I'm sure everybody remembers a few years ago the big debate about the HPV vaccine they wanted to administer to EVERY single girl between the ages of 9 and 12, and everybody argued over it. MY problem with it was I found out vaccines are supposed to be tested for 10-15 years on average, the HPV vaccine they were ready to peddle out to every prepubscent girl in the country was only tested for 6 years. Now, I don't know about anybody else, but if I found out the vaccine people wanted to be mandatory so you had no choice BUT to take it had only been tested for a third of the time it should've been, there would be no way in hell I'd take it or make my children take it. How about everyone else?

Depends on the potential side effects but I think better safe than sorry.

Problems with taking a vaccine to prevent cancer? Lawd Lawd Lawd. Do you know what cancer is? Do you know how dangerous it is? Do you know how hard it is to treat? The FDA would not have approved Gardasil if it wasn't safe to adminster. If the resuts were that promising that they could adminster it sooner, why not? I swear, I think since posting here, I've pretty much heard it all now............

Nystyle709 wrote:

The FDA would not have approved Gardasil if it wasn't safe to adminster.

Well the FDA knew there were procedural problems at the plants where those alcohol baby wipes (which are in the news for killing one child and making several others sick) were made, but still allowed them to go on the market. It would seem they're not always on top of everything.


Besides, if you found out a car had only been tested for 1/3 of the time they usually are, would you drive it because 'they wouldn't put it out if it wasn't safe?'

Another thing I'd like to expand on here for people's benefit, when this was a hot topic in the news, that's what a lot of people were saying, 'the cancer, oh the cancer, cervical cancer is a top killer in women', but that's very odd because at the time I looked up what were the 10 most deadly cancers that the most people were dying from, and breast cancer was on that list which it's said really doesn't cause as many deaths as people like to think, in comparison to lung cancer and other stuff, but cervical cancer was NOWHERE on that list of THE most fatal cancers...so they're telling us EVERY 9 year old girl in the country NEEDS this vaccine so she won't get the cancer, but according to all available statistics, it doesn't appear that many were getting it to begin with.


Now, I like the idea of being able to prevent things like cancer before they start, but it seemed they were willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of every young girl in the country, and for what? 'Oh this vaccine will protect them from cervical cancer', but they only put a third of an effort into it as they do other vaccines...then there are the side effects, one of which is death, and shortly afterwards it was debated if the vaccine was responsible for two teengaed girls who got the vaccine, becoming paralyzed...all this for a cancer which according to the statistics, is not the #1 woman killer the media made it out to be.

My mother has lived a long time and known a LOT of women who had breast cancer, in all her life she knew ONE woman who ever had cervical cancer...so it seems to me they need to find a vaccine that would prevent breast cancer as a higher priority, and for that one I would certainly recommend they test it more than just 33% of the mandatory testing period.

It would depend on what said vaccine was for, and yes…how long it had been tested (and if it'd been approved by the FDA.) However, I am not a vaccine-phobe. So if there was one developed for the sake of wiping out certain detrimental illnesses, I would be more interested than skeptical.

I personally still would not sign up for it because my family is one of those that medicines/vaccines only make them sicker than they would be without the thing...but you know, if a waiter tells me my steak needs to be cooked for 15 minutes and they bring it out in 5, I'm not eating it. If I find out that the parachute I'm taking skydiving was only researched and tested for 1/3 of the time it should've been, I ain't jumping out of the damn plane, least of all with that parachute, and I would not take a vaccine that it seems they just said 'screw regulations, let's get it out as fast as possible not knowing the full extent of what could happen with it'. Because that's what that says to me when they don't even bother to test it for the full period, I don't believe that they're just so confident they have perfected it in 66% less time.

Supernova wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:

The FDA would not have approved Gardasil if it wasn't safe to adminster.

Well the FDA knew there were procedural problems at the plants where those alcohol baby wipes (which are in the news for killing one child and making several others sick) were made, but still allowed them to go on the market. It would seem they're not always on top of everything.


LOL, you just have a problem with medical science in general. You don't even go to the doctor. You better watch that shit, seriously. And I looked up this story. The FDA themselves weren't the ones who were overseeing the plant. They were there to do the inspection and duly noted that the plant wasn't following the procedures correctly and other problems within the plant. Granted, whoever was supposed to shut them down didn't but there is a big difference in THAT and administering vaccines.

Besides, if you found out a car had only been tested for 1/3 of the time they usually are, would you drive it because 'they wouldn't put it out if it wasn't safe?'

Well, if it was an American car....then hell no I wouldn't. If it was manufactured somewhere else, then yeah....I would.