Re: HPV [was Re: health/killers, before it was changed from HPV]

"John Ashby" <johnashby20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"boots" <no@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:7935i4h5mql1kovhv7mtoqr5f42dir6knf@xxxxxxxxxx
Towse <self@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
Cervical cancer kills maybe 4,000 people in a year.
Prostate cancer kills around 30,000 people in a year.
Colon cancer kills maybe 60,000 people in a year.

<snip>
Why knock the facts?

Basically they're irrelevant.

Hello, John. It's been a while hasn't it.

Just because you don't understand statistics and can't make appropriate use
of them, down not mean they are irrelevant.

And straight away you're off to the "call boots an idiot" parade
aren't you, cuntie.


The quoted statistics are irrelevant, meaningless, and unimportant.
They describe things that happened to some individuals, not things
that happen to all individuals, or that can potentially happen to any
given individual. The implication that because things happened to
some individuals there is a chance of their happening to any given
individual in proportion is baseless unless the individual attributes
significance to the concept.

Statistics like those have terrified
the easily frightened for a long time. In the final analysis it
doesn't matter unless *you* or one of your loved ones count in the
statistics.

What a depressingly self-centred view.

What a foolish thing for an evolutionist to say. One of the basic
assumptions of Darwinism is that each species does its best to survive
and thus only the most fit are able to survive. I say better to hold
an honest self-centered view than to devolve into the tree-hugging
paternalism that is so politically correct these days. Three children
fell and skinned their knees, so we must institute legislation which
requires all children to wear kneeguards, what a load of rubbish that
entire approach is; if the human race collectively adopts that
viewpoint it will be so encumbered by fear-induced protective gear
that it'll be a sitting duck for nearly any other species. The
tree-huggers are reintroducing wolves into a society that frowns on
personal armament, there's one example of gross stupidity for you.

Where would we be if Semmelweiss had
looked at the statistics, said "Well, I'm not going to die of puerperal
fever" and dismissed them as irrelevant?

What makes you think he did anything out of the kindness of his
tree-hugging heart? Could it not be possible that he simply found it
interesting, or that personal experience pissed him off at it and he
determined to kill the annoyance? Or maybe he was just a really sweet
fellow who went around looking for wrongs to right.

How many people are murdered each year?
How many people die in auto accidents each year?
How many people die as a result of freak accidents each year?
How many people die of natural causes each year?
How many people die as a result of vampire/werewolf attacks each year?

Which category were you in last year? Has your life been meaningful
and fulfilling this year?

How many people live meaningful and fulfilling lives? Virtually none and yet
everyone.

The above paragraph says nothing whatsoever.


Suppose, hypothetically, that cancer has two pre-requisites that
include some genetic capability and fear of cancer. That would mean
there are those who are capable of cancer and those who are not.
Those who are capable would be more likely to exhibit the symptoms if
they were afraid they would. Even a simple exercise like that matches
up with the increase in cancer since statistics regarding its
incidence began to be published, and the increased statistical
likelihood that a person will get cancer if a close relative has had
cancer.

The statistics posted are descriptive, not predictive. If 93% of all
professional window-washers fell to their deaths last year are you
going to leave the windows dirty? Of course not, the statistics do
not apply.

--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!

[superstitious heathen grade 8]
.

Quantcast