and I don't want to pay $15 for a basket of stawberries either, so I really appreciate our immigrants. Hey, next time you stop at your favorite Mexican restaurant and order up a plate of enchiladas with your ice-cold cerveza (ooops, that was a bad, bad bilingual word!), remember to thank God that we are a bicultural country!
Posted by: C. A. Scott | August 20, 2007 at 11:09 PM