Bachmann refuses to apologize for linking HPV vaccine to “retardation”

posted at 6:47 pm on September 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

Even Ed Rollins said last night on MSNBC that she should admit the mistake and move on. Today she had the chance — and passed on it. Which is interesting, because she did happily cop to a much more benign mistake a few months ago when she goofed on John Wayne’s hometown.

Of the two, apparently this is the one she’s willing to go to the mat on. The unfounded, potentially life-threatening proposition that vaccinating your kids against HPV might lead to “retardation.” Wonderful.

“During the debate, I didn’t make any statements that would indicate that I’m a doctor, I’m a scientist or that I’m making any conclusions about the drug one way or another,” the GOP presidential hopeful told reporters here who questioned her about the story she told suggesting that the vaccine had caused mental retardation. Asked whether she would apologize for comments that outraged medical experts say will discourage parents from getting their children immunized, Bachmann said: “Oh, I’m not going to answer that.”

Talking to reporters here outside a breakfast meeting with Tea Party supporters, the Minnesota congresswoman tried to steer the conversation away from the science and back to Perry.

“I think if you look at the debate, my point was very clear and it’s the fact that there was an abuse of power,” she said. “And then secondary after that is the idea of crony capitalism.”

Actually, her attack on Perry at the debate started with a warning about little girls having a “negative reaction” to a “potentially dangerous drug.” The alleged abuse of power — a mandate with an opt-out — and the crony capitalism angle were both subordinate to that what-is-Rick-Perry-doing-to-our-daughters point. But don’t take my word for it. Read the quote yourself, which Bachmann’s now using on her website to goose fundraising.

As an antidote to all this I’m giving you two videos, one from KTRK in Houston and the other from Fox News via Greg Hengler, describing Perry’s friendship with a woman named Heather Burcham who died of cervical cancer when she was just 31. It’s not proof that his motives were pure in issuing the Gardasil mandate rather than something he did at the behest of one of his corporate donors, but it’s compelling evidence. In fact, before you watch, read this Megan McArdle post making the case for Gardasil on the merits and for Perry’s clean hands in approving the drug. Exit quotation: “Is it somehow crazy to even think that a governor might have wanted to authorize a vaccine which could wipe out many of the most common strains of HPV?”

Update (Ed): Say, remember which candidate in the debate said that presidential hopefuls don’t get second chances? Because I sure do. I wonder if that candidate will take her own advice.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Have you started getting Gardasil shots? Didn’t you read the headline, it causes retardation. LOL!

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

I love how, all of a sudden, mental giants like you are gleefully using the quote as an excuse to repeatedly call people who disagree with you “retarded”.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Michelle Bachmann says what?

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Clearly some Hot Air anti-government types are opposed to any government vaccine mandates. Keep the government away from my body with those evil needles! BOO!

Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

You people sound like global warming fanatics who scoff and sneer at the “deniers”.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Michelle Bachmann says what?

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

She doesn’t call her opponents retarded at any given opportunity. But, nice try. Besides, if you want to call anyone who disagrees with you retarded, it will just heighten the irony.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

She doesn’t call her opponents retarded at any given opportunity. But, nice try. Besides, if you want to call anyone who disagrees with you retarded, it will just heighten the irony.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

So we are discussing you, name calling, and irony now LOL!
Kind of like calling anyone who disagrees with you, exhibiting cult behavior, and disagreeing with your opinion an attack.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

So you’ve decided to go Full Bachmann, good luck with that.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

So we are discussing you, name calling, and irony now LOL!

You know what I’ve noticed? People engaging in name calling love to cite that fact that I’ve done it in past in order to justify it. Except…it doesn’t. Just another cheap, stupid tactic.

Kind of like calling anyone who disagrees with you, exhibiting cult behavior, and disagreeing with your opinion an attack.

When a person refuses to defend their candidate, but instead deflects and dodges by attacking other candidates or the critic, that’s cult behavior. It’s exactly the same approach lunatics like Scientologists employ. Their notorious “Fair Game” policy summed it up: “always attack, don’t ever defend”.

So you’ve decided to go Full Bachmann, good luck with that.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

So you’re both calling both Bachmann and your critics retarded. I guess that means you win the internet.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Yet, the pro-Perry crowd freaked out on me because I simply cautioned them to be accurate in their claims against MB. Hilarious.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Oh give me a break! Call me when Bachmann decides to be “accurate in her claims against Perry” and supports her wide-eyesd attacks against him with facts.

TheRightMan on September 16, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Sorry “… wide-eyed…”

TheRightMan on September 16, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Cautioning someone to be accurate in their criticism of a candidate doesn’t mean that I support that candidate.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM

That’s true. Instead, it means that you’re clearly a paid campaign worker for that candidate, insidiously providing cover for them by carrying out the devious operation of defending them in the comments section of a political blog.

At least, that’s what I’ve been told. But then, over the years, I’ve been accused of being a paid campaign worker for more people than I can count.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

So you’re both calling both Bachmann and your critics retarded. I guess that means you win the internet.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Sigh….I guess that means you win the argument on internet.

Mad, Future reference for snappy comeback.

Winning an Argument ON THE INTERNET, is like participating in the Special Olympics even if you win, you’re still special.

No you don’t win the Internet, although it might make you feel extra super special :) Are you sure you didn’t start the Gardasil series?

Dr Marcus Bachmann says gays can be cured of homosexuality what?

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Sigh….I guess that means you win the argument on internet.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Actually, no. That was the point. You don’t win an argument by calling your opponent retarded. This is something, not unsurprisingly, you’re unaware of.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Are you sure you didn’t start the Gardasil series?

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Are you incapable of posting without weaselly calling someone a retard?

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

You people sound like global warming fanatics who scoff and sneer at the “deniers”.
MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Actually, the junk science used by the anti-vaccine fanatics is more like those who promote Global Warming Alarmism.

Holding a libertarian view of the government’s ability to require vaccines isn’t getting hysterical.
You seem more “hysterical” in your disagreement with them than they are about mandates.
blink on September 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

When does the libertarian view morph into irresponsible, even dangerous stupidity? I can understand opposition to the Gardisil mandate (although I think some of the opposition goes into the “hysterical” category, starting with Michelle Bachmann). However, those who oppose the very idea that the government can and should mandate any vaccines are irresponsible kooks. Anyone with a brain who knows anything about what life was like before medicine advanced and vaccines to prevent polio, smallpox, measles and the like became available would not take the position that it’s a personal choice.

Children are dying of Whooping Cough and Measles for no damn reason because of anti-vaccine fanaticism. Parents are putting not only their own children, but the entire community at risk. Many school districts report Pertussis vaccination rates of below 50% for Kindergarteners. Some of these people are moved by junk science, from discredited fears of Autism, others by a no needle version of anti-government extremism. Sadly, I heard Glenn Beck take that “libertarian” position last year (and he wasn’t talking about Gardisil) and gawd knows how many people he influenced. If that’s what “libertarianism” looks like, include me out.

Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

You people sound like global warming fanatics who scoff and sneer at the “deniers”.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM

And you sound pretty desperate.

Our basic points here are these …

1. The vaccine is safe and has been proven safe.

2. The vaccine saves lives – and that’s been proven too.

3. The Gardasill version of the vaccine is particularly remarkable in the types of HPV it protects against.

4. Michelle Bachmann didn’t look at the science behind this vaccine at all before opening her cake hole. And – she’s probably ying about this “mysterious woman” she knows who has a kid with mental retardation which developed after receiving this HPV vaccine.

5. Cervical Cancer is the number two killer of young women – and even when it doesn’t kill – victims are often rendered infertile after having it.

6. You don’t have to be promiscuous to contract HPV. A faithful, Christian wife can contract it from a cheating husband.

7. Giving the vaccine at a young age is how Doctor’s recommend it be administerd – protect the individual BEFORE they become sexually active.

8. Anyone who says a girl should DIE of cervical cancer because she had one moment of weakness, had sex, and contracted HPV … is an ASS.

9. It’s pretty damned stupid that most of the people who have a problem with mandating this vaccine (with an opt out included) … are also mostly FOR arresting people who smoke marijuana. Small government types are more than happy for government to get involved and enforce morality for them – like keeping people from smoking dope – which is an activity that harms only the indulging individual. But they’ll all insist they have a right to infect others with their diseases because – “By damn it” … they have a god given right to do so!

Do you disagree with these points?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

When does the libertarian view morph into irresponsible, even dangerous stupidity? I can understand opposition to the Gardisil mandate (although I think some of the opposition goes into the “hysterical” category, starting with Michelle Bachmann). However, those who oppose the very idea that the government can and should mandate any vaccines are irresponsible kooks. Anyone with a brain who knows anything about what life was like before medicine advanced and vaccines to prevent polio, smallpox, measles and the like became available would not take the position that it’s a personal choice.
Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Has anyone here taken that position? I honestly haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, we’ve consistently distinguished between vaccinations for diseases contracted via casual contact vs. sexual contact. And, again, the availability and efficacy of the latter is irrelevant (I think it should be available for those who want it), it’s the executive order most parents rightly balked at.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Holding a libertarian view of the government’s ability to require vaccines isn’t getting hysterical.
You seem more “hysterical” in your disagreement with them than they are about mandates.
blink on September 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

What you’re missing of course, here – is that in this case the system of checks and balances WORKED. Perry was stopped by the legislature from mandating the vaccines.

And if the government doesn’t mandate vaccines … who will?

I’m sorry dude – but you don’t have a right to infect me with your diseases – especially when they’re preventable through vaccines.

If you don’t like that go move to a deserted island with other likeminded folks and have fun infecting each other.

The bottom line is – some vaccines have to be mandated because we are a people in constant contact with each other. I don’t like it any more than you do – but it’s a fact of life.

Deal with it.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Has anyone here taken that position? I honestly haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, we’ve consistently distinguished between vaccinations for diseases contracted via casual contact vs. sexual contact. And, again, the availability and efficacy of the latter is irrelevant (I think it should be available for those who want it), it’s the executive order most parents rightly balked at.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Sexual contact IS casual contact dweebo.

And you don’t have to contract it by being promiscuous. If a faithful CHRISTIAN woman has sex with her cheating husband – she can get it without her knowledge.

That’s what you anti-science guys don’t get. You’d rather say to a girl … “Eh too bad – here’s your death sentence now go die – we told you not to have sex … EVAAARRRRR!’

LOL

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Do you disagree with these points?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Your points are irrelevant. The issue was of overreach–an executive order. It’s his instincts as a “conservative” we’re concerned with, not the availability of the drug, its effectiveness, etc. Being that it’s an STD and not communicable via casual contact, it should be firmly within the rights of parents to choose. It’s certainly not the government’s job to protect citizens from STD infection any more than it’s their business to monitor the BMI levels of our children and the sodium content of our food.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Sexual contact IS casual contact dweebo.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

By osmosis? How and in what world is contracting measles or whooping cough from a day care or school setting the same thing as genital to genital contact?

Honest question: are you capable of talking about this maturely or will you insist on repeatedly calling me a doofus or dweebo like my brother in 1987? I need to know what I’m working with here.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Your points are irrelevant. The issue was of overreach–an executive order.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Uhm … no it wasn’t … check the topic of this thread – it’s about Michelle Bachmann’s refusal to apologize for her assinine anti-science comments.

Looks like YOU are the irrelevent one here.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Michele Botchmann.

logis on September 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM

8. Anyone who says a girl should DIE of cervical cancer because she had one moment of weakness, had sex, and contracted HPV … is an ASS.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Who here said that? If nobody, that’s a strawman roughly as despicable as Alan Grayson saying Republicans want people without health insurance to “die quickly”, and any respect I had for you just flew out the window.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM

By osmosis? How and in what world is contracting measles or whooping cough from a day care or school setting the same thing as genital to genital contact?

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Sexual contact, in this day and age, is casual contact. Actually, it always has been – throughout human history and even in the animal kingdom.

Your point was we don’t need to mandate a vaccine for something that is contracted via sex. Don’t have sex and you won’t contract the STD.

Isn’t that your point?

If so – how do you propose a faithful wife protect herself from a cheating husband?

LOL

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Sexual contact IS casual contact dweebo.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

You’re an idiot of monumental proportions.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Who here said that? If nobody, that’s a strawman roughly as despicable as Alan Grayson saying Republicans want people without health insurance to “die quickly”, and any respect I had for you just flew out the window.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Not a strawman – I’ve seen many quotes in this thread to the effect that no vaccine is needed because you can only get this through having sex – have no sex … get no STD.

The insinuation here of course is – if you DO have sex we don’t give a dime for you because you should have listened to us.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Sexual contact, in this day and age, is casual contact. Actually, it always has been – throughout human history and even in the animal kingdom.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Buy a dictionary, and stay away from me. Don’t want to catch your stupid through casual contact.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM

You’re an idiot of monumental proportions.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

And you’re WELL KNOWN to be on by most on this board.

Perhaps we should start a club.

Sex is pretty “casual” these days MadCon, I mean I understand why no girl came near you in High School – but for most – sex is a pretty easy thing to fall into.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Buy a dictionary, and stay away from me. Don’t want to catch your stupid through casual contact.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I stand by my statement that sex is a casual activity in this day and age.

I’m not apologizing for it any more than your heroine Bachmann is apologizing for her anti-science comments.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Your point was we don’t need to mandate a vaccine for something that is contracted via sex. Don’t have sex and you won’t contract the STD.

Isn’t that your point?

If so – how do you propose a faithful wife protect herself from a cheating husband?

LOL

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I’m saying we shouldn’t mandate it. The drug should be available if someone wishes to have it. I’ve been pretty consistent about this, I believe.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I stand by my statement that sex is a casual activity in this day and age.

You mean your statement that sexual contact is casual contact, which it’s not? Good for you. Ignorance is a right.

I’m not apologizing for it any more than your heroine Bachmann is apologizing for her anti-science comments.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I didn’t back her up, jackass.

Bachmann’s doubling down on her stupidity. Incredibly disappointing, and I barely can muster any support for her anymore.

MadisonConservative on September 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM

You’re apparently not only doubling down on stupid, but you’re putting all you have on number 37 on the roulette wheel.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I mean I understand why no girl came near you in High School – but for most – sex is a pretty easy thing to fall into.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Wow. You’re taking disagreement and turning it into this. Very cute. A step up from the other guy calling everyone retarded.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I’m saying we shouldn’t mandate it. The drug should be available if someone wishes to have it. I’ve been pretty consistent about this, I believe.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Of course it’s what you’re saying. However, if you remain consistent, then they can’t win the internet by calling you retarded. Plus, it’s a continued deflection from Perry’s executive order, which means they can keep attacking Bachmann and pretend that Perry is perfect.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I’m saying we shouldn’t mandate it. The drug should be available if someone wishes to have it. I’ve been pretty consistent about this, I believe.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Fair enough.

But apparently you believe that human beings live in isolation. The fact is though – we don’t. And those among us who don’t get certain vaccines spread infectious diseases that are otherwise easily preventable.

I mean – the government takes your money to protect you from terrorist threats. Why not take it to protect you from infectious diseases also?

The government takes your tax money to enforce marijuana laws doesn’t it? Marijuana smokers harm who? You? No – they only harm themselves. You can’t catch “marijuana” even from having sex with someone who smokes it! LOL … yet the government is willing to enforce that law to protect people from the dangers of marijuana.

Why not communicable diseases.

Also – do you think it’s a good thing that we no longer have a smallpox problem?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Also – do you think it’s a good thing that we no longer have a smallpox problem?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Smallpox was spread by ACTUAL casual contact. HPV is not. But keep using those broken analogies.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM

You mean your statement that sexual contact is casual contact, which it’s not? Good for you. Ignorance is a right.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I wasn’t using the medical definition of “casual” … and you know it. The fact is – you’ve painted yourself into a corner throughout this debate and are now using technicalities to make points.

My point is – SEX IS PRETTY CASUAL this day and age.

Do you disagree with that?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I mean – the government takes your money to protect you from terrorist threats. Why not take it to protect you from infectious diseases also?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

It’s generally accepted that a citizen cannot protect themselves from a lunatic flying a plane into their building.

If you’re comparing that to a disease caught only through sexual contact, then…well, I was going to say you’ve truly boarded the crazy train, but I get the feeling you’re the conductor.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I wasn’t using the medical definition of “casual” … and you know it.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Right. You were using the non-medical definition to talk about a medical topic. Sweet.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Smallpox was spread by ACTUAL casual contact. HPV is not. But keep using those broken analogies.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Is sex between a married man and his wife a “casual” contact?

Don’t look at the medical definition genious – just answer yes or no.

You do realize that HPV can be spread from a man to his wife – even if his wife is faithful?

You do realize that right?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

But apparently you believe that human beings live in isolation. The fact is though – we don’t. And those among us who don’t get certain vaccines spread infectious diseases that are otherwise easily preventable.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Where have I indicated I believe that? I’ve made a distinction between vaccinations between diseases contracted easily by casual contact (meaning, sitting in a classroom and someone sneezes, using a pencil sharpener someone else has used, using public restrooms or shopping carts, etc.) vs. sexual behavior which, as prevalent as it might be in our culture, it’s not engaged in by everyone and not the government’s role to prevent or protect us from. It’s an individual decision to engage in the activity and to take precautions to prevent infection. That’s my position. I believe that sex ed and related disease and pregnancy prevention is personal—it’s a parent’s job to educate their children, not the government. That includes mandating vaccinations for said behavior.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Right. You were using the non-medical definition to talk about a medical topic. Sweet.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Nope … I was pointing out the stupidity of your side that argues that somehow sexually transmitted diseases should be treated differently from diseases transmitted in othe ways.

It’s absolutely crazy to make a distinction, politically, between a disease you can get from kissing someone (yes, I believe that’s in the “casual” medical definition isn’t it) and one you get from sexual contact.

To say the government has a right to protect citizens from one and not the other is ludicrous.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Has anyone here taken that position? I honestly haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, we’ve consistently distinguished between vaccinations for diseases contracted via casual contact vs. sexual contact. And, again, the availability and efficacy of the latter is irrelevant (I think it should be available for those who want it), it’s the executive order most parents rightly balked at.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

That was the case in Texas. I am typing this really slow so all the Bachmann supporters can understand it. Texans were against the HPV vaccine mandate. As I stated before earlier in this thread, I was happy the mandate for the HPV vaccine mandate was not implemented. Unless Merck can show a shocking trend with charts, and graphs of the spread of the STDs the vaccine is for -I don’t want it mandated by the state legislature either. It’s available on a voluntary basis in that’s the current status of the vaccine in Texas. Will Merck try and push to mandate the vaccine again in Texas? I don’t know, but it’s not going to be received any better a second time around this is still the bible belt.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Where have I indicated I believe that? I’ve made a distinction between vaccinations between diseases contracted easily by casual contact (meaning, sitting in a classroom and someone sneezes, using a pencil sharpener someone else has used, using public restrooms or shopping carts, etc.) vs. sexual behavior which, as prevalent as it might be in our culture, it’s not engaged in by everyone and not the government’s role to prevent or protect us from. It’s an individual decision to engage in the activity and to take precautions to prevent infection. That’s my position. I believe that sex ed and related disease and pregnancy prevention is personal—it’s a parent’s job to educate their children, not the government. That includes mandating vaccinations for said behavior.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM

If the government has no right to protect us from sexually transmitted diseases – they have no right to protect us from other diseases.

Sorry – but sex is a pretty normal thing.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Is sex between a married man and his wife a “casual” contact?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I sure as hell hope not because I’m not getting naked and doing those things with strangers in Walmart.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM

The vaccine hasn’t been proven safe. There is sufficient data to draw a reasonable conclusion that the vaccine is safe.

8. Anyone who says a girl should DIE of cervical cancer because she had one moment of weakness, had sex, and contracted HPV … is an ASS.
Anyone that throws out strawmen like this….is an ASS.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Thanks for agreeing that the vaccine is safe. ;)

Yeah – I saw what you did there and I’ll live with that little “technical” deflection you inserted there. Welcome aboard the truth train.

As far as saying a girl should DIE from having one instance of casual sex – what have you guys been saying? You’ve been saying all along that HPV can be prevented simply through abstinence. Ergo – anyone who doesn’t heed your advice can DIE if they get the disease.

Own it.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I sure as hell hope not because I’m not getting naked and doing those things with strangers in Walmart.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM

LOL … I guess I’m the only man on this board who has a lot of sex.

For me and my wife – it’s pretty casual. We don’t do it in front of other people of course – but we do it quite a lot.

I’m sorry – maybe my personal experience is quite different from yours.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

You keep saying that you can only get HPV through sex, and that is entirely untrue. If can have HPV anywhere on your skin. All you have to do is touch someone infected with it and you have it. 1 out of 2 sexually active people have HPV.

And keep going after Perry for this mandate. But remember there was an OPT-OUT which means you dont have to use it. And the mandate would make the shot coverable by insurance, so those who want to protect their daughters from the hell that is cervical cancer can and we dont have to pay out of pocket. How are children who are at risk because their mothers, grandmothers, or aunts had cervical cancer and their families cannot afford the almost 400 dollar shots? You are okay with them getting cervical cancer?

akerralls on September 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

If the disease is preventable through the vaccine, then you won’t be infected by anyone with the disease.

Stop flailing.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM

The existence of a vaccine doesn’t protect any one rocket scientist – it’s the administration of the vaccine that does that.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM

akerralls on September 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Excellent post.

Point being is that Perry didn’t take any “soveriegnty” from parents because there was an “opt out”.

The effect of his EO was simply to use state funds to adminster the vaccine.

The people “flailing” on this board refuse to acknowledge the fact that not a single individual was ever forced to take this vaccine.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

I sure as hell hope not because I’m not getting naked and doing those things with strangers in Walmart.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM

LOL!

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

If you get the vaccine and the vaccine is effective – then you’re protected. Therefore, nobody is going to infect you, right?

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM

If your parents refuse to give you the vaccine – are you protected?

No.

Now – that really has nothing to do with Perry’s EO – because his EO didn’t force any parent to vaccinate their daughter (there was an opt out) …

But … simultaneously – we are discussing government’s role in enforcing vaccinations – and my point is – there are some that should be enforced.

I guess your point is … none should be enforced – or, rather – only the ones that are spread through “innocent” conduct should be enforced – and those who get diseases through sexual contact are pretty much on their own – even if they are living in what they think is a monogamous relationship.

I don’t get your logic.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

You keep saying that you can only get HPV through sex, and that is entirely untrue. If can have HPV anywhere on your skin. All you have to do is touch someone infected with it and you have it. 1 out of 2 sexually active people have HPV.

akerralls on September 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

I’m aware that there are different forms of HPV, most not contracted sexually and do not cause cancer. We all contract HPV in various forms, many times without even knowing it (some strains resolve themselves without treatment). Those are caught by casual contact…but that isn’t what Gardasil protects against. It’s, I believe, 1-4 strains of HPV which might eventually turn cancerous if left untreated. The vaccination doesn’t even protect against all sexually transmitted strains of HPV.

Again, irrelevant. It’s the executive order I take issue with.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Is sex between a married man and his wife a “casual” contact?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Yes, because f**k you, English language.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

I guess your point is … none should be enforced – or, rather – only the ones that are spread through “innocent” conduct should be enforced – and those who get diseases through sexual contact are pretty much on their own – even if they are living in what they think is a monogamous relationship.

I don’t get your logic.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

You are thinking logically. The HPV vaccine however has come up against, religious, cultural, and social mores.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

You’re arguing against nobody.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

So am I.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Don’t look at the medical definition genious – just answer yes or no.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Statement on its own is pretty awesome, but the bolded portion makes it uber-awesome.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Statement on its own is pretty awesome, but the bolded portion makes it uber-awesome.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

And you don’t practice what you preach.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I’m not sure why HondaV65 is freaking out about this issue.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM

He’s a Perry fanatic. Just as there are Palin fanatics, Paul fanatics, and other fanatics that rally around charismatic candidates. They lock in on a personality and will protect it at any cost. Sort of like the Democrats circa late 2008.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

And you don’t practice what you preach.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

What? Name-calling? I don’t start it, but if you throw the first punch, don’t whine about getting the same back.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Chief, take a deep breath and think.

Now, only one person on this board claimed that they were against the use of this vaccine, and that was only because it was so new that they personally prefer to wait years to make sure that no long-term problems surface.

Even she didn’t have a problem with vaccines that have been around for a long while.

You’re arguing with nobody here.

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM

He is arguing with everybody who refuses to see that Gardasil being mandated is not a wholly bad thing, especially if there is an OPT OUT

Again, irrelevant. It’s the executive order I take issue with.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM

OPT OUT…OPT OUT….OPT OUT….OPT OUT

And Bee according to the Center for Young Women’s Health (and my pediatrician)

How do you get HPV or genital warts?

HPV and genital warts are usually spread by direct skin-to-skin contact during vaginal, anal, or oral sex with someone who has been infected with HPV. Using condoms every time you have sex can help protect against HPV but they aren’t perfect because HPV can be found on skin that isn’t covered by a condom.

HPV can be found on the skin—Gardasil will protect against that becoming cancer.

akerralls on September 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM

And you don’t practice what you preach.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:07 PM

What? Name-calling? I don’t start it, but if you throw the first punch, don’t whine about getting the same back.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Scroll up just this page of comments Sherlock, you repeatedly lectured- preached to me how to respond in to commentors. Then you turn around and do the same thing to HondaV65. What do you suffer from A.D.D. too? You are a joke.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Scroll up just this page of comments Sherlock, you repeatedly lectured- preached to me how to respond in to commentors. Then you turn around and do the same thing to HondaV65.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Honda threw names first, Watson. You should try some reading comprehension.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I can’t believe this discussion is still going on:-) Bachmann wants to stand by her statements. Fine, she can deal with it.

It seems the argument is twofold:
1. Gov. Perry issued the mandate for the Gardasil Vaccine WITH AN OPT OUT.
It was overturned, he has admitted he should have done it in a better way. This was in 2007, four years ago. No one was vaccinated due to the mandate.

2. The HPV. What is it, how is it transmitted, which ones cause cancer and all of the rest of what it entails and don’t.

About Issue#1. It was and is a none issue and has been ever since the mandate was overturned. To continue to discuss what he should have or not have done is a waste of time. Nothing said now is going to change anything.

About Issue#2. Educate yourself. If you think the risk of getting the HPV for yourself or children is greater than the vaccine, then get the vaccine. If you think the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of getting HPV for yourself or children, then don’t get the vaccine.

Those 2 issues should be considered by everyone. Bachmann’s statements during the last debate and after the debate on TV and most recent comments and actions are separate and she will be held accountable for them.

bluefox on September 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Here is some information that hopefully will clarify some of the misconceptions that’s been stated here.

How HPV Spreads
These sexually-transmitted HPV viruses are spread through contact with infected genital skin, mucous membranes, or bodily fluids, and can be passed through intercourse and oral sex. HPV can infect skin not normally covered by a condom, so using a condom does not fully protect you from the virus. Also, many people don’t realize they’re infected with HPV and may have no symptoms, so neither sexual partner may realize that the virus is being spread.

About 20 million people in the U.S. are infected with HPV at any time, according to the CDC. And three-fourths of sexually active people between ages 15 and 49 have been infected at some point in their lives, according to estimates from the American Social Health Association.

Most sexually active women and men will contract HPV at some point in their lifetime. Most will never even know it. Usually, this virus does not cause any symptoms and doesn’t cause disease. Often, the body can clear HPV infection on its own within two years or less.HPV lives in the body’s epithelial cells. These are flat and thin cells found on the skin’s surface and also on the surface of the vagina, anus, vulva, cervix, penis head, mouth, and throat.

HPV lives in the body’s epithelial cells. These are flat and thin cells found on the skin’s surface and also on the surface of the vagina, anus, vulva, cervix, penis head, mouth, and throat.

What I see from the above is that the HPV can be transmitted way beyond “sexual intercourse”.
I also see that if a young student(6th grade) kisses someone of the opposite sex that has engaged in oral sex and has the HPV, then it can be transmitted that way. Most people wouldn’t consider kissing sexual contact, but it is as far as HPV goes. Then I also see that Often, the body can clear HPV infection on its own within two years or less.
Keep in mind no one knows which HPV they have or even know if they have it at all. HOWEVER, they are infected and can pass this HPV on during this 2 year period or less.

bluefox on September 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Here is some information that may help clarify some of the comments regarding HPV.

How HPV Spreads
These sexually-transmitted HPV viruses are spread through contact with infected genital skin, mucous membranes, or bodily fluids, and can be passed through intercourse and oral sex. HPV can infect skin not normally covered by a condom, so using a condom does not fully protect you from the virus. Also, many people don’t realize they’re infected with HPV and may have no symptoms, so neither sexual partner may realize that the virus is being spread.

About 20 million people in the U.S. are infected with HPV at any time, according to the CDC. And three-fourths of sexually active people between ages 15 and 49 have been infected at some point in their lives, according to estimates from the American Social Health Association.

Most sexually active women and men will contract HPV at some point in their lifetime. Most will never even know it. Usually, this virus does not cause any symptoms and doesn’t cause disease. Often, the body can clear HPV infection on its own within two years or less.

It appears that kissing someone that has engaged in oral sex and has the HPV then it can be transmitted that way.

Also one that has been infected and don’t even know it, it may clear itself within 2 years or less. However, the person can still infect others during this time. A great unknown in my opinion.

There are other body areas that were listed, but the filter won’t allow them.

bluefox on September 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM

How quickly Bachmann, formerly known by some HA commenters, as the female conservative second only to Palin, capable of bringing home the electoral bacon….

Ol crazy eyes… you have some splainin to do…

Bradky on September 16, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Why can’t someone living in a monogamous relationship get the vaccine on their own? Heck, they don’t even need their parent’s permission anymore.
blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Missed this gem, but add it to what I said about people running out to get the vaccine when they are A) too old and B)May already be infected because, (hold on for this!) I betcha most people in monogamous relationships were not virgins before they chose a monogamous situation.

fwiw, I get the impression that Blink is quite young so 26 could seem like the distant future to her. Or him? Don’t know the gender…

Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Sorry I’m so late in replying to our self-declared resident “genius”:

blink on September 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Let’s get down to brass tacks here, okey dokey Blinky? What vaccines, if any, do you believe the government has the right to mandate?

You are the one who took the “Libertarian” view. So define it please.

I don’t think it is ‘hysterical’ to point out that because of irresponsible adults, babies who are not old enough to have received all the necessary vaccines to prevent diseases like Whooping Cough or measles or dying for no fracking reason.

BTW, you do realize that the Gardisal vaccine is not licensed for adults over the age of 26, and only works to prevent, not cure, Cervical Cancer? Your arguments that anyone who has concerns can just run out and get vaccinated are idiotic.

Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Drat. My 8:11 comment should have preceded my 8:09. Even though I was logged in I got a message that I was not logged in, so the comment didn’t post…

Buy Danish on September 16, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Perry apologized for his mandate. So, I want to know what he thinks he did wrong.

You are really funny.

You’re right – I am! However, no matter how much I’d try, I could never provide the same comedic value as you! :)

Do you see Gov. Perry on the threads here on Hotair? I didn’t think so.

He has a website, so my suggestion would be to contact him instead of asking anyone here to tell you what Gov. Perry thought.

I see that deep thinking is not one of your strong suits – you’re very presumptuous. Do you believe that’s admirable trait?

You really don’t like it when people ask for a good reason why they shouldn’t distrust Perry, do you? I’ve read Perry’s “apologies” and explanations for his unilateral mandate, and, unfortunately for knee-jerks like you, they don’t paint a picture which correlates to reality.

Your arrogance and condescending attitude is what stands out in your posts, not any intelligence you may claim to have. I normally don’t reply to your kind, but only did so since you were nasty to another poster. I’ve seen your comments before, but didn’t bother, wasn’t worth my time.

Now off with you and go try to impress someone else, ROFL

bluefox on September 16, 2011 at 1:15 AM

This is quite a rational, impersonal refutation of what I said, isn’t it? ROFL! Do you like psychology? Hopefully!

Do you believe you’re the type of person who, if you insult someone, bases it upon evidence you can and will articulate, and not upon a blind, irrational, angry emotion which has arisen as a result of your fragile ego’s inability to dispassionately deal with someone you’ve deemed an insolent serf, who’s disrespectfully dared to question your self-fancied infallibility?

Because they are being misdirected i.e. projected, I’ll throw the charges you threw at me (arrogance/condescension, nastiness, lack of self-confidence) back onto your side of the property line where they belong! Now, try to grow up, take personal responsibility for your own garbage instead of spreading it all around with the hope that others will clean it up for you, and admit and face your insecurities by learning to look into the mirror instead of away from it! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 12:28 AM

This thread is about Michelle Bachmann as the title of the post indicates. If you have a problem focusing, and discussing the topic of the post, that’s not my concern. I don’t care what opinion you have of Rick Perry, positive or negative.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM

I’ll point this out one more time: if AP or Ed write an entry which discusses matters they’ve not overtly mentioned in the headline, references to those matters are not considered off-topic in the thread.

Stop being a coward who runs away from dealing with issues she knows she’s wrong about!

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Liking something is an emotion, it has nothing to do with “thinking”. My position on Michelle Bachmann’s remark that Gardasil causes retardation, isn’t based on “Feelings”. I have no interest in deconstructing any of your opinions.

This is a post about Michelle Bachmann refusing to walk back her remark about Gardasil causing retardation.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Thank you for so clearly revealing that you are only interested in making whatever assertion you feel like w/o having a corresponding interest in discussing it with someone who disputes its validity.

I see that asking you questions and expecting a coherent response is a pointless endeavor! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 12:59 AM

I wasn’t using the medical definition of “casual” … and you know it. The fact is – you’ve painted yourself into a corner throughout this debate and are now using technicalities to make points.

My point is – SEX IS PRETTY CASUAL this day and age.

Do you disagree with that?

HondaV65 on September 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Sex is pretty casual for a lot of people. It’s the antithesis of casual for a lot more. The latter group should not be compelled to take a vaccine on account of the actions of the former, though I do think it’s probably a good idea, based on the fact that you can’t be sure whoever you’re having sex with takes it as seriously as you do.

The larger point here is that lots of things have at least a small chance of killing you, but a chance that is very low if you avoid certain dangerous behavior (in this case, casual sex). The fact that a lot of other people choose not to avoid this behavior is beside the point. The government should not be able to tell me to take an injection, when the only real reason is to protect other people from their own mistakes.

I don’t actually hold this against Perry too much – I don’t really think that any of the other candidates are the types to oppose this out of principle. And the opt-out option mitigates the damage as well. But it’s still antithetical to small government. A more reasonable course of action that would serve the public interest would have been an “opt-in” procedure, combined with a public service message about the benefits (usually I despise these messages, but this is one of the few times it might be appropriate).

RINO in Name Only on September 17, 2011 at 1:28 AM

By the way, not getting health insurance can be pretty dangerous too. As long as we’re mandating things…

RINO in Name Only on September 17, 2011 at 1:30 AM

The thing is, both of those are legitimate areas for Bachmann to attack Perry. It’s the whole “Gardasil can cause mental retardation” position that beclowns her.

holygoat on September 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM

One of the funniest aspects of the savagary MB is receiving over Gardisal is that if, instead of “mental retardation,” she had said seizures, or strokes, or headaches, or auto-immune problems, or personality changes, or heart problems, or paralysis, or menstrual cycle changes, or fainting, or one of a bunch of other often-reported side-effects, no one educated about Gardasil would be talking about “false claims”.

My point? Gardasil is not a completely harmless vaccine. So, I see the “mental retardation” attacks as a strawman in actuality. I guess it’s too bad for Michelle politically that the woman who talked to her didn’t have a daughter who died rather than just suffer from vaguely-defined mental effects because of a Gardasil injection?

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Has anyone here taken that position? I honestly haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, we’ve consistently distinguished between vaccinations for diseases contracted via casual contact vs. sexual contact. And, again, the availability and efficacy of the latter is irrelevant (I think it should be available for those who want it), it’s the executive order most parents rightly balked at.

Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Bee, get with the program – anyone who doesn’t easily accede to the government’s wishes on every vaccine it wants to mandate is an anti-government type, and anyone who would categorize such a resistor, if you will, this way cannot fairly be called a fascist!

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” – some doddering, America-hating, rabidly anti-government wackjob

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 2:04 AM

The larger point here is that lots of things have at least a small chance of killing you, but a chance that is very low if you avoid certain dangerous behavior (in this case, casual sex). The fact that a lot of other people choose not to avoid this behavior is beside the point. The government should not be able to tell me to take an injection, when the only real reason is to protect other people from their own mistakes.
RINO in Name Only on September 17, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Sigh. Ignorance on display. The fact is one could be a virgin, marry, have a monogamous relationship, and get Cervical Cancer from HPV because your husband engaged in “casual sex” (Whatever that means. Versus “formal sex”?).

Has anyone here taken that position? I honestly haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, we’ve consistently distinguished between vaccinations for diseases contracted via casual contact vs. sexual contact. And, again, the availability and efficacy of the latter is irrelevant (I think it should be available for those who want it), it’s the executive order most parents rightly balked at.
Bee on September 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Is Chickenpox transmitted through “sexual contact”? Many in the ‘anti-vaccine community’ balk at this vaccine too, and not just parents like you who have had bad (albeit rare) experiences with vaccines. But thank you so much for opining that it should be available for those who want it. How big of you!

My point? Gardasil is not a completely harmless vaccine. So, I see the “mental retardation” attacks as a strawman in actuality. I guess it’s too bad for Michelle politically that the woman who talked to her didn’t have a daughter who died rather than just suffer from vaguely-defined mental effects because of a Gardasil injection?
Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Your “point” is asinine and ignorant, even after multiple posts trying to explain it. But thanks for providing illustrations for my arguments about anti-vaccine hysteria!

Buy Danish on September 17, 2011 at 7:22 AM

Your “point” is asinine and ignorant, even after multiple posts trying to explain it. But thanks for providing illustrations for my arguments about anti-vaccine hysteria!

Buy Danish on September 17, 2011 at 7:22 AM

My point is asinine and ignorant? So, no one has reported deaths or those other side affects I mentioned as a result of Gardasil injections? It’s a completely safe substance? LOL

Did I say anything factually untrue in what you responded to? Answer: NO!!! If I told you that my concern about Gardasil itself is full disclosure, and nothing more, would you believe me? Answer: NO!!! Could you supply a good reason at all why you would believe I’m being dishonest about my motivation? Answer: NO!!!

What legitimate problem could you possibly have with what I said? You apparently don’t want to have a discussion based upon FACTS alone, you only want to push your point of view. People like you come off as though Gardasil is as safe as water. You OBVIOUSLY haven’t done research about it, or, if you have, you intentionally are ignoring the problems which have been reported about it (do you work for Merck? :) )

The truth is, you seriously are a smug, self-righteous dolt with an agenda. Your accusations, based upon your inferences alone, are not compelling arguments, nor are they evidence of anything but your ability to blindly jump to conclusions, which you are stupid enough to treat as Gospel. It doesn’t matter to you at all that you are a failure as a logician, does it? :)

Do you believe the following is a load of crap, and indicative of a completely safe substance that people should be unconcerned about?

The most common GARDASIL side effects are: pain, swelling, itching, bruising, redness at the injection site, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, fainting. Fainting can happen after getting GARDASIL. Sometimes people who faint can fall and hurt themselves. For this reason, your health care professional may ask you to sit or lie down for 15 minutes after you get GARDASIL. Some people who faint might shake or become stiff. This may require evaluation or treatment by your health care professional.

Tell your health care professional about: swollen glands (neck, armpit, or groin) joint pain, unusual tiredness, weakness, or confusion, chills, generally feeling unwell, leg pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, aching muscles, muscle weakness, seizure, bad stomach ache, bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. Contact your health care professional right away if any of these symptoms concern you, even several months after getting the vaccine.

Do you want to discuss where I got that “hysterical” info from? :)

I’m fully aware that no vaccine is 100% safe, but when I see people go into such denial about the Gardasil’s potential health risks, it makes me extra-interested in learning why they have trouble discussing the issues which have been associated with Gardasil injections.

As I said, I want full disclosure, and also free discussion about Gardasil’s pros and cons. Anybody who isn’t with me on this undoubtedly is on some mission, and shouldn’t be trusted.

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on September 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM

For one thing, I have a problem with your saying that Michele Bachmann’s insane statements about “innocent 12 year old girls” and “mental retardation” are a “straw man”.

I have done the research, and I have no problem whatsoever with “freely” discussing the side affects of Gardisil, but please, don’t expect me to show concern because the vaccine makes people faint. I’d be embarrassed to emphasize that particular side affect (which commonly occurs with some people after they get any shot – it has nothing to do with the vaccine’s ingredients).

Buy Danish on September 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

http://boingboing.net/2011/09/17/michele-bachmann-anti-vax-ignoramus.html

Thanks MB you scurrilous twit! Go away!

scalleywag on September 17, 2011 at 7:59 PM

For one thing, I have a problem with your saying that Michele Bachmann’s insane statements about “innocent 12 year old girls” and “mental retardation” are a “straw man”.

I have done the research, and I have no problem whatsoever with “freely” discussing the side affects of Gardisil, but please, don’t expect me to show concern because the vaccine makes people faint. I’d be embarrassed to emphasize that particular side affect (which commonly occurs with some people after they get any shot – it has nothing to do with the vaccine’s ingredients).

Buy Danish on September 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

If MB had said “seizures” instead of “mental retardation,” people wouldn’t be beating her up the way they are because even Merck acknowledges that seizures are a known side effect of Gardasil. Since “mental retardation” wasn’t her main point (which was that Gardasil is potentially dangerous), focusing on “mental retardation” as a ‘false claim from a flake’ is a strawman. Let’s all be adults and face the fact that Gardasil isn’t as safe as water – why is that so hard for so many people to do that in this case? Oh, do I have an answer to that question!

I have to tell you that I don’t believe you are being intellectually honest when you say that you “have no problem whatsoever with “freely” discussing the side affects of Gardisil” – I believe you are saying that to cover your behind because it doesn’t look good to admit that you oppose a free discussion. Why don’t I believe you? Because if you were interested in a free discussion, I don’t believe you’d continue to poopoo Gardasil’s acknowledged serious side effects by bringing up fainting the in the manner you did.

Bizarro No. 1 on September 18, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8