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

Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 5

post #161 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It is you own damn fault for not giving them the vaccine.

How did this become my problem. You are confused. I asked:

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

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
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?

If you don't want to (or can't) answer the question, just say so.
post #162 of 260
We cannot prevent them from getting cancer if they or their guardians make choices that increase their risk.

WE have no say in what little Betsy does with HER
cunt.
"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 #163 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
We cannot prevent them from getting cancer if they or their guardians make choices that increase their risk.

Priceless.

You must be a genius.

Absolutely priceless.



Looks like my work is done here.
post #164 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Priceless.

You must be a genius.

Absolutely priceless.



Looks like my work is done here.

Huh? What are you talking about?

I have never argued that WE as society have any say over how someone affects themselves...

Edit: Are you trying to suggest I was arguing that increased sexual contact doesn't increase risk for STD associated disease? That would be a retarded tack to take since it is a truism.
"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 #165 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Let me spell it out for you...



...is not the same as:



90 != 100.

Your pride won't let you back down from your previous, hubris-inspired proclamation.

Let me put the context back into my original post:

In a stage III trial of a vaccine it would be SHOCKING for the success rate to be less than 100%.

(AND IT WOULD NOT BE SHOCKING IF IT WAS 100%, which is the point, you know)....
"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 #166 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
In a stage III trial of a vaccine it would be SHOCKING for the success rate to be less than 100%.

Stage III?
post #167 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Stage III?

Sorry, brain fart...

Phase III.... that's better...


Google it for more info.... its a study of 1000 or so people after safety and efficacy of drugs or vaccines have been verified by two prior phases of clinical trials....
"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 #168 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Sorry, brain fart...

Phase III.... that's better...


Google it for more info.... its a study of 1000 or so people after safety and efficacy of drugs or vaccines have been verified by two prior phases of clinical trials....

There has only been one phase of clinical trials for this vaccine. They started in 2000-ish and wrapped up in 2005-ish. They are just beginning phase two now.
post #169 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There has only been one phase of clinical trials for this vaccine. They started in 2000-ish and wrapped up in 2005-ish. They are just beginning phase two now.

Wrong.

Edit: We are talking about the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine right? (This one's phase III is ongoing, if it hasn't been complete....)

The Merck one has already finished phase III.

Edit 2: Actually, just WRONG.
"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 #170 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
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).

Chris our resources are not so limited that we as a country can only look to cure the common cold. That's absurd. You're intellegent and have researched the leading causes of death in this country. That list is full of diseases/causes that are at least caused in part by 'negative' behavior.
post #171 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wrong.

Edit: We are talking about the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine right? (This one's phase III is ongoing, if it hasn't been complete....)

The Merck one has already finished phase III.

Edit 2: Actually, just WRONG.

I guess I am confused. It was my understanding that first trials began in 1999-2000-ish and that each phase lasted FIVE years. These seem to be 2 year trials. Everything I found suggested these were "early phase" clinical trials.

I did find an article that confirms this Phase III thing. It had these interesting quotes:

Quote:
"These are stunning results," Margaret Stanley -- an HPV and cervical cancer specialist at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved with the trial -- said, adding, "For a vaccine to show 100% efficacy, even over a short time like two years, is a really good result"

Quote:
Eliav Barr, Merck head of clinical development for the vaccine, said, "To have 100% efficacy is something that you have vary rarely,"
post #172 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Chris our resources are not so limited that we as a country can only look to cure the common cold. That's absurd. You're intellegent and have researched the leading causes of death in this country.

Of course that is absurd. And if that is what I had suggested, you'd have a point.

Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
That list is full of diseases/causes that are at least caused in part by 'negative' behavior.

These don't appear to be: breast, prostate, uterine, testicular, brain, bone, colon, stomach, ovarian cancers
post #173 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I guess I am confused. It was my understanding that first trials began in 1999-2000-ish and that each phase lasted FIVE years. These seem to be 2 year trials. Everything I found suggested these were "early phase" clinical trials.

I did find an article that confirms this Phase III thing. It had these interesting quotes:

I think that vaccine efficacy really is a technical point that doesn't add much to the discussion. Even if a vaccine isn't 100% effective it still is very beneficial. Herd immunity can protect those who individually are not effectively immune from a particular disease. As well some may get a partial immunity which lessens the severity if the disease if they contract it.
post #174 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Even if a vaccine isn't 100% effective it still is very beneficial.

Agreed.
post #175 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course that is absurd. And if that is what I had suggested, you'd have a point.



These don't appear to be: breast, prostate, uterine, testicular, brain, bone, colon, stomach, ovarian cancers

So are these the only diseases we (society) should devote time and resources towards in finding a cure? Are these the only diseases we should spend public dollars on treating? Should our teaching hospitals, many of which are funded to a large degree through medicare and medicaid, train doctors to treat diseases that have a behavioral component as their cause?
post #176 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
So are these the only diseases we (society) should devote time and resources towards in finding a cure? Are these the only diseases we should spend public dollars on treating? Should our teaching hospitals, many of which are funded to a large degree through medicare and medicaid, train doctors to treat diseases that have a behavioral component as their cause?

I didn't say that. My basic point is this...

1. Diseases with the largest human impact in terms of suffering/death (most deaths) move to the top of list of funding and get everything thrown at them that we can.

2. Diseases which can be eliminated by changing human behavior move to the bottom...and their funding turned over to the one's at the top simply because we have an alternative way to solve the problem in those cases.

Not that complex really.
post #177 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
We cannot prevent them from getting cancer if they or their guardians make choices that increase their risk.

Well. That is the "money quote" as far as I am concerned.

I have other things to tend to, so I'll end it here.

Thanks for making my day hardee. Maybe I'll even take you off ignore.
post #178 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I didn't say that. My basic point is this...

1. Diseases with the largest human impact in terms of suffering/death (most deaths) move to the top of list of funding and get everything thrown at them that we can.

2. Diseases which can be eliminated by changing human behavior move to the bottom...and their funding turned over to the one's at the top simply because we have an alternative way to solve the problem in those cases.

Not that complex really.

Look at the list, all the diseases with the greatest morbity and mortality are 'behavioral'. You've listed a few cancers that aren't felt at the current time to be caused by negative bevhavior but most of the rest of the top 15 causes of death have a behavioral component.
post #179 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Look at the list, all the diseases with the greatest morbity and mortality are 'behavioral'. You've listed a few cancers that aren't felt at the current time to be caused by negative bevhavior but most of the rest of the top 15 causes of death have a behavioral component.

List them. Highest is lung cancer which does appear to have a strong behavioral component (though not 100%, in fact only 87%...asbestos and radon are also causes...air pollution...etc...and there are "innocent bystanders" on this one...further we have started addressing the behavioral component of this...we go around telling people to stop smoking...and we setup limitations to protect the "innocent bystanders" as well). The one's I listed do not however.
post #180 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
List them. Highest is lung cancer which does appear to have a strong behavioral component (though not 100%). The one's I listed do not however.

The top 15 cause of death in 2003:

1). Heart Disease: Strong behavioral causation, obesity, smoking and sedentary lifestyle
2). Cancer: Strong Behavioral Causation in some cancers, oral, lung, cervical, liver, skin.
3). Stroke: Some Behavioral Causation, smoking
4). Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: Strong Behavioral Causation, smoking
5). Accidents: Some Beahvioral Causation, Lack of use of safety devices such as seat belts, driving while intoxicated
6). Diabetes Mellitus: Strong Behavioral Causation, obesity
7). Influenza and Pneumonia:
8). Alzheimers Disease:
9). Nephritis and Kidney Disease
10). Septicemia: Behavioral Causation in some, IV drug abusers
11). Intentional Self Harm: Behavioral Causation
12). Chronic Liver Disease: Alcolohol Abuse, Hepatitis
13). Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive renal Disease:
14). Parkinsons:
15). Assault: Behavioral Causation
post #181 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
The top 15 cause of death in 2003:

1). Heart Disease: Strong behavioral causation, obesity, smoking and sedentary lifestyle
2). Cancer: Strong Behavioral Causation in some cancers, oral, lung, cervical, liver, skin.
3). Stroke: Some Behavioral Causation, smoking
4). Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: Strong Behavioral Causation, smoking
5). Accidents: Some Beahvioral Causation, Lack of use of safety devices such as seat belts, driving while intoxicated
6). Diabetes Mellitus: Strong Behavioral Causation, obesity
7). Influenza and Pneumonia:
8). Alzheimers Disease:
9). Nephritis and Kidney Disease
10). Septicemia: Behavioral Causation in some, IV drug abusers
11). Intentional Self Harm: Behavioral Causation
12). Chronic Liver Disease: Alcolohol Abuse, Hepatitis
13). Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive renal Disease:
14). Parkinsons:
15). Assault: Behavioral Causation

- painted a broad stroke with "cancer"

- none of these are really 100% and often have other non-behavioral contibutors (family history, etc.)

- most of these much effort is being put into educating people about their health and decisions related to it: "stop smoking", "eat better for your heart", "watch your weight", "get some excercise", "go easy on the alcohol", "don't drink and drive", "buckle up", "helmets save lives", etc. We don't have anyone developing a "skull hardening medication" to alleviate people too dumb to wear helmets while rollerblading, skateboarding, motorcycling or bicycling.

- off to watch "Seinfeld" for me (which is decidely bad for my "attitude health" but funny as hell )...later guys
post #182 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
- painted a broad stroke with "cancer"

- none of these are really 100% and often have other non-behavioral contibutors (family history, etc.)

- most of these much effort is being put into educating people about their health and decisions related to it: "stop smoking", "eat better for your heart", "watch your weight", "get some excercise", "go easy on the alcohol", "don't drink and drive", "buckle up", "helmets save lives", etc. We don't have anyone developing a "skull hardening medication" to alleviate people too dumb to wear helmets while rollerblading, skateboarding, motorcycling or bicycling.

- off to watch "Seinfeld" for me (which is decidely bad for my "attitude health" but funny as hell )...later guys

Yes, but how can you put diseases that have a behavioral causation on the back burner? Isn't that what you're suggesting?
post #183 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Yes, but how can you put diseases that have a behavioral causation on the back burner? Isn't that what you're suggesting?

We are talking about a disease here (cervical cancer) that is 100% behavioral. These others are not...and those that are we need to emphasize behavorial changes as the "first (and cheapest and most effective) line of defense"...which is actually happening! Lung cancer deaths dropped in 2004. Leading cause? Fewer people smoked! Duh! Our first line of defense of the behavorial stuff is...change the behavior. Some behviours we think are off limits (sex)...don't want to impune anyone's "freedom" and what not. We have friggin' helmet and seatbelt laws for goodness sake! Laws to "make" people do the right behavioral thing! We don't for eating too much fat, sugar or alchohol...but we at least have public education programs...and they are having an effect.

The bottom line question in all of this is how far ought we go to protect people from the natural consequences of their own choices and actions?

Now...really...time for "Seinfeld"!
post #184 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
We are talking about a disease here (cervical cancer) that is 100% behavioral.

Prove it.

Actually, I know you can't because not all women who get HPV get cancer AND HPV can be found in 75% of reproductively aged adults (http://www.indiana.edu/~health/hpv.html).

So suck it.

Edit: To make sure Chris sees this post will someone quote me....
"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 #185 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well. That is the "money quote" as far as I am concerned.

I have other things to tend to, so I'll end it here.

Thanks for making my day hardee. Maybe I'll even take you off ignore.

Chris, I don't care what you do. I realized you weren't responding to me a long time ago -- I was SHOCKED that you actually had the courage to respond to a post I made...

Live in ignorance.
"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 #186 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well. That is the "money quote" as far as I am concerned.

I have other things to tend to, so I'll end it here.

Thanks for making my day hardee. Maybe I'll even take you off ignore.

We can prevent them from getting cancer if they get the vaccine.

We cannot prevent them from getting cancer if they or their guardians make choices that put them at risk.

These statements are not incompatible, so I really don't understand your enjoyment of this.

Perhaps you feel that this vaccine is a way for us to prevent people from getting cancer even if they make sexual activity choices that put them at risk. Unfortunately, that is an illogical connection because once they have the vaccine they are no longer at risk for developing cancer caused by the variants of HPV that the vaccine protects them from. You see there are two paths here two sets of choices:
Code:


Vaccine -- Sex : No development of HPV-related cervical cancer due to
strains inoculated for
--No Sex: No development of HPV-related cervical cancer due to
strains inoculated for
No Vaccine -- Sex: A fraction of women will be at elevated risk for developing
cervical cancer
-- No Sex: No development of HPV-related cervical cancer
assuming the woman has never worn another woman's underwear, etc...



See. There are a total of four choices only one set No Vaccine/Sex leads to increased risk for HPV related cervical cancer (of the strains of the vaccine). It isn't an either or proposition.

I will repeat my statement you find so humorous:

We cannot prevent them from getting cancer if they or their guardians make choices that put them at risk.

The choice is Sex AND No Vaccine -- it isn't an either or proposition.

However, now that I know the spread of HPV in human populations, unless you are a priest or a nun and you have a sexual partner the chances are pretty high that you are going to have HPV... So really, we shouldn't be talking about the number of people who develop cervical cancer, because that is related to the number of people who have GENETIC predisposition for the cancer, we should be talking about how we are going to be able to reduce the number of people infected with HPV by use of this vaccine...
"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 #187 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
"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."

Where did you get the rest of this quote? I don't see it on google.
post #188 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Where did you get the rest of this quote? I don't see it on google.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
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."
post #189 of 260
Yeah, I saw that, but

a) she didn't say that. She said "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex." You can't just pull some shit out of thin air and tack it onto someone's quote like it was stated in any way, shape or form just because you wish it was there. Yeah, we could think about her statement the way you wish she had said it, but it wouldn't be anymore valid than pretending she said "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 will cause street signs to start bowling," because, you know, she didn't say either and they'd both be irrelevant anyway.

b) after your total hissy fit you had earlier in the thread about thuh Freak's "mis-quoting...lying in other words" (as you continued in another post, "You outright (and deliberately) misquoted me....DO NOT DELIBERATELY MISQUOTE ME.") your very liberal use of quotes is quite strange.
post #190 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, I saw that, but

OK then. Give it a rest.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
a) she didn't say that. She said "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex."

Yes. I am aware of that. Give it a rest.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You can't just pull some shit out of thin air and tack it onto someone's quote like it was stated in any way, shape or form just because you wish it was there.

I wasn't wishing it was there. Give it a rest.

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, we could think about her statement the way you wish she had said it, but it wouldn't be anymore valid than pretending she said "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 will cause street signs to start bowling," because, you know, she didn't say either and they'd both be irrelevant anyway.

Except that the thing I suggested is a reasonable possibility of what someone might be thinking on the subject. Perhaps not that person specifically, but those opposed to the mandatory vaccinations. It is called a hypothetical suggestion. Perhaps you've heard of it.



Quote:
Originally posted by giant
b) after your total hissy fit you had earlier in the thread about thuh Freak's "mis-quoting...lying in other words" (as you continued in another post, "You outright (and deliberately) misquoted me....DO NOT DELIBERATELY MISQUOTE ME.") your very liberal use of quotes is quite strange.

Relax sparky. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was adding to the quote in a hypothetical way. If you didn't get that, don't blame me.

post #191 of 260
And you can't just ignore this:
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's a false dichotomy Chris. No one is saying we should vaccinate so we can tell kids to have as much sex as they want. It's the fundies who are presenting this as a choice. They say we should beware of these vaccinations.

Look, most serious illnesses today are behavioral in nature. We've done a damn good job of reducing the impact of many infectious diseases (mainly via vaccination). The top killers today are cardiovascular disease and cancer, which are caused primarily by smoking and other lifestyle issues like nutrition and exercise. Chronic illness like diabetes are also on the rise - again caused primarily by lifestyle (obesity). Only a truly immoral person would say that we shouldn't try to medically treat these diseases because it might lessen the punishment of these behaviors. And yet that's what some people are saying about this cancer.

And, honestly, I think it's no accident that the focus is sexual diseases like this cancer and HIV. Some people - mostly religiously motivated - have a real bug in their butts about sex. Combine sex with moral hazard, and it just drives some people into these ridiculous and immoral positions.

The fact is that the only reason conservatives narrow in on this vaccine is because it's about sex. Your are just wrapping up your anti-sex moral beliefs in a fake medical package when you try to argue that an illness shouldn't be treated because behavior plays a role in causing it. The fact is that a huge number of illnesses, if not most, are caused in part by behavior and or social conditions.
post #192 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK then. Give it a rest.

Yes. I am aware of that. Give it a rest.

I wasn't wishing it was there. Give it a rest.

Except that the thing I suggested is a reasonable possibility of what someone might be thinking on the subject. Perhaps not that person specifically, but those opposed to the mandatory vaccinations. It is called a hypothetical suggestion. Perhaps you've heard of it.



Relax sparky. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was adding to the quote in a hypothetical way. If you didn't get that, don't blame me.


That's exactly the sort of response I would have expected from Jesus. I'm sure he'd be proud of his followers today.
post #193 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's exactly the sort of response I would have expected from Jesus. I'm sure he'd be proud of his followers today.

Relax. You misinterpreted the post. Deal with it.
post #194 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You misinterpreted the post.

Err, no, I criticized your flawed and hypocritical attempt to change the subject when presented with quote that conflicted with one of your arguments.

You still haven't dealt with the observation that your position on this issue is apparently strictly the result of an anti-sex moral belief system rather than a view of medicine and behavior that could apply to all conditions and their behavioral causes.
post #195 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Err, no, I criticized your flawed and hypocritical attempt to change the subject when presented with quote that conflicted with one of your arguments.

post #196 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by some hypocrite
Relax. You misinterpreted the post. Deal with it.

dood, you freaked out so much more than giant did. and my gaffe was obvious. i find you quite objectionable, Chris.
post #197 of 260
Chris,

you wrote:

Quote:
We are talking about a disease here (cervical cancer) that is 100% behavioral.

I am taking that to mean that in your opinion cercical cancer is only found in women who have a significant number of sexual partners at a young age.

That is not a true statement. I am looking at www.cancerbacup.org.uk.

Does that change your opinion at all?

Secondly, you are fond of throwing "straw man" into the conversation. But is not a straw man argument to suggest (which, admittedly I've inferred from your comments) that the pro-vaccine people here would put development of this vaccine at the top of the potential vaccine list?

I don't think anyone here has suggested that it is the number 1 priority. But it is not an either/or debate.

In addition, I don't understand why you threw in the question "what should we do with the girls that don't take any developed vaccine?". We shouldn't do anything - it is their choice as to whether they take it or not - why is that controversial? We don't force most other improved health programmes o people - why should this be different?

At the moment it is legal to overindulge in burgers and chips (even though it is self harming). It is legal to smoke to excess (even though it is self harming). It is legal to drink to excess (even though it is self harming). Similarly with sex - it is legal.

Finally, may I ask you a direct question, which has a yes/no answer?

If it was within your power, would you redirect every research dollar being spent on this vaccine to a more worthy (in your eyes) disease research progamme?

Regards,

David
post #198 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
dood, you freaked out so much more than giant did. and my gaffe was obvious.

I see it quite the opposite. Your post made it look like that was exactly what I said. I have gone back (since giant's mis-interpretation) and modified my post to make it even more clear. Have you shown the same courtesy?
post #199 of 260
1. Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus.
2. The HPV virus is conveyed through sexual contact (primarily intercourse).

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Secondly, you are fond of throwing "straw man" into the conversation. But is not a straw man argument to suggest (which, admittedly I've inferred from your comments) that the pro-vaccine people here would put development of this vaccine at the top of the potential vaccine list?

I don't think anyone here has suggested that it is the number 1 priority. But it is not an either/or debate.

You have inferred incorrectly. I have never said or even suggested that anyone "would put development of this vaccine at the top of the potential vaccine list".

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
In addition, I don't understand why you threw in the question "what should we do with the girls that don't take any developed vaccine?". We shouldn't do anything - it is their choice as to whether they take it or not - why is that controversial? We don't force most other improved health programmes o people - why should this be different?

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
If it was within your power, would you redirect every research dollar being spent on this vaccine to a more worthy (in your eyes) disease research progamme?

Yes.
post #200 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
since giant's mis-interpretation

Where do you see me misinterpreting your statement?

My point was simple and should be easy for you to understand: you can't throw a total hissy fit over thuh Freak "mis-quoting...lying in other words" and then immediately start playing loosely with quotes yourself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine