New Scientist: cancer vaccine doesn't pass the Fundies' Morality Test
Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
Debora MacKenzie
Good news,right?
DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.
Well, not if a reduction in deaths from cervical cancer interferes with your theo-political power plays.
The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group...
These people are endlesly bizarre -- they still believe teenagers NEED encouragement to get horny.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus...
And look for this argument -- "We don't even know that it WILL prevent cervical cancer.
While vaccination could slash infection rates, its cancer-preventing benefits will not be evident for decades, as it will take that long for vaccinated girls to reach an age when they might otherwise have developed cancer...
The BEAST -- source of the link that took me to this article in The New Scientist, offered this opinion:
These people are sick in the head... They'd rather let the "sinners" suffer and die than eradicate a disease they see as an asset in their battle for the antiquated abstinence canard.
He's got their number -- these people all talk Jesus till your ears will melt, but, while they would NEVER read (or admit to reading) the Marquis de Sade, they seem to get off regularly and in a major way enjoying the punishment of those people they consider "sinners."
A wise man once said "Beware of people in whom the desire to punish is strong."
If there's any weight to "By your works shall ye be known," I figure, with all the cruelty and pain and suffering they inflict in order to compensate for their feeling of inadequacy with a solidly reinforced posture of self-righteousness, they're working for the other side.
Won't they be surprised when they find out who's waiting for them when they get Home?
Debora MacKenzie
Good news,right?
DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.
Well, not if a reduction in deaths from cervical cancer interferes with your theo-political power plays.
The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group...
These people are endlesly bizarre -- they still believe teenagers NEED encouragement to get horny.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus...
And look for this argument -- "We don't even know that it WILL prevent cervical cancer.
While vaccination could slash infection rates, its cancer-preventing benefits will not be evident for decades, as it will take that long for vaccinated girls to reach an age when they might otherwise have developed cancer...
The BEAST -- source of the link that took me to this article in The New Scientist, offered this opinion:
These people are sick in the head... They'd rather let the "sinners" suffer and die than eradicate a disease they see as an asset in their battle for the antiquated abstinence canard.
He's got their number -- these people all talk Jesus till your ears will melt, but, while they would NEVER read (or admit to reading) the Marquis de Sade, they seem to get off regularly and in a major way enjoying the punishment of those people they consider "sinners."
A wise man once said "Beware of people in whom the desire to punish is strong."
If there's any weight to "By your works shall ye be known," I figure, with all the cruelty and pain and suffering they inflict in order to compensate for their feeling of inadequacy with a solidly reinforced posture of self-righteousness, they're working for the other side.
Won't they be surprised when they find out who's waiting for them when they get Home?
posted by Saintperle at
11:54 AM
