Schools denying girls the cervical cancer jab on religious grounds

Ha ha sossidge I don't mean you are a damaged woman.

"Maybe Sossiges is insane, maybne she's in league with the devil, maybe she has shares in the Homeopathic industry, no, I'm sure she's honestly doing her best. I bet she'll be selling her story to nutters on some freakish website (lovely money!)"

Oh my gosh! Shame on you!

A little hypocritical after talking about unsubstantiated smears PigletJohn. You have no interest at all in these damaged women. I cannot, as a feminist, imagine why.

Must go and do some RL, don't forget to slag me off while I'm not here

What are you going to do with out of date vaccines?? Pour them down the drain?

I bet it costs a lot to dispose of hazardous waste these days.

Vaccine trials abroad
No, that would never happen - oh look, it already did.

And you're wrong about me on all counts. But hey, I guess you're used to being wrong.

I'm really sorry that you're so blinkered.

'Hot lots' - vaccine lots which are particularly reactive and cause more side effects. Always denied. Here and here and here.

Maybe Sossiges is insane, maybne she's in league with the devil, maybe she has shares in the Homeopathic industry, no, I'm sure she's honestly doing her best.
I bet she'll be selling her story to nutters on some freakish website (lovely money!)

Hey PJ
Out of date vaccines are commonly given. Just a few examples: here and here and here.

sossiges wrote
Maybe those batches are out of date now, maybe they're 'hot', maybe it's a 'scientific trial', no, I'm sure they're doing it for lovely philanthropical reasons.
I bet they'll all need re-vaccinating in 5 years time (lovely money!)

MsAnnTeak wrote
I have no idea how you can still deem it a as either unsubstantiated, or a smear

Very true. And if Pharma are so desperate to solve Rwanda's problems why don't they give them some money for clean water, sanitation & healthcare facilities instead. Oh no, that wouldn't make money, would it? Silly me

Hey, I know this is nothing to do with this thread (about women's rights) but I notice that Merck are flogging RotaTeq to Rwanda as well. Easy money, eh?

India halted HPV vaccines because of deaths in their trial. They've got more sense than we have.

Pigletjohn, ubsubstantiated smear ? Given what I found in one afternoons surfing and it didn't come from a conspiracy website, all the facts emerging surrounding this vaccine I have no idea how you can still deem it a as either unsubstantiated, or a smear. France didn't take up the program and India halted it, not investigated the reasons but will be interesting to find out.

Putting down a significant percentage of those fainting following the vaccine as ' that's what girls usually do when they are immunised, better make sure we let them sit down for 15mins.' is possibly patronising. Are there any studies out there which prove females are more likely to faint than their male counterparts when given exactly the same vaccine ? Based on fact or a preconceived idea brought about by living in the patriarchy. If the boys were dropping like flies would it be of more concern ?

Following the recent scandal on breast implants I'd assume most people would be more cautious and wish to be as informed as possible before they jump to take anything into their body which could possibly cause harm.

rosabud "the refusal to give the jab on grounds of a religious nature is directly linked to the gender of those receiving the jab" yes, at the moment that is true since the vaccine is only being offered to girls! When they roll it out for boys too (any minute now) and religious schools with a few pupils say the same thing, will it still be linked to gender? If such schools refuse the jab for girls, I think they're just as likely to refuse it for the boys under their care, on the same grounds (if they teach boys).

Oh PJ do you always see everything in black and white?

Anyway, this thread is not about vaccination, it's about women's rights, apparently. So I keep getting told.

I just love an unsubstantiated smear.

Of course, it all depends where you're coming from.

There are some people who come onto this thread from the position:

• vaccines prevent or reduce disease
• some of these diseases are fatal or life-threatening
• having protection against disease is a Good Thing
• prejudices which cause people to oppose healthcare are undesirable
• anyone who has control or influence over children and uses it to prevent them being protected from disease should be viewed with suspicion

Other people might be coming from the position:

• vaccines cause disease
• healthcare is unnatural
• it's interfering with Gods Will (or "nature") to prevent or reduce disease
• anybody who works in healthcare must be doing it to make money and not becuse they want to help
• Pharmaceutical companies and all their employees are wicked and want to damage health
• National and International schemes to reduce disease are insincere and should be opposeds

On this thread, the first group has been drowned out and (mostly) given up.

Oh and it's so kind of Merck to be giving free womennewsnetwork.net/2012/07/19/kenya-hpv-vaccine-roll-out/ Gardasil to the Rwandan girls, I wonder why? Maybe those batches are out of date now, maybe they're 'hot', maybe it's a 'scientific trial', no, I'm sure they're doing it for lovely philanthropical reasons.

I bet they'll all need re-vaccinating in 5 years time (lovely money!)
You would think they'd been through enough already

Oh I didn't mean to belittle or misunderstand your point - I genuinely did, however, misunderstand it. But, in fairness, I think you have misunderstood the original point which is that due to attitudes to female sexuality, some girls are not being offered something to which they are entitled. In fact, your point about the problem of women themselves being misguided by cultural norms only serves to reinforce this argument. If these girls are at schools which actively refuse to offer the jab on grounds of the religous dogma which promotes certain views about women being sexually active, then, even though they may well be told it is avilable at their local doctors, there will be a certain cultural expectation there that the girls should not have it done at all and are bound to be affected by this! So your very argument suggests that we should not allow these schools to opt out and therefore culturally mis-guide the girls involved.

Whether or not the vaccine is safe is another issue really. I take your point that patriarchal pharmacuetical companies could be causing harm to young women (though I don't agree) but that is not BECAUSE they are women. They would equally be pushing their drugs in this sitaution to both genders. However, the refusal to give the jabs on grounds of a religous nature is directly linked to the gender of those receiving the jab.

"Pupils follow strict Christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practise sex before marriage."

This applies to, and, I repeat, the "2 Christian schools with less than 10 pupils" which are mentioned in the report. I am not "presuming" that the number involved is greater than 20 - there is no evidence for that.
Dowager's Hump "I presume 1% of eligible children (who won't be offered the vaccine in school) will actually run into thousands..." er, not quite.
I suppose a news headline saying "Minority religious groups say they don't want HPV vaccine administered in their schools (but pupils are welcome to have the jab at their GP surgery) - by the way, this involves fewer than 20 pupils" isn't quite so exciting is it?

If you want to blather on about "patriarchal control of women's sexuality" why not get a teeny bit more outraged about Pharma testing it's crappy vaccines on innocent young girls, who aren't going to be having any sex if their lives are ruined by adverse reactions.