Witchdoctor Medicine

I agree with your decision Cathy, but would quibble with your analogy (which Instapundit picked up.) It doesn't seem to draw a valid parallel. ISTM a better parallel would be something like:

Anti STD vaccine is to promiscuity as Burglary insurance is to Leaving doors unlocked.

Then you could argue that people should protect themselves with burglary insurance, regardless of its impact on behavior, just as your daughter should protect herself with the STD vaccine.

Sorry for the pedantic quibble.

Sep 27, 2006 08:26 PM

"An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than locking your doors at night encourages burglars."

I see your point, of course, especially on a disease with devastating effects like this one. It would be irresponsible to deny it to anyone.

One thing. Does that mean we have to quit teaching that the invention of The Pill lead to the Sexual Revolution? Freedom from consequenses really does have some impact.

It's a stupid reason to put our children's lives at risk, but it is true.

Sep 27, 2006 08:51 PM

I always drive with seatbelts off and a jar of bark scorpions on my lap. That gives a disincentive to negligent driving.

Given that disincentives to sexuality among the young have a track record comparable to legislation banning procreation among pigeons, one might as well vaccinate against everything, with the assurance that the only things disadvantaged will be the microbes. And they can look out for themselves.

Sep 27, 2006 09:18 PM

"An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than locking your doors at night encourages burglars."

Huh?

An anti-std vaccine reduces the risks associated with promiscuity. Locking your doors does not reduce the risks associated with burgling your house. It would be helpful if you could explain which part of these two things you think is parallel.

And to put it more generally, are you really suggesting that reducing the risks associated with a behavior is not going to result in more of that behavior? I will grant you that the result w.r.t. sexual behavior is likely to be minimal, as people really don't do much in the way of rational, cool-headed cost-benefit analysis when deciding on any particular sexual encounter. Still, it's really bizarre if you are indeed suggesting that making an activity safer will have absolutely no effect on whether people choose to do it.

Sep 27, 2006 09:33 PM

I participated on Cathy's Blog after she wrote a piece on witchdoctor medicine for NRO. What struck me as I chatted with the regulars on her Blog was that several of the parents participating mentioned they had a child who was autistic, yet were so confident that the vaccines didn't have anything to do with it, they became extremely angry at me when I suggested and shared links proving that plenty of conservative parents have major issues with vaccines.

What I did not get then, and still don't, is why Cathy and the rude people who post on her blog felt the need to use derogatory language against those of us who live the Natural Lifestyle. I was called a Droopy Milky Ghost (with loud applause from Cathy) for mentioning that I nursed most of my five children for three years, and was generally dissed and put down for defending my lifestyle and being a home birthing, anti-vaccine, natural mother.

If Cathy feels comfortable shoving a toxic vaccine on her daughter, all power to her. But as a non-vaccinating parent who is very skeptical of the Medical Profession (Bad drug interactions do cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people in America every year), especially when it comes to birthing and raising children, I would like to challenge Cathy to accept a more tolerant view of those of us who are living this lifestyle.

Only an Allopathic system could get millions of women in America to eat Horse Pee and make them think it was actually doing them some good. Premarin, which stands for "Pregnant Mare Urine" is a drug that has been, and still is, encapsulated horse pee touted for its hormonal benefits.

Sorry, if anything sounds like witch doctor medicine, it is the horse pee. I'll stick with my nutrients, herbs, oils, and Chiropractor for wellness care.

Jenny Hatch
Mommy Blogger

Sep 27, 2006 09:34 PM

Well, as a right wing Christian, well one who happens to believe in both evolution and modern medicine, I agree with you. Most anything that reduces disease is a good thing. I had student who got HPV from a rape. Her virtue had nothing to do with it.

Both of mine will be vaccined with it. Bad things happen to good people sometimes even when they don't make bad choices.

Sep 27, 2006 09:52 PM

Your analogy that an anti-STD vaccine wont encourage promiscuity anymore than locked doors encourage burglars is severely flawed.

A person who wants to get a vaccine to avoid an STD is actively, purposely, engaging in behavior where they may be exposed to any number of diseases. Hence the need to be vaccinated to prevent the acquisition of any STD.

No one purposely seeks out a burglar, with locked doors or without, to see if they can break into their home.

Promiscuous sexual behavior without consequence of any sort is the ultimate goal of abortion-on-demand, free condoms in schools and "planned parenthood" "clinics," morning after pills, no-fault divorce.

One could say this is the result of the ME generation, producing effectively the ME, TOO generation.

Sep 27, 2006 10:00 PM

An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than locking your doors at night encourages burglars.

I disagree. Locking your doors increases the cost of burglary to the burglar (it's more work) while an anti-STD vaccine decreases the cost of promiscuity.

A better analogy would be that an anti-STD vaccine encourages promiscuity like theft insurance encourages people to leave their doors unlocked.

That is, it's probably true, it's not a strong effect, it gives people more of a choice, and leaving your doors unlocked isn't the worst thing in the world anyway.

Sep 27, 2006 10:06 PM

I'm all in favor of anti-STD vaccines coming to market and being approved for over-the-counter sale.

...but this analogy is nonsensical.

People make all sorts of decisions based on cost / beneft analysises, and the likelihood of having a problem factors in on the cost side.

People also have a relatively stable appetite for risk.

This is why - when you add airbags to a car - people end up driving faster.

This is why - when you insure a bank against trading losses - banks end up trading more.

This is why - when you come up with effective oral contraceptives - you get The Sexual Revolution.

People should be free to decide which technologies are right for them.

...but they also shouldn't lie to themselves about the plausible effects.

Oh...and about that "locking the doors" analogy: pause for a moment to
consider what effect very effective locks, or contrariwise, very
ineffective locks, would have on your decision of where to live. I
assert that if, for some reason, houses were unable to be locked at
all, many folks would choose to live further away from areas with
burglars...and would alter their behavior to ensure that someone was
always watching the house.

Sep 28, 2006 01:16 AM

Since Glenn picked up the problematic analogy, that I also disagree with, let me also say I agree with your desire to have your daughter get the vaccine.

I also support a more natural balanced, lifestyle, and my doctor-wife and I avoid most preservatives and additives in food, for instance -- but our kids (in Slovakia) are getting immunized and usually vaccinated.

Finally, try this alternative:
"An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than" requiring seat belts encourages drivers to kill more pedestrians.

I recall reading that seat-belt laws DID increase the rate of pedestrians being killed. But not a huge effect.
I am certain that more anti-STD vaccines, like the anti-pregnancy Pill, WILL increase promiscuity, although prolly not a huge effect. Certainly not as big as pro-sex TV programs or advertising.

Sep 28, 2006 01:25 AM

Catherine Siepp's position might be reasonable if there were any objective evidence that cervical cancer is caused by any of the HPV "viruses". [ The word is enclosed in quotes because, while a few are, in fact, actual viruses most are not.] The only evidence to date of causality in cervical cancer incriminates the herpes genitalis virus, first identified many years ago and proven by a number of well-designed studies to be the relevant risk factor. Money and politics account for the present false emphasis on HPV which, while physically present on the cervices of some women, doesn't come close to meeting the classical criteria for constituting the causal agent of the neoplasm.

Sep 28, 2006 03:38 AM

I can't believe Cathy Seipp actually wrote this piece. The terrible analogy kicks the thing off, but it doesn't get a lot better.

To liken circumcision between the sexes may be inappropriate for reasons of degree, but in fact that's about the only difference. And there's nothing misogynistic about pointing that out.

And because circumcision is associated with lower frequency of STD's in no way proves causation. Hygenic practices are just as likely to be the reason for the association.

And why should I have to tell any of this to Cathy Seipp?

Sep 28, 2006 05:26 AM

HPV is the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, and the new vaccine (which in my view should only be celebrated, as should all medical progress) has been attacked by religious fanatics almost as soon as it was introduced. ‘Why, this will only encourage young girls to have sex!’ Or so that kind of thinking goes — if you can even call it “thinking.”

Wow. If you can even call that "writing."

Sep 28, 2006 05:39 AM

As with other commenters, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but think your analogy is lousy.

The underlying argument you're criticizing is that making something safer can encourage people to be more reckless with it.

Therefore, a more correct analogy would be "An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than airbags encourage people to drive recklessly."

Except that for some people, improvements in car safety may encourage less careful driving. Similarly, making the consequences of promiscuity less dire could increase the recklessness in that area for some.

However, no one would suggest that we should ban airbags just to remind people to drive more carefully - just as we should not discourage people from taking this vaccine. That large benefits in safety for all far outweigh the increase in danger for individual risk-takers.

Sep 28, 2006 05:43 AM

At 45 I lived the life of the sexually revoluntioned female, sex with whomever, where ever and however I chose however, much of my behavior changed as I grew older (basically realizing that the more partners I had the greater the risk of contracting STDs). I was lucky to have survived those early years without contracting life-threatening STDs most probably due to the fact that STD's was not as prevalent and easily spread as it is today. STD infection rate according to CDC among 25 and under crowd is rising.

If we are going to be honest with ourselves about STD's we might want to take into consideration sexual behavior otherwise the 25 and under crowd today is facing a future ingesting all sorts of drugs to prevent STD's and its side effects, ie sterilization or passing the disease unto the offspring, in order to justify having an unfettered orgasm.

It will be an burdensome expense to pay for those who would otherwise be healthy if they had taken responsibility for their behavior. I don't want to hear how using condoms prevent STD's since the inspoken truth is that condom's come off the moment it interferes with the sensitivity factor or that people generally believe that if they had sex once with a partner and didn't immediately contract STDs this somehow justifies the idea that condoms aren't necessary the next time they have sex with that partner.

I am of the belief that the female body is fragile to multiple sex partners and would like to see a study which includes this factor.
When we discuss sexuality and STDs much of our problem exists in denying the fact that the more partners we have the greater the risk for speading STDs.

Of course my sisterhood cannot allow this factor to be included in our sexual behavior since this would put at risk our 'sexual revolution.' Kind of like when AIDS was allowed to fester in gay bathhouses located in major metropolitian cities while gay activists prevented health officals access to shut down that type of sexual behavior all the while diverting attention by screaming that AIDS was Reagan's fault whereby allowing AIDS to transmit into the mainstream culture.

I don't want government or religion to dictate and control our sexuality I just hope that we can cultivate healthy sexuality by encouraging females to consider the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior which promotes sex with multiple partners.

Sep 28, 2006 05:44 AM

Jenny wrote:

"What I did not get then, and still don't, is why Cathy and the rude people who post on her blog felt the need to use derogatory language against those of us who live the Natural Lifestyle."

A natural lifestyle is dying of a combination of malnutrition, parasite load, disease,a nd exhaustion at around age 35 or so after having buried 2/3rds of the children you ever had.

Why shouldn't you be made fun of?

You're not living a Natural Lifestyle, and an emotionally healthy person wouldn't even want to.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Sep 28, 2006 06:39 AM

I always thought opposition to the vaccine was most vehement for the very young in grade school? At that age, it would seem prudent to keep the purpose of the vaccine secret, because the injection may convey the impression of "total protection" from STDs where the child does not have an understanding of the full panoply of STD risks. Disclosure also conveys a rite of passage that some parents might wish to defer.

Am I wrong here?

Sep 28, 2006 06:46 AM

Of course a vacine that protects against STDs will encourage promiscuity. Lowering the cost of anything -- including risky sex -- encourages the consumption of it.

That's not to say that it's not a beneficial trade-off, but attempting to deny the most basic prinicple of economics is not an pursuasive argument.

Sep 28, 2006 07:34 AM

Opposition to this vaccine makes ZERO sense. If you think your child is suddenly going to go out and have unprotected sex because they got this vaccine you have some serious parenting issues.

I only slept with one other person one time before I met the man who is now my husband. Shortly after I began dating my husband I was diagnosed with pre-cancerous cells as a result of HPV and had to have my cervix frozen. I was hardly some sort of crazy promiscuous floozy.

And to Jenny - the only reason you can get away with not vaccinating your children and not have half of them be dead or disabled by age 10 is because the rest of us DO vaccinate our children. Without vaccinations kids get these crazy things called diseases.. I'm sure you've heard of this thing they called "polio" which has been nearly completely erradiacted via vaccines? I pray your children never get exposed to polio, measles, mumps, hepatitis or any other TOTALLY PREVENTABLE disease due to your poor decisions.

Sep 28, 2006 07:36 AM

Tom,
You Said:
"Why shouldn't you be made fun of?"

I've been made fun of and laughed at for most of my adult life for the lifestyle choices I have made in regards to my family.

I can take it.

It is easy to dismiss and belittle what is perceived as "non-conformist". What is more difficult is to truly educate yourself and then proactively live the Laws of Health. They are eternal laws that are just as relevant in our world as the 10 commandments.

Wether someone chooses to live by those laws or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that breakage of those Health Laws will result in consequences just as predictable as the consequences that result from not keeping the commandments.

The evidence that we in the west are breaking those laws of health are increasingly evident in the youngest members of our society.

Why do you think the autism rate is skyrocketing and children are melting down in dissociative and agressive behaviors?

Have you ever lived with an autistic child?

I personally know several families living this nightmare, and a recent documentary shares testimony such as "I wanted to drive my car over a cliff rather than live one more day of this autistic nightmare."

When I tried to share links, quotes, and engage in debate on Cathy's blog, I was met with sarcasm, disbelief, and name calling.

Here is a link to that conversation, http://cathyseipp.journalspace.com/?entryid=633
so curious Pajamas readers can see for themselves how that debate on witchdoctor medicine payed out.

And here is my blog response to the discussion:
http://www.naturalfamilyblog.com/archives/000072.html

I'm not afraid of being called any number of derogatory names, but if someone is going to stereotype my lifestyle as a form of witchcraft, and call me a negligent and ingnorant parent, I am going to respond and attempt to defend my choices and the choices of parents like me.

Jenny Hatch

Sep 28, 2006 07:37 AM

Ok, Phylis Schlafly's son and what other conservative/religious people are opposed to HPV vaccination? Anyone we have ever heard of? I am sure you get lots of emails from nuts of all kinds. But I keep hearing about what a conservative backlash there is against this but no names or links to anything like an organized effort are ever mentioned. Schlafly's son has a blog entry vaguely opposing mandatory vaccination in general. That does not exactly equal "Conservatives oppose this vaccine because they don't like sex"

Sep 28, 2006 07:43 AM

I was going to comment on the analogy but I see a lot of people have beat me to it so no need to pile on. And, like most of the other quibblers, I agree with your conclusion, just not the logic of the analogy.

Regards

Sep 28, 2006 08:27 AM

The commenters questioning Cathy's analogy are, of course, correct. It's summed up in two words that every commenter on public policy should have engraved on the back of their hand: Moral Hazard.

The effects may be small, but that's a matter for empirical investigation, not sloganeering. A more appropriate analogy would be insurance: any given driver with insurance is likely to drive exercise less care when driving than she would without insurance--even though there are attendant, non-financial risks involved with doing so. Lower one of the costs of sexual intercourse, and you will see more of it on the margins--even though there may be attendant, non-STD costs involved, namely pregnancy, etc.

There are other grounds for arguing the vaccine should be distributed. This one, though, simply doesn't work.

Sep 28, 2006 08:41 AM

Jenny wrote:
"Why do you think the autism rate is skyrocketing and children are melting down in dissociative and agressive behaviors?"

Correlation is not causation. Your insinuation that vaccination is in some way responsible for Autism is specious at best.

Furthermore, since you are making emotional appeals, have you ever seen a child with Polio? This is what you are volunteering your children for through no choice of their own.

While there is significant evidence that breastfeeding is the best way to bolster an infants immune system (the mechanism of passive resistance via the breast milk is well modeled and understood) to forgo modern medicine completely is grossly negligent and invites disaster on your children for the sake of your ideology.

At the end, all I can say is that I pray that you never have cause to regret your beliefs.

Sep 28, 2006 09:15 AM

Jenny, Jack Galt's story is linked below:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/cathyseipp/633/#274003

Sep 28, 2006 09:17 AM

"Aren’t conservatives ‘reality based?’"

Whatever gave you that idea? Because they claim it?

Sep 28, 2006 09:30 AM

Michael,

You said:

"While there is significant evidence that breastfeeding is the best way to bolster an infants immune system (the mechanism of passive resistance via the breast milk is well modeled and understood) to forgo modern medicine completely is grossly negligent and invites disaster on your children for the sake of your ideology."

Just curious what disaster I'm inviting on my children.

They are all healthy, normal, and quite nice. From the feedback I get from teachers at school, scout leaders, friends at church, and neighbors, my children are kind, smart people who love to have fun and are friendly to other children.

Disasters of health, as mentioned above, come from ignoring the Laws of Health.

When a mother decides to feed her child dried cow snot, heats it up in a microwave, and then confidently feeds it to her child, some consequences, often unintended, but sometimes deadly, are the result.

How about if we make a deal....I'll be willing for parents to be prosecuted for medical neglect for not vaccinating, if in the same law we include that mothers who choose not to breastfeed will also be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Sound fair?

The repercussions of ill health and disease that results from parents not feeding their little ones human milk thunder into society like an earthquake, with taxpayers picking up much of that tab in terms of WIC feeding programs, Medicare bills, Education for children who are mentally challenged, and ultimately, Lonely souls who have never bonded with anyone - which is difficult to quantify economically, but still has an impact on our society.

Until parents are willing to make the sacrifices that come with breastfeeding long term at a much higher percentage, I will persist in believing that our Marvelous Medical System is so much smoke and mirrors.

Imagine if doctors took on the task of pestering women to breastfeed the way they bully them into vaccinating!

But dangit, nobody makes any money off of that~!

Jenny

Sep 28, 2006 10:24 AM

Cathy's statement effectively that lowering the cost of an activity won't result in more of the activity (in this case, the costs associated with contracting a potentially sterilizing and possibly fatal disease) is silly and beneath her generally perspicacious commentary. Of course as an activity get safer you get more of it - go for a ride on a DC-3 and then on a 747 and ask yourself (and unless you are a pilot or an aeronautical engineer, you are missing all the really big differences) which you would rather be plowing through bad weather in.

On the other hand, those who oppose the vaccination on the grounds that it will increase promiscuity must, it seems, be just as ardently opposed to the production of antibiotics, which have had a revolutionary impact on the spread of syphilis and gonorrhea, and have without argument contributed nearly as much (arguably more) to the sexual revoltion than the pill did. After all, there were reasonably effective contraceptive measures prior to the pill, but prior to penicilin, you got syph or the clap, you died (or you were treated with mercury, and you died of syph and mecury poisening). People nowadays forget the interrorem effect of syph and clap, because their solution predated the pill by at least 20 years. I have lots of friends who were young men in the military, and a fair number would now be dead if it weren't for penicillin and its derivatives. Look up Winston Churchill's father, for example. The aids of their day.

Are the anti-hpv vacine people aware of the terrible moral scourge in our midst called penicillin? Are they doing anything about it? Are they opposed to anti-aids research? Can they imagine (probably not) what all them crazy homos will be doing when there's an effective aids vaccine?

Sep 28, 2006 02:26 PM

Without argument on your thesis, why must you resort to labels such as religious fanatics for people who just disagree with you?

It never reads well and I'm quite disappointed.

BTW, my grand-daughter also just started at UCSD.

Sep 28, 2006 07:17 PM

Tom,

You said:

"Are the anti-hpv vacine people aware of the terrible moral scourge in our midst called penicillin? Are they doing anything about it? Are they opposed to anti-aids research? Can they imagine (probably not) what all them crazy homos will be doing when there's an effective aids vaccine?"

I am very much a live and let live person. I completely support Cathys choice to vaccinate her daugher, and I support any parent who chooses to vaccinate a teenage girl for whatever reason.

Where I have issues with the whole vaccine scene in particular, and the Medical world collectively, is the force and compulsion that is increasingly playing out in our society.

When you have
doctors forcing Chemo,

Mothers being accused of kidnapping their own kids and being put in jail for it just because she does not agree with her doctors diagnosis

and

Fathers being blamed for a wifes psychosis, while the real culprits walk....

then I believe it is HEALTHY to have some honest debate about where we are headed with our "better living through chemistry".

You have just outlined some of the unintended consequences from antibiotic use. And I would suggest that for every drug and surgical procedure that is performed in our hospitals, often the unintended result is a disaster, which if the patient had been fully aware of, they never would have agreed to take the drug or have the surgery.

The doctors have an old saying..."the surgery was a success, but the patient died". This is meant as an ironic joke, but when you are the loved one of the person who has died or been permanently maimed.....it's not quite so funny.

I am all for individuals having the FREEDOM to choose for themselves what they will do with their own bodies. For parents, who must make health care decisions for and in behalf of their children, I believe we should have the right and the privledge to say yes or no to ANY medical procedure or drug, no matter what the doctors and the pharma companies, who have such a vested financial interest, say.

After countless hours of research, my husband and I have chosen to mostly say NO to Modern Medicine. If others feel comfortable saying yes, all power to them.

That being said, I believe taxpayers should have full disclosure to know how tax money is being spent on Medical Care. We have a sickness society, where most of the money is being spent on disease. I would love to see us move to a more proactive wellness society - and that means we must start in the womb, before a child is even conceived, teaching mothers how to build healthy children with good nutrition and then gently birthing and nursing them.

Until we get to the point where these are the priorities, we will never achieve the type of societal health we all seem to be looking for.

I can promise you, it will never be found in a vaccine or a pill full of chemicals.

Jenny

Sep 28, 2006 08:30 PM

‘Why, this will only encourage young girls to have sex!’

When you make up a quote from thin air, attributing it only to "religious fanatics" that is nothing more than a simple straw man argument.

Note an ACTUAL position from Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson "Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school."

http://family.org/corrpdfs/PublicPolicy/Position_Statemen t-Human_Papillomavirus_Vaccine.pdf

It is amazing the hypocrisy of exclaiming "My Rights My Body" when it comes to abortion, but not vaccines. What about celebate Nuns and Priests?

Sep 28, 2006 08:52 PM

It is common sense (as well as an economic principal) that if you decrease the price of a disirable product, people will want more of it.

This does not mean that having your daughter get the vaccine is wrong. But don't kid yourself. When the risk (price) associated with a desirable activity is reduced, on average (not necessarily your daughter, but on average), more people will engage in the activity.

Sep 29, 2006 11:55 AM

Now if the right (or left) only became reality based about illegal drugs.

Is Addiction Real?

Sep 30, 2006 03:51 AM

Ms. Seipp, I have to say that as a family physician and a conservative Christian, I agree with you 100%. I may get some flak from my church-going friends and family, but I agree that this vaccine no more promotes sexual promiscuity than seat-belt laws promote reckless driving. Will it still happen? Sure, but it isn't a good enough reason to not use them when the benefit is clear.

Sep 30, 2006 12:20 PM

Cathy and rude blogger commenters hangers-on.

Thanks for informing us that ...

Well, an anti-HPV vaccine = good

Promiscuity = bad

no connection ... well maybe.

Cathy so nice of you to protect your daughter.

As I was leaving Mordor, (Berkeley) to drive my daughter to Sarumon's tower in Santa Barbara last week, UCBS party central, we had to pic up from here DR. the proof she had the new Hep A vaccine.

While I'm glad for all the plethora of vaccines, I'm still of the mind some work better than others and offer "Some" protection, but not likely total or forever.

I am reminded of my little brother, the studly power lifter peak of health who got all of the vaccines and then some, but still succumbed to four kinds of malaria (lucky him) while working six years in Irian Jaya. His health is permanently compromised. I hope he never goes back to Equatorial regions.

Nice that you gave your daughte the "just in case innoculations".

Let's hope you gave her 17 years of serious "innoculation advice" about the joys of "They'll always treat you like dirt in the morning ... and brag about it too" on budding college romances, hooking up, what happens to guys & girls brains on alcohol and drugs, industrial levels of course, all birth control fails sometime so you might want to wait, and all that. You seem to be direct and must be so with your dauhter too, so since you "Imply" that promiscuity is bad, I hope you believe it for the sake of your daughter.

So far so good with 2 sons (who respected their dates) and 2 daughters, the Baby now a freshman at party central beach school UCSB.

And yes when the babies were born at home with Scandanvian nurse midwives, the wife nursed them until the next one came along, and we took a pass on the pertusis vaccine and gave them the "Killed polio" vaccine which was a real pain in the ass to order out of Canada. But we had uncerstanding Doc's.

And for all the commentary, the wife is still a health nut worksout and I'll bet she looks better naked than anyone else on this blog.

As for those kids, its not a brag, but we do strongly have a religious belief in "Cause and effect"

... All 4 A students, all accepted into

Thanks for letting me know about this important Vaccine and all the evil people at my Church who must oppose this horrible thing.

I ask my daughter when we see her in a couple of weeks what she thinks about this vaccine and if she is interested in getting it.

Since hooking up isn't a big deal around our town, but it is where she lives now ... maybe she'll want to choose that promiscuous lifestyle for herself in the end...
... and want "some" protection.

Think they've got anything in the works for Syph, gonnorea, crabs, chlamydia, and the host of other fun diseases ? She might want vaccination for those too don't you think ?

As for the brother who had four kinds of malaria over six years, AFTER he had all the vaccinations ... he still believes in vaccines, but not as sure bet "Wonder drugs".

Sep 30, 2006 03:15 PM