or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine

post #1 of 260
Thread Starter 
In trials, the drug companies Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have developed a vaccine that can stop the spread of HPV which is at the root of common causes of cervical cancer.

Great news.

But wait - it seems that the production may be being blocked by religious fanatics.

The 'problem' is that for it to be effective, the vaccine needs to be taken by girls before they reach the age of 17 and the God-botherers that have been strategically stacked in saturation positions in the FDA don't like that.

So, just like in the useless hubristic conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that currently rage - and all the ones to come - people are going to have to die needlessly.

One chilling fact from the article:

Quote:
Since George W. Bush became president, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence programs, and it has cut almost that much in aid to groups that support abortion and the use of condoms as a primary method of birth control.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 260
Yes.

Instead they should focus on drugs that appear to be killing women.
post #3 of 260
I still don't see what the problem is? If you care about your daughter and want her to be protected from cervical cancer, get her the vaccine. If you delude yourself and think she won't be having sex before she's married and don't want to make it seem like you're giving her the OK to be promiscuous, then don't get her the vaccine. When she turns 18, she'll get it on her own.
post #4 of 260
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I still don't see what the problem is? If you care about your daughter and want her to be protected from cervical cancer, get her the vaccine. If you delude yourself and think she won't be having sex before she's married and don't want to make it seem like you're giving her the OK to be promiscuous, then don't get her the vaccine. When she turns 18, she'll get it on her own.

The problem is that it looks very much like the vaccine will not get licensed as religious groups are effectively lobbying against it and they have the support of religious extremists in positions of power in organizations like the FDA.

So the choice you mention will not be available. Nor will the vaccine.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #5 of 260
We need a sticky at the top of this forum for "Segos daily fundie alert"
post #6 of 260
There is a "fundie" guy on the FDA panel, but I sincerely doubt they'll block the vaccine. Actually, the only debate is about whether it should be on the list of mandatory (not really mandatory, because people can still opt out if they want) vaccinations.

Of course it should be on the regular vaccination list, and of course they're immoral to even think about not doing it. But let's not overstate the situation.
post #7 of 260
As a parent of little girl, I can't beleive t here is anyone that would not give this to their daughter if/when it's available.
EOT L&L
post #8 of 260
As a parent of two young ladies, I can't believe there is anyone that would not try to educate their daughters that things like early, frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer (not to mention the many other risks associated with such activities).
post #9 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As a parent of two young ladies, I can't believe there is anyone that would not try to educate their daughters that things like early, frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer (not to mention the many other risks associated with such activities).

Of course, but monogamous married women get cervical cancer too.
post #10 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As a parent of two young ladies, I can't believe there is anyone that would not try to educate their daughters that things like early, frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer (not to mention the many other risks associated with such activities).

And no one has suggested such a thing. On the other hand, some people are against the vaccine. What about you?

I sometimes wonder - what if there was a vaccine against HIV. Would these same people be against it? I guess they would be.
post #11 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I sometimes wonder - what if there was a vaccine against HIV. Would these same people be against it? I guess they would be.

Then they should be against blood transfusions because sex isn't the only way to come down with HIV/AIDS.
post #12 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Of course, but monogamous married women get cervical cancer too.

Never said they didn't. But do you want to go on record with the position that cervical cancer is not primarily and basically an STD?
post #13 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
Then they should be against blood transfusions because sex isn't the only way to come down with HIV/AIDS.

The chance of a blood donation having undetectable HIV is less than 1 in 1 million. The chance of getting HIV in donated blood is lower now than in past years because of improved lab tests. Potential donors are also screened more carefully.
post #14 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As a parent of two young ladies, I can't believe there is anyone that would not try to educate their daughters that things like early, frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer (not to mention the many other risks associated with such activities).

It only takes one.
post #15 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
There is a "fundie" guy on the FDA panel, but I sincerely doubt they'll block the vaccine. Actually, the only debate is about whether it should be on the list of mandatory (not really mandatory, because people can still opt out if they want) vaccinations.

Of course it should be on the regular vaccination list, and of course they're immoral to even think about not doing it. But let's not overstate the situation.

As a health care provider I completely agree.
post #16 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
It only takes one.

I undersand this. And I am not outright opposed to the vaccine. But...many don't seem to think much about the "law of unintended consequences" when it comes to stuff like this. As we work harder and harder to remove the natural consequences of things such as promiscuous sex, I suspect that other (unexpected) consequences will arise at anotehr time in a another place. That's all.

The bottom line to avoid many of these (including the one about the "Men's Roe v. Wade" case) is...abstinence until married.

Sometimes the best solutions are really just that simple.
post #17 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Sometimes the best solutions are really just that simple.

And sometimes the best solution is to come up with a vaccine so all your bases are covered, no matter what happens in your life.
post #18 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
And sometimes the best solution is to come up with a vaccine so all your bases are covered, no matter what happens in your life.

Technically, in this kind of case...that is really a second best solution...a "plan B" if you will.

We are great at treating symptoms...not so much curing root causes.
post #19 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I undersand this. And I am not outright opposed to the vaccine. But...many don't seem to think much about the "law of unintended consequences" when it comes to stuff like this. As we work harder and harder to remove the natural consequences of things such as promiscuous sex, I suspect that other (unexpected) consequences will arise at anotehr time in a another place. That's all.

The bottom line to avoid many of these (including the one about the "Men's Roe v. Wade" case) is...abstinence until married.

Sometimes the best solutions are really just that simple.

You shouldn't be opposed to the vaccine. No reasonable person would argue against abstinence. Certainly not me. However elegant and simple abstinence is as solution, it is also incomplete. Many people don't wait until marriage to have sex, right or wrong.

Prevention of cancer is not only morally and ethically imperative,(who wants to see people suffer from cancer?) it's also cost effective. These costs are often a burden to taxpayers as cancer patients often wind up in state medicaid programs.

This one really is a no brainer.
post #20 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Technically, in this kind of case...that is really a second best solution...a "plan B" if you will.

We are great at treating symptoms...not so much curing root causes.

I hope you're not suggesting that cancer is a symptom. Because it's not.
post #21 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
This one really is a no brainer.

Not if punishment for sex is your goal.
post #22 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
No reasonable person would argue against abstinence.

I don't know. I hear plenty of it. Maybe not by reasonable persons though.

Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
However elegant and simple abstinence is as solution, it is also incomplete.

Sorry, but that is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Many people don't wait until marriage to have sex, right or wrong.

Just because this is true, doesn't make your statement above true.

Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Prevention of cancer is not only morally and ethically imperative,(who wants to see people suffer from cancer?) it's also cost effective. These costs are often a burden to taxpayers as cancer patients often wind up in state medicaid programs.

Agreed. And the best method for prevention of this form of cancer is simply abstinence.

You also neglect to mention that the development of vaccines (especially for preventable illnesses) has a cost to society as well.
post #23 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Not if punishment for sex is your goal.

Punishment is not anyone's goal. Stop saying stupid things like that.
post #24 of 260
I love it when people cite opinion as fact to support their views.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Punishment is not anyone's goal. Stop saying stupid things like that.

Of course it is. The underlying assumption in all of these sex-related arguments is that if you get (cancer|HIV|someOtherSTD) you deserved it. Opposition to this vaccine *is* (not "equates to", not "represents", not "is like", *is*) advocating random death sentences for 4,000 women a year. It's a horrifically immoral postion.
post #26 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I love it when people cite opinion as fact to support their views.

Nick

That's your opinion.
post #27 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B

You also neglect to mention that the development of vaccines (especially for preventable illnesses) has a cost to society as well. [/B]

Vaccine costs are virtually negligible compared to treatment costs. Especially when they are spread out over 20 and 30 years. That's why vaccination programs are heavily favored by public health officials.
post #28 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Vaccine costs are virtually negligible compared to treatment costs. Especially when they are spread out over 20 and 30 years.

What do you think the costs of vaccine development are?
post #29 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
random death sentences for 4,000 women a year

Well...it isn't exactly "random".

post #30 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What do you think the costs of vaccine development are?

Don't know off the top of my head. I will try to find out. I'm sure it varies depending upon the disease the vaccine is developed for.
post #31 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What do you think the costs of vaccine development are?

Lower than the Iraqi war, I'm sure.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #32 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Don't know off the top of my head. I will try to find out. I'm sure it varies depending upon the disease the vaccine is developed for.

Make sure to include opportunity costs in the calculation.
post #33 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Make sure to include opportunity costs in the calculation.

I don't know what you're referring to.
post #34 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I don't know what you're referring to.

Opportunity costs are the costs to society of not doing X, Y or X because you did do A, B or C. Most people think that the only costs are the direct costs. But this is not true (at all). Opportunity costs can be quite high and, in fact, likely greater when it concerns something that is achievable by other (much lower cost) means.
post #35 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Opportunity costs are the costs to society of not doing X, Y or X because you did do A, B or C. Most people think that the only costs are the direct costs. But this is not true (at all). Opportunity costs can be quite high and, in fact, likely greater when it concerns something that is achievable by other (much lower cost) means.

I don't know how these costs could be calculated in this scenario. I will see what I can come up with and get back to you. Specifically I will see what the cost was for the developement of the hepatitis b vaccine as this also reduces the rate of liver cancer and the caost of developement of the flu vaccines. These should be readily available.
post #36 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Opportunity costs can be quite high and, in fact, likely greater when it concerns something that is achievable by other (much lower cost) means.

Not at all. They are, often, much lower and are judged to be so by people who actually put some thought to the whole process. Decisions are made because individuals believe that doing A is likely to give more benefit than doing B.

When you're hungry, and you only have $10, you will think about it, and most likely decide to go to a restaurant and buy a meal rather than go and see that cool Spiderman movie that just came out even though you may want to do both. In this case, you decide that eating, as opposed to 2 hours of entertainement, is of greater benefit, thus the choice of doing A (eating) is better than the choice of doing B (watching a movie).

It's all within the scope of judgement of the individual(s) with the money/time and their personal feelings/ideas/information about choice A, B, C, or X. It is almost always different from case to case, because different people have different ideas and expectations from different things. Therefore, saying that the opportunity cost of developing vaccines to cure cancer is likely higher than the opportunity cost of not developing them, shows a lack of understanding, basic understanding, of the whole economic process, let alone the humane aspect of the whole issue at hand.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #37 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Not at all. They are, often, much lower and are judged to be so by people who actually put some thought to the whole process. Decisions are made because individuals believe that doing A is likely to give more benefit than doing B.

When you're hungry, and you only have $10, you will think about it, and most likely decide to go to a restaurant and buy a meal rather than go and see that cool Spiderman movie that just came out even though you may want to do both. In this case, you decide that eating, as opposed to 2 hours of entertainement, is of greater benefit, thus the choice of doing A (eating) is better than the choice of doing B (watching a movie).

It's all within the scope of judgement of the individual(s) with the money/time and their personal feelings/ideas/information about choice A, B, C, or X. It is almost always different from case to case, because different people have different ideas and expectations from different things. Therefore, saying that the opportunity cost of developing vaccines to cure cancer is likely higher than the opportunity cost of not developing them, shows a lack of understanding, basic understanding, of the whole economic process, let alone the humane aspect of the whole issue at hand.

Well, your simplistic example misses the point. Yes, at an individual level, things are so simple. But in aggregate, societal matters things are much more complex.

When it comes to something like this specific example, there may be a very high opporunity cost when you consider that there exists another (possibly lower cost) means of achieveing the same ends (preventing cervical cancer).
post #38 of 260
We get your little schtick.

abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence,
abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence,
abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence,
abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence, abstinence.


The opportunity cost of teaching abstinence (the "cheaper" solution you probably have in mind) instead of developing these vaccines would be *very* high. Agreed?
post #39 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The opportunity cost of teaching abstinence (the "cheaper" solution you probably have in mind) instead of developing these vaccines would be *very* high.

Surely you can support this...or are you just saying whatever you think is the right answer?

P.S. I am not necessarily talking about teaching abstinence...but as far as actually practicing it goes, I'd say that the opportunity cost of developing the vaccine goes way up.
post #40 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Surely you can support this...or are you just saying whatever you think is the right answer?

Let me see your footnotes first.

I'll get back to you later. Coffee time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine