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

Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 4

post #121 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Well, I was able to find it on the first page of the google search for "HPV vaccine" (sans quotes):

so apparently the problem isn't what you call a "red herring" but rather your apparent inability to use google.

Ummm...That is the statement of an opinion which is different than being "blocked by religious fanatics" or the even more misleading thread title "Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine". The person quoted is stating a pertinent issue, as they are when they say:

Quote:
"Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,"

You might/could possibly/hypothetically take a moment to think about the statement like this:

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex, which could lead to other, more serious social and/or medical issues down the road. And so we should consider these issues as the approval (and possible mandatory use of) this vaccine is dicussed*."

( * underlined part added as a hypothetical but reasonably possible extension of what this person or other like her might be thinking about when voicing concerns over the effects of this vaccine. )

To which the only apparent response seems to be "You are an immoral, religous nutjob. Shut the fuck up and get the hell out of our public debate, you don't belong."
post #122 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ummm...
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex, which could lead to other, more serious social and/or medical issues down the road. And so we should consider these issues as the approval (and possible mandatory use of) this vaccine is dicussed."

To which the only apparent response seems to be "You are an immoral, religous nutjob. Shut the fuck up and get the hell out of our public debate, you don't belong."

It bears repeating, abstinence and vaccination are NOT mutually exclusive. This whole debate is turning into an either or proposition and it isn't.
post #123 of 260
Thread Starter 
Why do fundies object to sex before marriage or having sex with multiple partners?

What is the thinking behind this - this is OT as the fact is that regardless of this vaccine or any other issue, what lies beneath is this objection to sex and fundies will still have that issue even if one day we solve all STD and se-related problems.

I'm just wondering why it is and where it stems from.

Anyone?
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 #124 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
It bears repeating, abstinence and vaccination are NOT mutually exclusive. This whole debate is turning into an either or proposition and it isn't.

I don't think it really is. No one is really claiming such a thing. A bit of a straw man you are creating there.

In this case, it is probably a moot point, but it is worth discussing in anticipation of the development of new vaccines.

- If you have some particular "ailment" that is 100% the result of people personal, controllable, choices and actions, should (large amounts of) valuable time and (vast) resources be expended to develop some kind of "vaccine" (NOTE: This doesn't strictly apply to medical scenarios...thus the quotes)? When those same resources could be expended to develop solutions to other problems which do not appear to be based on human behaviors?

- If you erase negative consequences for actions (leaving only positive consequences) what might long term effects of this be? Can you ever really "erase" consequences, or do you simply shift them in space, time or to someone else (society as a whole, another person, etc.)?

These are the kinds of questions we're talking about here. These aren't "religious" questions (unless, by "religious" you mean the ability to zoom out and look at the forest and not just the trees...and consider the bigger/longer-term picture of these things).
post #125 of 260
Chris,

you have posted the most intelligent question in this whole thread:

Quote:
If you have some particular "ailment" that is 100% the result of people personal, controllable, choices and actions, should (large amounts of) valuable time and (vast) resources be expended to develop some kind of "vaccine" (NOTE: This doesn't strictly apply to medical scenarios...thus the quotes)?

It deserves a whole thread to itself, really.

Obese people - should they have publicly funded treatment?
Smokers - should they be treated for lung cancer should they get it?
Diabetes caused by poor lifestyle choices?
General STDs because single monogamous partnerships don't lead to any STD.

Where does one draw the line, and more importantly, who chooses where that line is to be drawn?

David
post #126 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ummm...That is the statement of an opinion which is different than being "blocked by religious fanatics" or the even more misleading thread title "Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine". The person quoted is stating a pertinent issue, as they are when they say:



You might take a moment to think about the statement like this:

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex, which could lead to other, more serious social and/or medical issues down the road. And so we should consider these issues as the approval (and possible mandatory use of) this vaccine is dicussed."

To which the only apparent response seems to be "You are an immoral, religous nutjob. Shut the fuck up and get the hell out of our public debate, you don't belong."

Yes but in practice abstinence doctrine did not prevent aids to spread all around the world. Because when it come to sex, our instinct are sometimes stronger.
Same apply for birth control, the Ogino method, do not work at all. It's a joke.

Don't expect everybody to follow every day of their life abstinence. Even some saints like the Abbe Pierre (who dedicated his life for poors and homeless people admitted that he failed sometimes).

Chris : here is a question, that you will only answer to yourself (because it's not my busisness) : when it come to sex, where you always wise ?
If yes, then good for you, and I hope it will continue.
I will answer this question for me, and I must admit that I was not always wise, dispite the facts, that I do not fit at all the description of a Casanova. I was not unlucky, so nothing wrong happen, but it could have.
Don't ask too much to people
post #127 of 260
Quote:
If you have some particular "ailment" that is 100% the result of people personal, controllable, choices and actions, should (large amounts of) valuable time and (vast) resources be expended to develop some kind of "vaccine" (NOTE: This doesn't strictly apply to medical scenarios...thus the quotes)?

That's not an intelligent question at all. The answer is yes, yes, YES, YES!!!, YES!!!!, YES!!!!!

Of course we should work on curing all disease. Sheesh. Do you want to withhold treatments as punishment? Fuck that. Where's the Jesoid compassion? Who Would Jesus Cure? EVERYONE! Clearly CC is using his religious values to pose the question, but according to those values he's a sinner just like everyone else. It's not HIS job to judge people and it's not HIS job to punish people for their mistakes. It is the most noble and jesus-like goal to want to cure all disease no matter what the cause. God damn fundies...*grumble*

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #128 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


- If you have some particular "ailment" that is 100% the result of people personal, controllable, choices and actions, should (large amounts of) valuable time and (vast) resources be expended to develop some kind of "vaccine" (NOTE: This doesn't strictly apply to medical scenarios...thus the quotes)? When those same resources could be expended to develop solutions to other problems which do not appear to be based on human behaviors?


I believe in medical scenarios, yes. Particularly with vaccines which are very cost effective in the long run. If you read the jordan report which I posted a link, one person commented that the first dose of a vaccine costs millions of dollars every one after cost pennies. This was a bit exagerated but you get the point.

Taking your position of only researching (treating?) diseases that are the result of personable controllable behaviors is not reasonable. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I doubt you will like were it leads.
post #129 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I believe in medical scenarios, yes. Particularly with vaccines which are very cost effective in the long run. If you read the jordan report which I posted a link, one person commented that the first dose of a vaccine costs millions of dollars every one after cost pennies. This was a bit exagerated but you get the point.

Taking your position of only researching (treating?) diseases that are the result of personable controllable behaviors is not reasonable. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I doubt you will like were it leads.

But you are missing the point.

It isn't a question of "should we seek to cure all diseases?" The issue is one of limited resources and the need for prioritization.

If we have two things where one is 100% caused by human behavior and could be stopped by people not doing it, and another which does not appear to have any direct, single behavioral cause, and we have limited resources (which we do) which should we spend the resources to address and which should we say..."hey, don't do that, you'll get hurt"?

There is also the additional question of what the long-term consequences are of removing some/all negative consequences from a behavior might be.
post #130 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I don't think it really is. No one is really claiming such a thing. A bit of a straw man you are creating there.

In this case, it is probably a moot point, but it is worth discussing in anticipation of the development of new vaccines.

- If you have some particular "ailment" that is 100% the result of people personal, controllable, choices and actions, should (large amounts of) valuable time and (vast) resources be expended to develop some kind of "vaccine" (NOTE: This doesn't strictly apply to medical scenarios...thus the quotes)? When those same resources could be expended to develop solutions to other problems which do not appear to be based on human behaviors?

- If you erase negative consequences for actions (leaving only positive consequences) what might long term effects of this be? Can you ever really "erase" consequences, or do you simply shift them in space, time or to someone else (society as a whole, another person, etc.)?

These are the kinds of questions we're talking about here. These aren't "religious" questions (unless, by "religious" you mean the ability to zoom out and look at the forest and not just the trees...and consider the bigger/longer-term picture of these things).

First you say it's a straw man to think of this as either/or, and then you go on to make it just that. Your discussion of this Chris, is truly disgusting to me. It's simply an immoral position to argue that we should be wary of devoting resources to behavioral illnesses. As I said earlier, the vast majority of illnesses we face today are behavioral in nature: Cancer, CVD, diabetes, all caused primarily by smoking and obesity. Relatively few people die from non-behavioral causes like air-borne infectious agents.

With HIV, prevention has been a huge focus, as it should be. But at the same time, people are working on medical treatments and vaccinations. There is no either/or, except in the minds of people like you. Blech. Simply immoral, Chris.
post #131 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
First you say it's a straw man to think of this as either/or, and then you go on to make it just that. Your discussion of this Chris, is truly disgusting to me. It's simply an immoral position to argue that we should be wary of devoting resources to behavioral illnesses. As I said earlier, the vast majority of illnesses we face today are behavioral in nature: Cancer, CVD, diabetes, all caused primarily by smoking and obesity. Relatively few people die from non-behavioral causes like air-borne infectious agents.

With HIV, prevention has been a huge focus, as it should be. But at the same time, people are working on medical treatments and vaccinations. There is no either/or, except in the minds of people like you. Blech. Simply immoral, Chris.

You can call me immoral if you like. If that makes you feel better and what not. It doesn't address the argument. Go ad hominem if you wish.

However, the need to choose and prioritize is not something I have invented from my imagination. It is a reality associated with finite resources. You can "blech" against this reality all you like. It will not go away.

Every we know to be 100% behavioral is a dollar/hour NOT spent on something for which behvior is a either a much smaller component or a much weaker correlation or there is not discernable behavioral component (breast, prostate, uterine, testicular, brain, bone, colon, stomach, ovarian cancers to name only a few).
post #132 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If we have two things where one is 100% caused by human behavior and could be stopped by people not doing it,

CC, we established on the first page of this thread that "monogamous married women get cervical cancer too" - so what is your reasoning for denying the vaccine to monogamous married women?

Unless your "100% caused by human behavior" referrs to any sex at all, your entire line of reasoning is flawed here.

Furthermore, this is much like saying that we should not vaccinate against lung cancer (should such a vaccine ever become available) because it's caused by human behavior.

Smoking (what is the Bible's position on the morality of smoking, BTW?) increases the risk of lung cancer - but people who have never smoked or lived with significant secondhand smoke get lung cancer every day.

What of those monogomous married women who get cervical cancer, though? Maybe they just had too much sex - even though it was all with one person?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #133 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
what is the Bible's position on the morality of smoking, BTW?

How is this relevant? You (and others) want to create this religious/biblical straw man instead of arguing against the actual point I am trying to make.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
but people who have never smoked or lived with significant secondhand smoke get lung cancer every day.

Yes, and, in fact, one the of the developments over the past 2 decades has been the prohibition of this behavior in a variety of contexts to enable non-smokers to be less likely to be subjected to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
CC, we established on the first page of this thread that "monogamous married women get cervical cancer too" - so what is your reasoning for denying the vaccine to monogamous married women?

Unless your "100% caused by human behavior" referrs to any sex at all, your entire line of reasoning is flawed here.

Yes, it was asserted, but not supported by any facts.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
What of those monogomous married women who get cervical cancer, though? Maybe they just had too much sex - even though it was all with one person?

You need to learn more about the disease.

It is an STD.
post #134 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
.



You need to learn more about the disease.

It is an STD.

What about the monogamous woman who has had sex with a partner that cheated on her and gave her the STD?
post #135 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


You need to learn more about the disease.

It is an STD.

Hey everyone!

Chris doesn't mind that women who's husbands play away die of cancer!

When there's a vaccine they could have taken!
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #136 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Hey everyone!

Chris doesn't mind that women who's husbands play away die of cancer!

When there's a vaccine they could have taken!

Hey everyone!

Harald doesn't know what he's talking about and certainly isn't interpreting what Chris is saying correctly.

post #137 of 260
Pop quiz:

Anyone know how many other cancers (most of which have unknown causes) there are, each of which kills (many) more women every year?
post #138 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Hey everyone!

Harald doesn't know what he's talking about and certainly isn't interpreting what Chris is saying correctly.


Hey everyone!

Just thought I'd say hey, seemed like all the rage.

Oh yeah, and Chris you're wrong.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #139 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Pop quiz:

Anyone know how many other cancers (most of which have unknown causes) there are, each of which kills (many) more women every year?

Speak with your wallet, not your mouth. Get you and other likeminded people together to either fund research yourself or lobby companies to fund the research you want. Do NOT go around trying to reject research that's already been done.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #140 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Pop quiz:

Anyone know how many other cancers (most of which have unknown causes) there are, each of which kills (many) more women every year?

Cervical cancer is the thrid most common cancer in women worldwide (exceeded only I think by breast and lung cancer). It's incidence has dropped greatly in the U.S. and other developed countries the last 25 years due to PAP smears.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #141 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
Cervical cancer is the thrid most common cancer in women worldwide (exceeded only I think by breast and lung cancer). It's incidence has dropped greatly in the U.S. and other developed countries the last 25 years due to PAP smears.

It is (at least) 10th in the U.S.
post #142 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It is (at least) 10th in the U.S.

I don't dispute that. I'm just telling you that world-wide, it is a very significant cause of cancer mortality.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #143 of 260
So if we come up with a cure/vaccine for one kind of cancer, we have to sit on it until we discover the cure for the other kinds that are more common, even if they are a tougher nut to crack?
post #144 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
So if we come up with a cure/vaccine for one kind of cancer, we have to sit on it until we discover the cure for the other kinds that are more common, even if they are a tougher nut to crack?

I never said (or even suggested) such a thing. In fact, upthread, I said that this is (perhaps) a moot point for this particular case. More precisely, the time/$ spent on this one should have (first) been spent on another.
post #145 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I never said (or even suggested) such a thing. In fact, upthread, I said that this is (perhaps) a moot point for this particular case. More precisely, the time/$ spent on this one should have (first) been spent on another.

That is retarded Chris. There are diseases that are easier targets, and we should get them first. Why? Because in the process of pursuing treatments for them we develop tools that better able us to attack harder targets...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #146 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I never said (or even suggested) such a thing. In fact, upthread, I said that this is (perhaps) a moot point for this particular case. More precisely, the time/$ spent on this one should have (first) been spent on another.

That's if you have 20/20 hindsight. There is no evidence that cervical cancer research got anymore money than breast cancer research, which will get $870 million this year, for example.
post #147 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
That's if you have 20/20 hindsight. There is no evidence that cervical cancer research got anymore money than breast cancer research, which will get $870 million this year, for example.

You don't understand. It wasn't an issue of whether it got more money than some other cancer research (e.g., breast cancer).

And, no, it isn't "hindsight" issue. It is easy to look at the tables and say..."gee...most people (men or women) are dying of A, B, and C...let's put all of our time and $ into A, B and C...and we'll leave X, Y and Z along for a while."
post #148 of 260
Assume this gets approved (it probably will).

What should we do about the girls that choose to not be vaccinated with this vaccine?
post #149 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
in the process of pursuing treatments for them we develop tools that better able us to attack harder targets...

Possibly.
post #150 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Possibly.

There is no exception.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #151 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There is no exception.

Just like:

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Anything less than a 100% success rate would be SHOCKING.

post #152 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just like:




Actually, I stand by my earlier statement. Look at the list of vaccines that you have in your above post and all of them fall within the error of a small trial using pre-selected patients of 100% -- you must understand that when you do a small trial you ensure that the activity of the vaccine is complete and that you don't try the trial on immune deficient patients. These factors push the efficacy to 100%...

You don't understand how vaccines work, and you don't understand the incremental nature of science.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #153 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, I stand by my earlier statement.

Which was incorrect.
post #154 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Assume this gets approved (it probably will).

What should we do about the girls that choose to not be vaccinated with this vaccine?

Well let's be honest here, its the parents of these pre-adults choosing not to give their children the vaccine.

But you asked what we should do about them.

Nothing. We treat their cervical cancer if and when they get it.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #155 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Which was incorrect.

You can't read, can you?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #156 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You can't read, can you?

I read just fine. All you have done is give your opinion. Support the statement with facts:

"Anything less than a 100% success rate would be SHOCKING."
post #157 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nothing. We treat their cervical cancer if and when they get it.

But we don't want them to get the cancer!

What do we do about that?
post #158 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Which was incorrect.

Let me spell it out for you:

From you own goddamn post above:

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla, the simpleton who cannot read his own quoted sources
fficacy of routinely used vaccines*
Diphtheria: 87%-96%
Tetanus: >90%

Pertussis: 35%-96%

Recent studies have shown that pertussis vaccines currently in use in the United Kingdom have efficacies of over 90%

Haemophilus influenzae type b (conjugate vaccines): 94%-100%

The polyribosylribitol phosphate-diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine (not used in the United Kingdom or the United States) may have a lower efficacy in some populations
Oral polio: 90%-100%

Oral polio vaccine seems to be less immunogenic in developing countries
Measles: 90%-95%

Mumps: 90%-98%

The Rubini strain of vaccine virus has a lower efficacyin fact, a general study showed it to have no protective efficacy14
Rubella: >95%

The percentages marked in red are within the error range of 100% especially considering that these percentages are from LARGE studies which consist of MANY MORE VARIABLES than the controlled pilot study for the HPV vaccine.

Look Chris, if you can find a good target on a virus that activates one healthy person's immune response, for all other healthy individuals you expect that same antigen to activate an immune response. The ONLY exceptions are peoples whose immune systems are in some way compromised,
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #159 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But we don't want them to get the cancer!

What do we do about that?

It is you own damn fault for not giving them the vaccine. Punish the parents, whip them? Hang them on a cross? They're martyrs afterall pushing their christian agendas forward to ensure that their little Betsy doesn't spread her legs too wide before she gets married...


But, boy does Betsy wanna... She is a horny little fuck isn't she?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #160 of 260
Let me spell it out for you...

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The percentages marked in red are within the error range of 100%

...is not the same as:

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Anything less than a 100% success rate would be SHOCKING.

90 != 100.

Your pride won't let you back down from your previous, hubris-inspired proclamation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine