Re: Obscene

It's a "Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> thing, innit, where
news:1136045436.350946.44730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, posted to
misc.writing, reveals:


I queried:
>> _If_ there are sufficient protections against the undesirable
>> aspects of sex, then what is the negative effect on health?
>
> Mortality from cervical cancer is around 1:30000 women. If the
> hypothetical increase in risky behavior exceeds 1:30000 mortality
> then the net result of the vaccine would be to kill people.

How could it? If the vaccine prevents that disease, and the condoms
prevent the rest, then how could there be an *increase* in mortality
from the potential, hypothetical increase in risky behavior?

Further, how can the odds be calculated that a theoretical girl,
given the vaccine, will indeed be *more* likely to engage in risky
sex (and, quite frankly, even marital sex is "risky" if the husband
plays -- just ask the African women)?


>
> I'm not saying that therefore we should be against the vaccine;
> I'm saying why are we (sensible people) prejudiced in favor?

Because the theoretical odds of the hypothetical increase in presumed
risky sexual behavior are likely to be insignificant when compared to
the hypothetical odds of contracting a mortal or debilitating
disease.

I'm saying the odds of a girl (or woman) indulging in risky sex are
NOT likely to increase significantly as a result of the application
of the vaccine.

Further, even if it were, the vaccine PLUS the condom reduce most
risks.

The only "risk" left is that of the emotional trauma from the girl
being coerced, or feeling coerced, the girl forming a bond or
attachment that she is as yet emotionally unable to handle well, and
any of the other as-yet-not-well-understood emotional issues that
arise during those tricky, formative years while the brain chemicals
are all in a flux.


> Would
> we still be if it was clear that it would kill more than it saved?

Since that is not at all clear and, given what we understand at the
moment, not at all likely, any prejudice against the vaccine is at
this point ideological, not scientific.

ObJosh: Josh is a moronic idiot who lacks reading and comprehension
skills and is unable to adequately argue his way out of a paper bag,
given his tendency toward gross error.

--
gekko

Pardon our dust -- this signature temporarily closed for repairs.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obscene
    ... >> Mortality from cervical cancer is around 1:30000 women. ... >> hypothetical increase in risky behavior exceeds 1:30000 mortality ... >> then the net result of the vaccine would be to kill people. ... > sex (and, quite frankly, even marital sex is "risky" if the husband ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Obscene
    ... >>> of sex, then what is the negative effect on health? ... >>Mortality from cervical cancer is around 1:30000 women. ... >>the net result of the vaccine would be to kill people. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Obscene
    ... >>> of sex, then what is the negative effect on health? ... >>Mortality from cervical cancer is around 1:30000 women. ... >>the net result of the vaccine would be to kill people. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Obscene
    ... >>> transmitted disease that is the primary cause of cervical cancer. ... >>> The vaccine produced 100 percent immunity in the 6,000 women who ... Josh read a piece of an op-ed in the NYT and chose ... > That is predicated on the notion that premarital sex is harmful ... ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine
    ... vaccine was responsible for most of the declines in infectious disease ... mortality during the 20th century, which according to researchers, it ... declines during the 20th century. ... work "Public Health at the Crossroads," by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth ...
    (misc.health.alternative)