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

Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 6

post #201 of 260
Chris,

thank you for your direct reply to my question re research dollars.

I'm not sure that either of us will get any benefit from debating this further since your position is too extreme. Quoting from the UK website www.cancerbacup.org.uk:

Quote:
Many women have heard that having sexual intercourse at an early age and having multiple sexual partners can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer. They may be distressed that friends and family could think they fall into these categories.

Quote:
It is important to remember that although these factors can increase the chances of catching the virus, many women who have only had one sexual partner have HPV, and may go on to develop CIN or cervical cancer. So there is no reason for yourself or others to feel that you are to blame for having cervical cancer.

Quote:
A weakened immune system may also allow CIN to develop into a cancer. The immune system can be weakened by smoking, poor diet, and other infections, such as HIV.

As such, it is a shame that you believe that pure behavioral change can stop cervical cancer. According to that site only 100% abstinence will protect a women, whether she marries the first sexual partner she has or has 100 partners before she turns 19.

For some reason I am sure you are not suggesting that no sexual activities should occur other than for pure procreational reasons. Or is that inference wrong too?

Regards,

David
post #202 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
For some reason I am sure you are not suggesting that no sexual activities should occur other than for pure procreational reasons. Or is that inference wrong too?

Yes.

I am not making (and haven't made) any value statements about sex. I am simply conveying the prevailing understanding about HPV and cervical cancer. The quotes you provided don't change that.

You seem to be misunderstanding. I said:

1. Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus.
2. The HPV virus is conveyed through sexual contact (primarily intercourse).

I didn't say anything about how many partners...or whether it was a first sexual contact or not.
post #203 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I didn't say anything about how many partners...or whether it was a first sexual contact or not.

Uh, yeah you did. A number of times.
post #204 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am simply conveying the prevailing understanding about HPV and cervical cancer.

No you aren't. Your argument is directly analogous to saying that people shouldn't take the polio vaccine and should instead rely on trying to make their living conditions less sanitary.

The fact is that your moral beliefs surrounding sex are the only issue here, no matter how much you try to dress them up.
post #205 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Uh, yeah you did. A number of times.

You are mistaken. In page one of this thread I said:

"frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer"

The risk is greater (). That's all. Try to keep up. It's like anything else. I can get HIV on the first or the 100th time.
post #206 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The fact is that your moral beliefs surrounding sex are the only issue here, no matter how much you try to dress them up.

Are you denying this:

1. Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus.
2. The HPV virus is conveyed through sexual contact (primarily intercourse).

?
post #207 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are mistaken. In page one of this thread I said:

"frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer"

Taking about "multiple partner sexual activity" means that your statement, "I didn't say anything about how many partners," is false.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Are you denying this:

I'm saying that your entire argument is nothing but a value statement about sex, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
post #208 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I'm saying that your entire argument is nothing but a value statement about sex, no matter how much you try to dress it up.

Because that is easier than arguing the facts I guess.

When in doubt...go after motives.

post #209 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are mistaken. In page one of this thread I said:

"frequent and multiple partner sexual activity significantly increases their risk for this type of cancer"

It increases the probability. That's all. Try to keep up. It's like anything else. I can get HIV on the first or the 100th time.

No, it doesn't change the probability -- every partner you have has the same probability of carrying the HPV. In increases the chances of getting HPV.

To sum up. No change in probability. Increase in chances.
"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 #210 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, it doesn't change the probability -- every partner you have has the same probability of carrying the HPV. In increases the chances of getting HPV.

To sum up. No change in probability. Increase in chances.

Probability and chance are synonyms.
post #211 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Probability and chance are synonyms.

I am not using chance, I am using chances.

You have five rolls of the die, five chances to roll a six.

You do not have five probabilities to roll a six.

Wrong again.


Edit: In any event, your use of probability is incorrect -- the probability never changes. Each sexual encounter has the same probability of resulting in infection.
"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 #212 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Because that is easier than arguing the facts I guess.

Here's a fact: most infectious diseases intrinsically have social and behavioral factors. Your argument that these intrinsic social and behavioral factors are a reason to limit vaccinations when they are available is absolutely nonsensical, and the fact that it only applies to behavioral factors that your moral belief system has a problem with shows that your moral belief system is really the only determining factor in your argument.
post #213 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, it doesn't change the probability -- every partner you have has the same probability of carrying the HPV. In increases the chances of getting HPV.

To sum up. No change in probability. Increase in chances.

What say you?
post #214 of 260
Ok, so a basic probability lesson for everyone

If the probability god killing a kitten each time you masturbate is 1/6, the probability of it not happening each time you wax your weasel is 5/6.

Thus the proability of god not killing a kitten in five consecutive masturbatory sessions is (5/6)^5. Conversely, the probability of god killing a kitten at least once during your five acts of shame is 1 - (5/6)^5.

Got it?

Good.
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 #215 of 260
The web site says some women who don't have HPV still develop cervical cancer. How the FUCK does Chris keep going on about how it's 100% behavioral when this is the case?

Someone quote me so he sees this.

 

“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 #216 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Your argument that these intrinsic social and behavioral factors are a reason to limit vaccinations when they are available

That is not my argument.
post #217 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And you can't just ignore this:

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.

I'm not sure this is a conservative vs. liberal debate. I'm fairly conservative and a registered Republican but find that this is a no brainer. Vaccination is sound public health policy in this issue.
post #218 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
public health policy

Public policy isn't his strong point.
post #219 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Public policy isn't his strong point.

Whose? I'm confused.
post #220 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What say you?

Each time a woman who doesn't have HPV takes a new partner she has the same chance of getting the virus.

The probability of getting HPV from sexual contact is identical for every sexual contact.

A woman can sleep with 1000 men and still have the same probability of catching HPV in the 1001st sexual encounter.

She has exposed her self to greater risk, sure, but she hasn't changed the probability that she will get hpv from her next sexual encounter.
"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 #221 of 260
Chris,

I've understood your position to be that since cervical cancer can only be caught by sexually active women, and thus they can prevent themselves from catching it by abstinence, development of the vaccine is a waste of money.

You stated that if it was up to you, you would stop all research into this vaccine. Therefore any subsequent death would be met, by you, with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulder with the words "well, they shouldn't have slept around, should they? What did they expect?". Staggering, really.

Unfortunately for you, non-sexually active women catch it (according to the cancer support website I referred to).

Oh well, never let the facts get in the way, eh?

Goodnight,

David
post #222 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Chris,

I've understood your position to be that since cervical cancer can only be caught by sexually active women, and thus they can prevent themselves from catching it by abstinence, development of the vaccine is a waste of money.

You stated that if it was up to you, you would stop all research into this vaccine. Therefore any subsequent death would be met, by you, with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulder with the words "well, they shouldn't have slept around, should they? What did they expect?". Staggering, really.

Unfortunately for you, non-sexually active women catch it (according to the cancer support website I referred to).

Oh well, never let the facts get in the way, eh?

Goodnight,

David

I understand the need to make my position seem callous and unfeeling. But the simple fact is that...in cancers alone...forget "behavior" for a moment...there are 10 others that kill (in total) 100 time as many people each year. As a matter of prioritization...I would put as much money (all) towards these "top ten" before any others. If the "cure" for the number one cancer could be obtained even 1 year earlier due to additional funding (taken from a lesser killer) it would make up for 44 years of this one. The number two...15 years. The number three...9 years.

With (more) "behavioral" driven issues, we have an alternative that can be put into play immediately.

As I said earlier...with this particular one the point is (probably) moot since it is already developed...but the overall argument I am making is valid.

I would be going after the greatest number of lives I could save first...pouring everything we could into those. So, were I "in charge", I would have considered the (approximately 15-20) higher mortality cancers ahead of this one.

Not sure what is so hard to see about this. Why this is immoral. Why it is "extreme". Why it is "religious". Etc.

I would be going after the greatest number of lives I could save first.
post #223 of 260
What are you talking about Chris?

The cause of this cancer is an easy target, a foreign infectious agent. The most deadly cancers are probably not caused by a foreign agent, or if they are it is an unknown agent. We have discovered the infectious agent that causes some cervical cancer -- that makes our lives (as scientists) easier since we do not have to deal with the human side of things at all in seeking out a treatment or in this case a 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 #224 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What are you talking about Chris?

The cause of this cancer is an easy target, a foreign infectious agent. The most deadly cancers are probably not caused by a foreign agent, or if they are it is an unknown agent. We have discovered the infectious agent that causes some cervical cancer -- that makes our lives (as scientists) easier since we do not have to deal with the human side of things at all in seeking out a treatment or in this case a vaccine...

So, you would use a different criteria for prioritization. Fine. But don't suggest that the criteria for prioritization I offer is in some way "immoral" or "wrong". We live in world where we have limited resources and we need to make these choices (sadly).
post #225 of 260
Ok.
"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 #226 of 260
Chris,

I didn't make your position callous and unfeeling - you did by having such a position. You stated that you would stop all research into this vaccine. By your logic, since the top 10 cancers kill the most people, research into other illnesses (cancer or otherwise) should stop and resources redirected as you'd rather a top 10 cancer was stopped a year earlier. Hepatitis? No, doesn't kill enough, let's stop funding research there too, shall we?

You wrote that there are limited resources, and choices have to be made. It seems to me the choice has been made - most funding for cancer goes towards the biggies, like lung cancer. Some goes to the smaller ones. What's the problem?

Isn't the problem really that you disapprove of premarital sex, and 'cervical cancer' is another threat you can use against teenagers, and that such a vaccine removes that threat?

That's why, in my eyes, your position is extreme (stop funding any non top 10 cancer killer) and immoral (I don't mind if promiscuous females die of cancer).

And I haven't mention religeon once (though I realise others have).

David
post #227 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
We live in world where we have limited resources and we need to make these choices (sadly).

Well, you don't. Luckily for everyone but you, a combination of market forces, trends in public heath, scientific progress and millions of people much smarter and more informed than you do. Thus, we get things like a vaccine that successfully prevents a deadly form of cancer and you get to play dress-up with your moral belief system on an apple rumor forum's political ghetto.
post #228 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I didn't make your position callous and unfeeling - you did by having such a position.



Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
By your logic, since the top 10 cancers kill the most people, research into other illnesses (cancer or otherwise) should stop and resources redirected as you'd rather a top 10 cancer was stopped a year earlier. Hepatitis? No, doesn't kill enough, let's stop funding research there too, shall we?

It is clear that you disagree with the criteria that I would use (trying to save the most human lives). Fine. If that is callous, unfeeling and immoral...I'll stand by it.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Isn't the problem really that you disapprove of premarital sex, and 'cervical cancer' is another threat you can use against teenagers, and that such a vaccine removes that threat?

No.
post #229 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
most funding for cancer goes towards the biggies, like lung cancer. Some goes to the smaller ones.

Not true.
post #230 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not true.

Big Pharma funds things that will be profitable.

Government funds things that have the best scientific basis for success (in general).

Wouldn't you rather want to fund likely successful research over likely unsucessful research?
"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 #231 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Each time a woman who doesn't have HPV takes a new partner she has the same chance of getting the virus.

The probability of getting HPV from sexual contact is identical for every sexual contact.

A woman can sleep with 1000 men and still have the same probability of catching HPV in the 1001st sexual encounter.

She has exposed her self to greater risk, sure, but she hasn't changed the probability that she will get hpv from her next sexual encounter.

Right, that's like if you flip a coin 100 times the 101st flip has the same 50-50 chance of getting heads or tails. However, the probability of NOT getting a single tails up through the 100th time is miniscule.

 

“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 #232 of 260
I have to agree that Chris is simply saying that money should go where the most lives could be saved per dollar. Should you spend $10 million dollars on the 3% chance you could cure a disease that only 800 people have? Or should you spend the $10 million on lung cancer?

However, if Chris is not making any moral objections, then he should factor in the number of people suffering from the illness, no matter how they contract it.

By the way, the whole idea of trying to tie the morality of sex into the diseases that come with is stupid. Riding a motorcycle is pretty dangerous, but does it make you a slimy person because you enjoy the thrill of going fast?

You are much, much more likely to seriously injure your knees while skiing that while walking vigorously, but does that make skiing some evil thing?

It's unfortunate that a big thing, like having a baby, is attached to a small thing, like being horny and wanting to get it on. Of course you have to act responsibly. But does that mean every time you see a good looking woman walk by you should think "I must not think dirty thoughts as her attractiveness only serves the purpose of producing a baby"?
post #233 of 260
I think the money should be spent on curing people with what treatment is available now. For if we only spent money on researching a better future prize to save the most amount of people, then all money would have to be spent on living forever, and for a long long time all of us would die.
post #234 of 260
Spindler wrote:
Quote:
I have to agree that Chris is simply saying that money should go where the most lives could be saved per dollar. Should you spend $10 million dollars on the 3% chance you could cure a disease that only 800 people have? Or should you spend the $10 million on lung cancer?

The correct answer is perhaps $9.5 on Lung cancer and $0.5M on the other. (Don't argue about the precise proportion!)

In the UK the National Cancer Research Institue was set up to try to co-ordinate the efforts of all the research going on into cancer in the UK. Swapping of research, approriate prioritisations etc. Interestingly they found, when they did the work, that lung cancer was underfunded relative to its impact. I haven't had time to read all the research I dug up, but the clear implication was that more resources were going to be directed in that direction.

In this world it is rarely a black or white issue. My objection to Chris's position is not that he would prioritise. I would, too.

My objection is that he would STOP cervical cancer research (if it was within his power to do so) on the basis that if you don't have sex you won't get it, so "heal thyself".

David
post #235 of 260
Ok, I admit I haven't read most of this thread and am just jumping in to state the obvious, so forgive me if it has been said already.

If it protects against cancer in girls, then do it. Lump it together with the other vaccines (maybe MMRH instead of MMR) and teens won't think they have any more license to have unprotected sex than they have license to make out with a measles victim.

Furthermore, make it a mandadority vaccination, no religious exemptions. Religion shouldn't be an excuse for people to endanger others. Not your own children or other people's children.

Nuff said

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #236 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Furthermore, make it a mandadority vaccination, no religious exemptions. Religion shouldn't be an excuse for people to endanger others. Not your own children or other people's children.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that:

1. in some matters, people (girls in this case) should not have a choice of what happens with their bodies, and,

2. the government should be able to force them to do a certain thing with their bodies, and,

3. well (with regard to the 'religious expemtion' point) the 1st amendment be damned.

Do I have that right?
post #237 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So, in essence, what you are saying is that:

1. in some matters, people (girls in this case) should not have a choice of what happens with their bodies, and,

2. the government should be able to force them to do a certain thing with their bodies, and,

3. well (with regard to the 'religious expemtion' point) the 1st amendment be damned.

Do I have that right?

I'll assume you were sincere in these ridiculous interpretations and help you with your misunderstanding.

On 1-

Obviously children do not have total autonomy over their bodies. Neither do parents have total license to do what they want with their children. Parents are obligated to ensure the health of their children. In cases where they fail to do this the government should (and does) intervene. If you are unfamiliar with this precedent then I can refer you to child protective services.

This is an entirely different thing from the government telling an ADULT what they can and can't do with their bodies as any idiot can see. Attempts to graft this onto the abortion debate are lame.

On 2-

Your second point is redundant to your first point and can only have been added for effect, I assume.

On 3-

Ok, I'm surprised there are people out there who still don't get this, but the freedom of religion doesn't license any behavior. And most obviously - I mean really, stop for a moment and feel the nose on your own face, solve the problem 1+1 = ___, find a bear in the woods and feed him hi fiber - it doesn't allow for one citizen to harm another. If you don't get this, I'm going to need sock puppets to explain it.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #238 of 260
As far as I know there aren't any mandatory vaccinations. That's why bozo parents who think the black helicopters are putting mind-control drugs into their kids' rubella vaccines can refuse to get them. I would hope that everyone would get them, but making them legally mandated seems heavy-handed.
post #239 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I know there aren't any mandatory vaccinations. That's why bozo parents who think the black helicopters are putting mind-control drugs into their kids' rubella vaccines can refuse to get them. I would hope that everyone would get them, but making them legally mandated seems heavy-handed.

There are mandatory vaccinations for any kids that want to get into public school for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, there are religious exemptions. As a parent of kids in a public school I can't fathom why someone has the right to needlessly endanger other kids let alone their own kid. I think it's completely reasonable to require kids to be vaccinated when they go to public school. If parents don't want to vaccinate their kids then they can send them to a private school that welcomes unvaccinated kids or home school them.

Sure, one could make an argument that they don't need to be vaccinated against an STD to attend school, but as long as your requiring vaccinations for the other communicable diseases why not require it?

As a heathen parent who encourages his children to be sexually promiscous I just feel better knowing their peers aren't carrying HPV.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #240 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I'll assume you were sincere in these ridiculous interpretations and help you with your misunderstanding.

I don't think I misunderstood at all. There is a very clear meaning of the word "mandatory". But, I'll play along for fun...

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
On 1-

Obviously children do not have total autonomy over their bodies. Neither do parents have total license to do what they want with their children. Parents are obligated to ensure the health of their children. In cases where they fail to do this the government should (and does) intervene. If you are unfamiliar with this precedent then I can refer you to child protective services.

This is an entirely different thing from the government telling an ADULT what they can and can't do with their bodies as any idiot can see. Attempts to graft this onto the abortion debate are lame.

So...in short...yes. You believe that some people should not have a choice over what can/cannot be done to their bodies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
On 2-

Your second point is redundant to your first point and can only have been added for effect, I assume.

So...in short...yes. You believe that the government has the right to force some people to do certain things with/to their bodies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
On 3-

Ok, I'm surprised there are people out there who still don't get this, but the freedom of religion doesn't license any behavior. And most obviously - I mean really, stop for a moment and feel the nose on your own face, solve the problem 1+1 = ___, find a bear in the woods and feed him hi fiber - it doesn't allow for one citizen to harm another. If you don't get this, I'm going to need sock puppets to explain it.

So...in short...yes. You believe that the the constitutional phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not apply to all people.

You could have just said "yes" and avoided the elaborate smokescreen intended to confuse anyone into thinking you didn't mean yes to all of the questions.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine