Thursday, February 22, 2007

Follow the money

Documents Show Merck Donated To Texas Lawmakers

Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff met with key aides about a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer on the same day its manufacturer donated money to his campaign, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

7 comments:

John said...

Wow - I'm, like, shocked.

Tlaloc said...

I'm shocked that the "pro-life" movement has decided to reveal their real agenda by opposing a vaccine against cervical cancer.

Usually they're a bit smarter about these things.

Rachael said...

Wow, you totally missed the point. The vaccination is not in question, but the means to promote the vaccination, in this case a hefty financial contribution. You're really grasping at whatever straws (or strawmen) you can find to discount pro-lifers and it ain't working.

Tlaloc said...

"Wow, you totally missed the point. The vaccination is not in question, but the means to promote the vaccination, in this case a hefty financial contribution. You're really grasping at whatever straws (or strawmen) you can find to discount pro-lifers and it ain't working."

You wish. The prolife movement has been consistently against the vaccine. Want proof? As soon as it was announced Maher of the Family Research Council was saying this:

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,"

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500

It's never been about being "pro-life" it's about being anti-sex. Even if that means championing cervical cancer for women.

Anything that makes sex more dangerous and difficult is applauded. Anything that makes sex safer and more enjoyable is opposed.

So read the article and the words of one of the largest relgious right organizations and then tell me about these strawmen again...

Rachael said...

Care to provide proof and citations? Now the real issue at hand being discussed is that Merk, who created the vaccine and had been pushing for the vaccine to be mandatory, donated to Texas lawmakers just around the time Texas lawmakers introduced legislation which would mandate girls as young as 9 to have the vaccination for school attendance.

Now want to know what pro-lifers are really talking about? It has to do with whether or not making the vaccine mandatory for school attendance would be reasonable and medically beneficial to girls and women. And it's important to emphasize that it's not "safe and okay now to have sex" as teens and students may communicate to each other. I think their concern is that the vaccine does not make sex completely risk free and does not provide protection against other STDs and pregnancy.

http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000001086.cfm

http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000356.cfm

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/02/cdc_vaccine_cha.php

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/02/gardasil_is_not.php

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=1248&PHPSESSID=02ddad01fc1ae08269f44d377f4f6925

"Social conservatives from Texas to Washington called on Perry to reverse his order making Texas the first state to require the vaccine, saying the mandate makes sex seem permissible and that parents should be the ones to decide whether to immunize their daughters."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/07/legislature/4528909.html

'The vaccine has been on the market for only eight months, not nearly enough time to discover the range of adverse effects before administering it to tens of thousands of girls in a statewide mandate.

"More than 25,000 patients were part of a clinical trial of Gardasil, but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. “That’s a thin base of testing upon which to make a vaccine mandatory,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in a Feb. 7 Wall Street Journal article. The center lobbies for safer vaccines."

The vaccine guarantees immunity, but only for five years and only against HPV strains that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. Worst-case scenario, a child vaccinated at 12 might lose her immunity at just the time she needs it: at 17, when the chances of her having sex increase.

All of these questions should be considered against the backdrop of Merck’s financial position. The Wall Street Journal says mandatory vaccination would be an “automatic blockbuster” for the pharmaceutical company, at a time when its patents on other bestselling drugs are expiring.'

http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_053053516.html

It has to do more with the state staying out of the bedrooms of teenage girls, the safety and cost of the vaccine, as well as questionable financial motives and influence.

Rachael said...

Sorry, I missed the link you did provide and I'll check it out to see in which context that statement was made.

Tlaloc said...

""Social conservatives from Texas to Washington called on Perry to reverse his order making Texas the first state to require the vaccine, saying the mandate makes sex seem permissible and that parents should be the ones to decide whether to immunize their daughters.""

Isn't this precisely what I just accused your side of saying? And you defense is that yeah you really are saying it?

See the argument about whether the vaccine should be mandatory is legitimate. But again notice their primary concern is not personal right or any such thing but creating the idea that sex is permissable.

The horror! That people might escape the rigorous attempts by the churh top make them fear sex and treat it as unhealthy. Obviously we can't have that, sex is one of the major control levers the church exercises.

By setting themselves as the guardians of sex (something human beings need) they place themselves in a position of power. But I suppose that's coincidental, right? I mean there's no way that the leaders of an aggressive ambitious religion just happened to hit upon a social policy that gave them enormous power with an ulterior motive, right?



"It has to do more with the state staying out of the bedrooms of teenage girls, the safety and cost of the vaccine, as well as questionable financial motives and influence."

No it doesn't. That's the cover for what is really bothering them: that they may not be able to scare people away from sex anymore. Your own quote above makes this clear. fiest objection? Sex becomes allowed. Second objection? Uh... personal... free... I mean... well didn't the company contribute or something?