Here is a draft response to today's editorial:
In a recent editorial, the CJ wrote in support of Kathy Stein’s bill calling for the forced vaccination of girls as young as 9 year-old with a vaccine that has not even been tested on the age group on which it is to be used. Then, not content with supporting the transformation of school children into medical guinea pigs (and trampling on parental rights in the process), it looked around for someone opposed to the scheme whose position it could mischaracterize.
According to the editorial, we said that little girls would interpret mandatory middle school HPV vaccinations "as permission to sleep with their boyfriends." Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that accuracy was important to the CJ, but we should point that we didn’t say that.
Until your reporter called us, we hadn’t even made a public statement on the issue, but we were asked for our opinion and we gave it. That was apparently taken as license to portray us as conducting some kind of campaign against Gardasil, a drug whose use we support.
However, the Vioxx debacle should be a warning to those who actually care about people that just because the drug companies have marketed a drug and packaged it with promises does not guarantee it is safe.
Maybe someone could develop a vaccine that would prevent journalists from supporting bad legislation and then lying about people who disagree with it. When they do, we’ll be there to support making it mandatory.