First off America is pretty war weary (to put it lightly), I really doubt trying to push another war though is a great political move. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the polls, the news, or the people around you (assuming you live in the US). McCain is the "kill 'em all" war candidate and has all but tied up the Republican nomination. Hillary is a neocon with essentially the same positions, although the Democrat's candidate doesn't matter now that McCain has gotten rid of the cross-dresser and the Mormon - America will not vote for a black man or a woman over an old white guy.
Secondly; Bush doesn't have to please to general public, he's on his last legs whether whether or not he kindles some favor Do you really think what has happened the past eight years was the Bush Plan, developed and executed by George himself? Do you really think it will be changed significantly by the new administration? Bush is the current caretaker of the White House. His actions, particularly on something of this magnitude, are not his to choose. Regardless, it isn't about pleasing the the public - a certain amount of lying and posturing is necessary so that the media can have a starting point to convince the population they wanted the war.
I didn't miss the rest. I simply did not dispute the rest. It was tacit acknowledgment that I considered your other arguments this vaccine not be made mandatory to be valid or at least not unreasonable. If you spend 80% of your post arguing that vitamins are good for people, I'm going to "ignore" those arguments. If you spend 80% of three consecutive posts arguing that vitamins are good for people, you are fighting an imaginary battle against a shadow, and you are getting angry at the evil "industry shill" shadow for irrationally "refusing to lose" to your good arguments. You're getting angry at me for "not surrendering" the non-existent shadow argument that vitamins are bad.
Fair enough, although simply ignoring the parts you can't argue while pounding on one tiny part of the issue is more likely to lead to pointless flaming instead of positive discussion. If you agree or at least agree you can't argue a point, feel free to say so along with the parts you do want to debate.
I still say you are wrong on that.
For a *given* level of contagion and a *given* impact in death and disease, I don't see any significance if it is airborne or a hypothetical bug passed only by long term cumulative physical exposure in concert with cocaine, with such a hypothetical bug also obviously easily infecting 80% of the population.
"Airborne" doesn't mean squat if the ultimate infectivity level is zero.
"Airborne" is only relevant in that it might play a role in the ultimate infectivity level. HPV has ultimate infectivity level of 80%, which is enormous and comparable to almost any infectious agent short of the common cold. It doesn't matter if it's airborne or not, it eventually infects 80% of the population.
The only thing I have been arguing is that sexuality is not a valid or appropriate argument here. Sexual or not, airborne or not, the public infectivity level here is ENORMOUS. There are other relevant considerations such as the actual health impact of those infections, but none of the other considerations pull sex onto the table in any relevant way.
You are trying to use statistics to prove a point that is intuitively incorrect. Everyone breaths, or they die. They do it many, many times each and every day. A full 100% of the population is at risk 100% of the time from an airborne pathogen. I don't suppose you want to argue that the percentage of people having sex at any point even approaches 100%?
The problem with your "cumulative effect" argument is that HPV infections are rarely long term. To repeat yet again, most infections are harmless and are cleared without problem by the body. The number of people actually infected at 50 will be a much smaller number than the 80% you keep claiming - estimates I've seen range around 15 - 25 percent. Considering that these same studies put the number closer to 50% for people in their early 20s, the rate actually decreases as any cohort ages, which makes perfect sense for an STD. Studies estimate that nearly three-quarters of all infections are in people under 25. What you are saying is that by age 50, 80% of the population will have picked up an HPV infection at some point and nearly 100% will have cleared it without even knowing they had an infection. This is nothing like the cocaine in money example that you linked.
As for the 80% infection rate you claim, I can't find any validation of that number. I see that Wikipedia makes that claim and sources it to a CDC web page. However, checking the source reveals that the CDC actually estimates 50% of sexually active people will get an HPV strain at some point. This number is considerably less than 80%. (By the way, the CDC also agrees with my claims that your sexual lifestyle increases or reduces your chance to be infected with HPV.)
Both logic and statistics say that the method of transmission does matter and that an STD will spread at a decreased rate and to a decreased portion of the population than an airbo
I hadn't heard of that aborted unilateral attempt... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/
I immediately jumped on YOUR comment raising sex as an issue. In a post of several paragraphs, I mentioned once that HPV is an STD in comparison to other infectious diseases of note that were airborne. I did not raise sex as an issue. You either came into this with the intent to derail the discussion into a argument about sex or you got so worked up at the mention of the word "sex" that you missed the rest of my posts.
As for "refusing to leave it", your reply defended and maintained sex as an issue. So yeah, of course my reply continued my objection to sex as an issue....Maybe you didn't intended it as a major point in your post, but it was in there and you reasserted it in your followup, and it was essentially the sole intended subject of my replies. Again, my responses were very lengthy and covered a range of topics. Since you stuck to sex as the singular issue, of course my replies addressed it. However, you nearly or completely ignored the bulk of my replies so that you could continue on the one track that you wanted to ride.
When certain people engage in general medieval social obsessing over sex I find it to be a mostly ignorable nuisance. I find it outrageous and absolutely intolerable when they start screwing around with people's physical health and literal life and death of people because of it. Judging only from your posts in this thread, I would guess that you have an obsession yourself, just in a different direction. While you profess civil libertarian views, your words do not support that idea. Whether intentional or accurate, you came off as an industry shill.
I wouldn't have jumped in at all had your post not raised sex as an issue and cited it as an argument against acting to save lives...weighed against even a single death I find it wrong and extremely disturbing to even imply allowing sexual hangups to have any weight greater than zero. And, as I pointed out in subsequent posts, the fact that it is sexually transmitted was but one part of the whole argument. I guess we can agree to disagree on that point. The method of transmission apparently is unimportant to you. I believe that a highly contagious airborne disease is more of a concern than one spread by sexual contact or blood transfusions or sharing a hat or whatever. This isn't a moral judgment about sex, something you seem to have trouble grasping.
As far as I am aware it has never yet been made mandatory anywhere...
Gardasil was made mandatory in Texas by executive order (by a governor who received bags of money from Merck) but it was overturned by the Legislature. Most or all US states currently have bills pending - crafted by pharmaceutical lobbyist - that would make it mandatory. Several states and other countries have implemented voluntary programs where tax dollars are given to Merck and the vaccine is given free of charge to low-income families, which is simply wide scale testing of the drug at the taxpayers' expense.
...and I am not presenting an argument it should be made mandatory.
Your comments throughout this thread certainly suggest otherwise. If that wasn't your intent, you did a good job of appearing to.
What I am arguing against against is people who get their panties in a wad the moment the word "sex" is uttered within a hundred miles of any subject, and who think that the decision should be made based on their obsessions and hysteria...People freaking out the moment sex crosses their brain, no. I am absolutely disgusted by people who would literally rather their daughter get cancer and DIE, than to "promote sex" by permitting her to get a vaccination before marriage or some such delusion...I am arguing against an argument against HPV vaccination policy...I want to grab a brick and smack upside the head any idiot ranting that that is somehow "promoting pedophilia" or somesuch, and saying that kids should not be vaccinated until age "X" where they *are* in effect explicitly condoning sex at an age they don't want to condone.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? I never got my panties in a wad about sex. You immediately jumped there and refused to leave it. When you prefer to ignore the actual points in favor of a preformed straw man, you appear to be arguing for the other side regardless.
There are quite a number of factors that go into public safety vaccination policy, and the decision should be made based upon those factors.
I've talked about several factors that mitigate against a mandatory vaccination program for Gardasil and your best argument thus far seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is an inbred sex-fearing 'tard who hates his or her children.
At the end result of all the percentage arguing, I think we agree that we are talking about a rather significant number of cancers. A real and significant health issue.
I never suggested otherwise. I'm merely talking about perspective.
Yes, obviously diabetes has a much bigger impact. However (1) we do not have a magic diabetes injection at hand, and the non-ability to do something about a big problem is NOT an affirmative argument NOT to do something about a smaller but very real problem. And (2) to the best of my knowledge diabetes does not involve people presenting a real and dangerous health risk to other people.
(1) And we don't have a magic cancer injection at hand, despite your repeating of Merck's PR.
(2) I can't catch cervical cancer either. Plus, diabetes is an enormous drain on public health care funds; imagine if that money could be spent curing cancer.
I also note that you completely passed on the point about smoking and cancer. Do your strong feelings on civil liberties overrule public health here? Smoking is a much, much, much bigger public health concern than HPV and second hand smoke kills almost as many people each year as cervical cancer. Where's your outrage?
I am loud and aggressive on the issue of civil liberties against powers of government.
Then you should step back from this and consider your position. Do you really support an enforced transfer of billions of dollars from American citizens to Merck and additional forced vaccinations in an attempt to prevent a few thousand cancer deaths each year whe
HPV is a major contributing factor to several types of cancer, such as cervical cancer in women. I was really asking a rhetorical question for the person to whom I originally responded. I am aware of the link but it is disingenuous at best to use language which implies that cancer is communicable and that a cancer vaccine exists that can eradicate it.
Merck's vaccine protects against about 70% of the dangerous HPV strains, the strains which sometimes cause lesions which can lead to cancer. Contrary to Merck's PR, Gardasil is not a cancer vaccine. And, contrary to the implication of the post to which I originally replied, cancer is not communicable.
HPV can be transmitted sexually. So what? I am astounded and appalled that anyone would think that was somehow relevant to anything.
Not can be, but almost exclusively are sexually transmitted. Especially the few strains of interest to this conversation. It is relevant because it is but one factor in the argument as to whether forced inoculations are the right course for a society. A virus that is airborne and highly contagious obviously would be a higher priority than one spread by sexual contact. Whether or not you want to admit it, an individual can do much more to limit their exposure to an STD than an airborne virus.
25% of girls 14 to 19 are already infected, and the lifetime infection rate of HPV is 80% according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Those numbers apply to any and all variations of HPV, most of which are harmless and quickly clear up on their own with no effect. Studies have shown that about 15% of infections are the more dangerous ones that sometimes cause lesions that sometimes lead to cervical cancer. Further, only 3% of the infections are those controlled by Merck's vaccine.
"Most infections are harmless" still results in a half million cancers per year when effectively EVERYONE gets infected by HPV.
Your number is a guess I've seen tossed around of worldwide infections. However, your assumed benefits are greatly reduced since most of the world will not be paying $360 per person for Gardasil, and Gardasil is estimated to prevent only 70% of the HPV infections that sometimes lead to cervical cancer, and it works only when taken before an infection, and the vaccine has not been studied long term so we don't know how many times a person must be vaccinated, and (due to ethics concerns) very little research has been performed kids the age that Merck wants to be compulsively inoculated.
Looking at just the US, less than 5,000 people die each year from cervical cancer. This is about 1/5th of 1 percent of the annual deaths. To give you a little perspective, 75,000 people die from diabetes each year and the numbers continue to increase rapidly. Instead of getting worked up about Merck's marketing of their new profit strategy, perhaps you could work on preventing diabetes. Well over 90% of diabetes cases are Type II, which is mostly preventable and sometimes curable. If you are willing to force the world to get a 3-stage vaccine every few years, surely you would support forced gastric bypass surgery for the obese (it offers a better rate of cure than Gardasil). Regular exercise, healthy diets, and weight loss helps many keep the disease in a state of remission.
Or, if cancer is your fight, let's talk about smoking. Cancer kills around half a million people annually in the US, 99% of which are cancers other than cervical. Smoking is one of the primary causes of cancer, estimated to cause one third of the US's annual cancer deaths. Cigarette smoking is responsible for most cancers of the lungs (the number one killer cancer of men and women in the US), larynx, oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. Cigarettes cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmokers.
Are you under some delusion that you are not some immoral drug-using partner-swapping deviant and therefore never going to get infected? Well odds are that you're already wrong and *you* are already infected. And if by some chance you're not, it is virtually certain that you eventually will be.
That was quite an ignorant bit of ranting. Since HPV is an STD, drug-use has nothing to do with it. Adjectives like immoral and deviant are likewise meaningless. Partner-swapping absolutely increases your chance to be infected, as does not using a condom, and having sex with a partner who has been been with numerous partners. Being in a long-term monogamous relations greatly reduces your chance of infection. Perhaps you also could consider that most infections are harmless
It is a big deal because communicable diseases, such as HPV and Polio, affect the entire society. Yes, if you are talking about highly contagious pathogens like polio and measles. It is a big deal when the target is a virus capable of quickly spreading through normal human interaction. However, HPV does not fit that category. It is sexually transmitted and the bulk of infections are harmless.
A voluntary lack of vaccination by the more reckless and stupid members of our society will eventually lead YOU AND ME to pay for the medical and social costs associated with higher-than-necessary rates of diseases like cancer. Those who disagree with your notions on vaccinations are stupid? Too bad rational discourse isn't possible.
You jumped from communicable diseases like polio to cancer. How exactly did you make that leap? Can I catch breast cancer from the lady in the next office?!
And, if you want to decrease the medical costs caused by the reckless and stupid members of society, perhaps you should start by getting rid of cars, ATVs, motorcycles, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, fried food, red meat, etc.
We now have the technology to eliminate one of the most common forms of cancer through mandatory vaccination, but there are people actively fighting this due their own ignorance! Perhaps you would mind sharing this medical breakthrough? I certainly hope you're not referring to Gardasil.
I have a problem awarding such a significant prize based on hypotheticals like "this event might, someday, lead to conflict." By the committees logic the prize should also go to GWB for the hypothetical "Iran might get Nukes which will lead to violent conflicts. SO lets raise awareness about whether Iran is trying to get Nukes, even though some people disagree with my position." Insightful? Are the mods smoking crack today?
Gender is not ideology.
Race is not ideology.
Sexual orientation is not ideology.
Religion IS political ideology... Religion is no more and no less an ideology than the others. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be white, black, or hispanic? What does it mean to be gay? What does it mean to be Christian? To some people the answers are very basic and straightforward. To others, they involve much more.
I don't object to Islam simply because it is "different" from my atheism. I object to it because it is practiced in a manner that, where it predominates, restricts freedoms I DEMAND from a society. It does not offer me anything I want, does not offer me more freedom, and can not in any way improve my country. You object to it precisely because it is a different religion than your own. Your own militant anti-Islamic viewpoint would greatly restrict others' freedom of religion, one of the primary measuring sticks of freedom.
Faith results in faith-based action. I've seen the results, so I judge the faith.
If you disagree, then I defy you to show why I or anyone else not Islamic should welcome it. You fail to understand the difference between personal faith and organized religion. Nearly all major religions, at a personal level, boil down to the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The really sad thing here is that you are no different than those you look down upon. You believe you are morally and intellectually superior to the barbaric Muslims, yet you simply walk a different branch of the same path. You generalize and demonize all Muslims, lumping them into a poorly stereotyped definition that suits you. In your own society, you would banish Muslims, based not upon the individual person but upon your understanding of their religion.
Wow. I can't believe this was modded up (Insightful?) on Slashdot. What a bunch of drivel - replace every occurrence of Muslim with Jew and see how well it is received.
There is no reason for non-Muslims to want Muslims, because as believers they spread Islam.
Because all Muslims are just like those crazy brown guys you saw on 24 or Fox News. All Muslims do nothing but plot then act on plans for converting the world to Islam. There are no "normal" people who also happen to follow the faith of Islam. Of course, the same is true for all other religions. We don't want Jews because they spread Judaism. We don't want Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, or any other Christian denomination because they spread Christianity. But why stop there? Let's make sure that those with different skin colors or culture heritages are kept the hell away too. My Daddy already taught me anything worth knowing and I don't need someone who looks, talks, or thinks differently putting confusing thoughts in my head.
The spread of Islam cannot be considered desirable by non-Muslims because of the societies it creates. You mean like the cities of Spain and the Middle East a thousand years ago? Those Muslim cities that happened to be centers of enlightenment and scientific learning, while Christian Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages? Or perhaps you mean the secular democracy in Turkey, a Muslim nation?
Islam is an exceptionally oppressive religion in practice, and practice trumps theory.
Religion is an exceptionally oppressive organization in practice... Fixed that for you. Islam is not special.
I've seen the best you can do even with massive wealth (KSA, and the Gulf Emirates) and do not want MY country to be like them.
I agree on this point, but I've also seen what has happened and continues to happen in the best "Christian nations" and do not want MY country to be like them.
Many of us don't care about political correctness, and don't want even "reasonable" Muslims in their midst. Sure. You are of the same lot as the whites who don't want blacks in their neighborhood, heterosexuals who are afraid they may catch Gay if a homosexual lives near them, and men who understand that women are subservient to them. You need the world to be divided into neat classes and you know that the bucket you are in is the best. In fact, your group (gender, culture, race, sexual orientation, religion, political party, etc) is the only correct one and has inherent dominance over the lesser groups.
If Muslim society is good and righteous, Muslims might prove their loyalty by moving back to the Caliphate. This statement doesn't even make sense.
I don't need them. I don't want Islamic changes in MY society. I don't want Muslims to have leverage by increasing their population in MY country. To reiterate, Different is bad and Same is good. I suppose you're okay with the Muslim influences that pulled Christian Europe out of the Dark Ages and lead directly to its scientific and industrial revolutions?
Just because Islam is a "religion" doesn't mean it should not be viewed as a political ideology. I am free to oppose Islam (everywhere but Islamic countries) just as I am free to oppose Maoism or Stalinism. To the extent my country becomes Islamic I will be less free, so anything that induces Muslims to leave suits me fine. The Ottoman empire began creating a constitutional democracy 150 years ago and secularized their government fifty years later. There have been hosts of authoritarian and autocratic nations through the centuries, some religious, some secular, and some adamantly anti-religious. Just like every organized religion, there are political movements within Islam but that does not make it a political ideology. All major religions can be separated into the faith and organized religion, you are opposed to the organized religion but lumping the faith with it in your fear and ignorance.
I think sites like MySpace and some of the others need to focus more on user security before they go all "Facebook". I can't tell you how many people who have come to me with complaints that their accounts got haxor'd because they didn't take precautions and got phished. A good social networking website will be genuinely foolproof before moving on to third party apps. Perhaps once this is done, they can share the technology with banks, the IRS, Blizzard, and everyone else using online authentication.
When u opened an account it was a contract between you and the bank.
No party to a contract can change the terms of the contract without consent of the other party. Period.
Get a lawyer and send a legal notice.
Give even more money to a lawyer in hopes of recouping a few hundred dollars? While I wish I could have just on the principle of the matter, I had neither the time nor the extra money for that fight when it happened. The bank has changed names at least twice in the years since and the issue is quite stale from a legal perspective.
Without your clear unambigous instructions in writing, they can't touch a cent.
If they do, they are liable criminally for fraud.
So just randomly debiting an account does not fly EVEN if the bank made a mistake.
The only recourse open for it to is to request you to repay the amount and/or sue you. I wish you would explain this to the bank I used in college. I had a checking account with a few hundreds dollars in it. Since I had moved several times during college, I found it easier to leave my parents' mailing address on the account. After nearly five years with this bank, I got married, opened a joint account at another bank, and kept putting off doing anything with the old account.
A few months later, my mom handed me a stack of mail from the bank. Mixed in with my monthly statements I found a letter indicating that the bank had changed the terms of my account. They added a minimum balance and inactivity fees. Without any agreement from me, and certainly no clear unambigous instructions in writing, the bank drained several hundred dollars in a matter of months.
If you check out his post history, you'll see that he either is a dedicated troll or a really maladjusted teenager with zero ability to have a rational conversation with anyone. Responses to his posts are wasted time.
I'll be out of town for a few days so perhaps you can find another thread to troll. Or maybe you'll just see something shiny to keep you busy for a bit.
See, when I was young I thought 1984 was cynical...
Then I saw true cynicism in the form of Brazil...
You assume these situations are mutually exclusive.
There's no secret agency of business muckety-mucks manipulating things, just lots of corporate interests and free-flowing pork. The Dems aren't backing down from the fight because the Freemasons told them to, they're backing down because they honestly lack the spine to threaten their gravy train. That likely is true for the individual Congressmen, but doesn't explain the parties or ultra-powerful bureaucrats (especially in the recesses of the State Department). It is tough to imagine that individual corporations buying influence for their own interests would generate some of the fairly consistent policies running through the US government for the past century or so.
The appeal of 1984 is that there is an Evil Party that you can at least imagine fighting against. Here, there is no real enemy, nobody to expose or to vanquish. Just a system set up so greedy spineless corporate whores are our only choices. The enemy is the system. Choose not to be a part of it. Don't eat at McDonalds. Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Don't watch American Idol and Fox News. Buy some land and be self-sufficient. Or, arm yourself and prepare for a revolution.
I love minorities, guns, unions, and pollution, but I hate rich people and trees. Where is the party for me? Now defunct, but these guys sound up your alley.
What we had here was a standoff. The Dems can't beat Bush's veto, but Bush can't get any bill to sign that isn't crafted by the Dems...
They need to hit him where he is ultimately the most vulnerable: the utter failure of his Iraq policy, and the fact that this has directly resulted in our soldiers being killed needlessly...
Yet for some reasons the Democrats are afraid to call him on it. What should be Bush's greatest weakness is an inexplicable source of strength. They're afraid to come right out and say "you're getting our troops killed because you failed to plan for any of this, we need to end the pointless bloodshed". So by their silence they implicitly hand Bush the title of "troop supporter", boosting his rhetoric and ultimately dooming their own pathetic attempts to do what they were voted in to do.
It's amazing how it worked out. The other half of our two-party system swept into power in the interim elections with promises of immediate results. However, there weren't enough Democrats elected to actually change anything - as you say, it is a standoff. The Republicans in the Executive branch continue to do as they wish and can now blame everything on the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats in Congress refuse to stand up and force the Republicans' hand, leading to no changes in policy. There is no chance of an impeachment of either the President or VP. There is no chance of a change in the country's Iraq policy prior to the next Presidential election.
Someone a bit more cynical might point out how the lack of action by the Democrats makes this look less like a two-party system and more like one controlled by something larger than the parties. This person might point out how those who have profited greatly from this war (and the one in Afghanistan) actually benefit from the mid-term elections since policy isn't changing and now the people have multiple scape goats. It might also be noted that after the early love-in with Bush, nearly every Republican Presidential candidate (as if on cue) suddenly became Bush critics. Or, we could consider that with polls showing Hillary trailing, her best chance at victory would be another maverick third-party candidate who this time pulls voters from the Republicans (note billionaire Michael Bloomberg's recent flirtation with an independent run with Republican Chuck Hagel).
Not that I believe any of this nonsense. The Democrats are for Blacks, Hispanics, labor unions, trees, and welfare. The Republicans are for rich people, guns, and pollution. And the parties hate each other. Everyone knows this.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't miss the rest. I simply did not dispute the rest. It was tacit acknowledgment that I considered your other arguments this vaccine not be made mandatory to be valid or at least not unreasonable. If you spend 80% of your post arguing that vitamins are good for people, I'm going to "ignore" those arguments. If you spend 80% of three consecutive posts arguing that vitamins are good for people, you are fighting an imaginary battle against a shadow, and you are getting angry at the evil "industry shill" shadow for irrationally "refusing to lose" to your good arguments. You're getting angry at me for "not surrendering" the non-existent shadow argument that vitamins are bad.
Fair enough, although simply ignoring the parts you can't argue while pounding on one tiny part of the issue is more likely to lead to pointless flaming instead of positive discussion. If you agree or at least agree you can't argue a point, feel free to say so along with the parts you do want to debate.
I still say you are wrong on that.
For a *given* level of contagion and a *given* impact in death and disease, I don't see any significance if it is airborne or a hypothetical bug passed only by long term cumulative physical exposure in concert with cocaine, with such a hypothetical bug also obviously easily infecting 80% of the population.
"Airborne" doesn't mean squat if the ultimate infectivity level is zero. "Airborne" is only relevant in that it might play a role in the ultimate infectivity level. HPV has ultimate infectivity level of 80%, which is enormous and comparable to almost any infectious agent short of the common cold. It doesn't matter if it's airborne or not, it eventually infects 80% of the population.
The only thing I have been arguing is that sexuality is not a valid or appropriate argument here. Sexual or not, airborne or not, the public infectivity level here is ENORMOUS. There are other relevant considerations such as the actual health impact of those infections, but none of the other considerations pull sex onto the table in any relevant way.
You are trying to use statistics to prove a point that is intuitively incorrect. Everyone breaths, or they die. They do it many, many times each and every day. A full 100% of the population is at risk 100% of the time from an airborne pathogen. I don't suppose you want to argue that the percentage of people having sex at any point even approaches 100%?
The problem with your "cumulative effect" argument is that HPV infections are rarely long term. To repeat yet again, most infections are harmless and are cleared without problem by the body. The number of people actually infected at 50 will be a much smaller number than the 80% you keep claiming - estimates I've seen range around 15 - 25 percent. Considering that these same studies put the number closer to 50% for people in their early 20s, the rate actually decreases as any cohort ages, which makes perfect sense for an STD. Studies estimate that nearly three-quarters of all infections are in people under 25. What you are saying is that by age 50, 80% of the population will have picked up an HPV infection at some point and nearly 100% will have cleared it without even knowing they had an infection. This is nothing like the cocaine in money example that you linked.
As for the 80% infection rate you claim, I can't find any validation of that number. I see that Wikipedia makes that claim and sources it to a CDC web page. However, checking the source reveals that the CDC actually estimates 50% of sexually active people will get an HPV strain at some point. This number is considerably less than 80%. (By the way, the CDC also agrees with my claims that your sexual lifestyle increases or reduces your chance to be infected with HPV.)
Both logic and statistics say that the method of transmission does matter and that an STD will spread at a decreased rate and to a decreased portion of the population than an airbo
As far as I am aware it has never yet been made mandatory anywhere...
Gardasil was made mandatory in Texas by executive order (by a governor who received bags of money from Merck) but it was overturned by the Legislature. Most or all US states currently have bills pending - crafted by pharmaceutical lobbyist - that would make it mandatory. Several states and other countries have implemented voluntary programs where tax dollars are given to Merck and the vaccine is given free of charge to low-income families, which is simply wide scale testing of the drug at the taxpayers' expense.
...and I am not presenting an argument it should be made mandatory.
Your comments throughout this thread certainly suggest otherwise. If that wasn't your intent, you did a good job of appearing to.
What I am arguing against against is people who get their panties in a wad the moment the word "sex" is uttered within a hundred miles of any subject, and who think that the decision should be made based on their obsessions and hysteria...People freaking out the moment sex crosses their brain, no. I am absolutely disgusted by people who would literally rather their daughter get cancer and DIE, than to "promote sex" by permitting her to get a vaccination before marriage or some such delusion...I am arguing against an argument against HPV vaccination policy...I want to grab a brick and smack upside the head any idiot ranting that that is somehow "promoting pedophilia" or somesuch, and saying that kids should not be vaccinated until age "X" where they *are* in effect explicitly condoning sex at an age they don't want to condone.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? I never got my panties in a wad about sex. You immediately jumped there and refused to leave it. When you prefer to ignore the actual points in favor of a preformed straw man, you appear to be arguing for the other side regardless.
There are quite a number of factors that go into public safety vaccination policy, and the decision should be made based upon those factors.
I've talked about several factors that mitigate against a mandatory vaccination program for Gardasil and your best argument thus far seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is an inbred sex-fearing 'tard who hates his or her children.
At the end result of all the percentage arguing, I think we agree that we are talking about a rather significant number of cancers. A real and significant health issue.
I never suggested otherwise. I'm merely talking about perspective.
Yes, obviously diabetes has a much bigger impact. However (1) we do not have a magic diabetes injection at hand, and the non-ability to do something about a big problem is NOT an affirmative argument NOT to do something about a smaller but very real problem. And (2) to the best of my knowledge diabetes does not involve people presenting a real and dangerous health risk to other people.
(1) And we don't have a magic cancer injection at hand, despite your repeating of Merck's PR.
(2) I can't catch cervical cancer either. Plus, diabetes is an enormous drain on public health care funds; imagine if that money could be spent curing cancer.
I also note that you completely passed on the point about smoking and cancer. Do your strong feelings on civil liberties overrule public health here? Smoking is a much, much, much bigger public health concern than HPV and second hand smoke kills almost as many people each year as cervical cancer. Where's your outrage?
I am loud and aggressive on the issue of civil liberties against powers of government.
Then you should step back from this and consider your position. Do you really support an enforced transfer of billions of dollars from American citizens to Merck and additional forced vaccinations in an attempt to prevent a few thousand cancer deaths each year whe
Merck's vaccine protects against about 70% of the dangerous HPV strains, the strains which sometimes cause lesions which can lead to cancer. Contrary to Merck's PR, Gardasil is not a cancer vaccine. And, contrary to the implication of the post to which I originally replied, cancer is not communicable.
HPV can be transmitted sexually. So what? I am astounded and appalled that anyone would think that was somehow relevant to anything.
Not can be, but almost exclusively are sexually transmitted. Especially the few strains of interest to this conversation. It is relevant because it is but one factor in the argument as to whether forced inoculations are the right course for a society. A virus that is airborne and highly contagious obviously would be a higher priority than one spread by sexual contact. Whether or not you want to admit it, an individual can do much more to limit their exposure to an STD than an airborne virus.
25% of girls 14 to 19 are already infected, and the lifetime infection rate of HPV is 80% according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Those numbers apply to any and all variations of HPV, most of which are harmless and quickly clear up on their own with no effect. Studies have shown that about 15% of infections are the more dangerous ones that sometimes cause lesions that sometimes lead to cervical cancer. Further, only 3% of the infections are those controlled by Merck's vaccine.
"Most infections are harmless" still results in a half million cancers per year when effectively EVERYONE gets infected by HPV.
Your number is a guess I've seen tossed around of worldwide infections. However, your assumed benefits are greatly reduced since most of the world will not be paying $360 per person for Gardasil, and Gardasil is estimated to prevent only 70% of the HPV infections that sometimes lead to cervical cancer, and it works only when taken before an infection, and the vaccine has not been studied long term so we don't know how many times a person must be vaccinated, and (due to ethics concerns) very little research has been performed kids the age that Merck wants to be compulsively inoculated.
Looking at just the US, less than 5,000 people die each year from cervical cancer. This is about 1/5th of 1 percent of the annual deaths. To give you a little perspective, 75,000 people die from diabetes each year and the numbers continue to increase rapidly. Instead of getting worked up about Merck's marketing of their new profit strategy, perhaps you could work on preventing diabetes. Well over 90% of diabetes cases are Type II, which is mostly preventable and sometimes curable. If you are willing to force the world to get a 3-stage vaccine every few years, surely you would support forced gastric bypass surgery for the obese (it offers a better rate of cure than Gardasil). Regular exercise, healthy diets, and weight loss helps many keep the disease in a state of remission.
Or, if cancer is your fight, let's talk about smoking. Cancer kills around half a million people annually in the US, 99% of which are cancers other than cervical. Smoking is one of the primary causes of cancer, estimated to cause one third of the US's annual cancer deaths. Cigarette smoking is responsible for most cancers of the lungs (the number one killer cancer of men and women in the US), larynx, oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. Cigarettes cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmokers.
Are you under some delusion that you are not some immoral drug-using partner-swapping deviant and therefore never going to get infected? Well odds are that you're already wrong and *you* are already infected. And if by some chance you're not, it is virtually certain that you eventually will be.
That was quite an ignorant bit of ranting. Since HPV is an STD, drug-use has nothing to do with it. Adjectives like immoral and deviant are likewise meaningless. Partner-swapping absolutely increases your chance to be infected, as does not using a condom, and having sex with a partner who has been been with numerous partners. Being in a long-term monogamous relations greatly reduces your chance of infection. Perhaps you also could consider that most infections are harmless
Race is not ideology.
Sexual orientation is not ideology.
Religion IS political ideology... Religion is no more and no less an ideology than the others. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be white, black, or hispanic? What does it mean to be gay? What does it mean to be Christian? To some people the answers are very basic and straightforward. To others, they involve much more. I don't object to Islam simply because it is "different" from my atheism. I object to it because it is practiced in a manner that, where it predominates, restricts freedoms I DEMAND from a society. It does not offer me anything I want, does not offer me more freedom, and can not in any way improve my country. You object to it precisely because it is a different religion than your own. Your own militant anti-Islamic viewpoint would greatly restrict others' freedom of religion, one of the primary measuring sticks of freedom. Faith results in faith-based action. I've seen the results, so I judge the faith.
If you disagree, then I defy you to show why I or anyone else not Islamic should welcome it. You fail to understand the difference between personal faith and organized religion. Nearly all major religions, at a personal level, boil down to the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The really sad thing here is that you are no different than those you look down upon. You believe you are morally and intellectually superior to the barbaric Muslims, yet you simply walk a different branch of the same path. You generalize and demonize all Muslims, lumping them into a poorly stereotyped definition that suits you. In your own society, you would banish Muslims, based not upon the individual person but upon your understanding of their religion.
Because all Muslims are just like those crazy brown guys you saw on 24 or Fox News. All Muslims do nothing but plot then act on plans for converting the world to Islam. There are no "normal" people who also happen to follow the faith of Islam. Of course, the same is true for all other religions. We don't want Jews because they spread Judaism. We don't want Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, or any other Christian denomination because they spread Christianity. But why stop there? Let's make sure that those with different skin colors or culture heritages are kept the hell away too. My Daddy already taught me anything worth knowing and I don't need someone who looks, talks, or thinks differently putting confusing thoughts in my head.
The spread of Islam cannot be considered desirable by non-Muslims because of the societies it creates. You mean like the cities of Spain and the Middle East a thousand years ago? Those Muslim cities that happened to be centers of enlightenment and scientific learning, while Christian Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages? Or perhaps you mean the secular democracy in Turkey, a Muslim nation? Islam is an exceptionally oppressive religion in practice, and practice trumps theory.Religion is an exceptionally oppressive organization in practice... Fixed that for you. Islam is not special.
I've seen the best you can do even with massive wealth (KSA, and the Gulf Emirates) and do not want MY country to be like them.I agree on this point, but I've also seen what has happened and continues to happen in the best "Christian nations" and do not want MY country to be like them.
Many of us don't care about political correctness, and don't want even "reasonable" Muslims in their midst. Sure. You are of the same lot as the whites who don't want blacks in their neighborhood, heterosexuals who are afraid they may catch Gay if a homosexual lives near them, and men who understand that women are subservient to them. You need the world to be divided into neat classes and you know that the bucket you are in is the best. In fact, your group (gender, culture, race, sexual orientation, religion, political party, etc) is the only correct one and has inherent dominance over the lesser groups. If Muslim society is good and righteous, Muslims might prove their loyalty by moving back to the Caliphate. This statement doesn't even make sense. I don't need them. I don't want Islamic changes in MY society. I don't want Muslims to have leverage by increasing their population in MY country. To reiterate, Different is bad and Same is good. I suppose you're okay with the Muslim influences that pulled Christian Europe out of the Dark Ages and lead directly to its scientific and industrial revolutions? Just because Islam is a "religion" doesn't mean it should not be viewed as a political ideology. I am free to oppose Islam (everywhere but Islamic countries) just as I am free to oppose Maoism or Stalinism. To the extent my country becomes Islamic I will be less free, so anything that induces Muslims to leave suits me fine. The Ottoman empire began creating a constitutional democracy 150 years ago and secularized their government fifty years later. There have been hosts of authoritarian and autocratic nations through the centuries, some religious, some secular, and some adamantly anti-religious. Just like every organized religion, there are political movements within Islam but that does not make it a political ideology. All major religions can be separated into the faith and organized religion, you are opposed to the organized religion but lumping the faith with it in your fear and ignorance.Get a lawyer and send a legal notice.
Give even more money to a lawyer in hopes of recouping a few hundred dollars? While I wish I could have just on the principle of the matter, I had neither the time nor the extra money for that fight when it happened. The bank has changed names at least twice in the years since and the issue is quite stale from a legal perspective.A few months later, my mom handed me a stack of mail from the bank. Mixed in with my monthly statements I found a letter indicating that the bank had changed the terms of my account. They added a minimum balance and inactivity fees. Without any agreement from me, and certainly no clear unambigous instructions in writing, the bank drained several hundred dollars in a matter of months.
If you check out his post history, you'll see that he either is a dedicated troll or a really maladjusted teenager with zero ability to have a rational conversation with anyone. Responses to his posts are wasted time.
I'll be out of town for a few days so perhaps you can find another thread to troll. Or maybe you'll just see something shiny to keep you busy for a bit.
Then I saw true cynicism in the form of Brazil...
You assume these situations are mutually exclusive. There's no secret agency of business muckety-mucks manipulating things, just lots of corporate interests and free-flowing pork. The Dems aren't backing down from the fight because the Freemasons told them to, they're backing down because they honestly lack the spine to threaten their gravy train. That likely is true for the individual Congressmen, but doesn't explain the parties or ultra-powerful bureaucrats (especially in the recesses of the State Department). It is tough to imagine that individual corporations buying influence for their own interests would generate some of the fairly consistent policies running through the US government for the past century or so. The appeal of 1984 is that there is an Evil Party that you can at least imagine fighting against. Here, there is no real enemy, nobody to expose or to vanquish. Just a system set up so greedy spineless corporate whores are our only choices. The enemy is the system. Choose not to be a part of it. Don't eat at McDonalds. Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Don't watch American Idol and Fox News. Buy some land and be self-sufficient. Or, arm yourself and prepare for a revolution. I love minorities, guns, unions, and pollution, but I hate rich people and trees. Where is the party for me? Now defunct, but these guys sound up your alley.Exactly. We should have less dorky and accessible names, like OSX, OS/2, Windows XP, PS/2, and DOS. BSD is just so outrageous!
It is much easier than creating OS-friendly users.
They need to hit him where he is ultimately the most vulnerable: the utter failure of his Iraq policy, and the fact that this has directly resulted in our soldiers being killed needlessly...
Yet for some reasons the Democrats are afraid to call him on it. What should be Bush's greatest weakness is an inexplicable source of strength. They're afraid to come right out and say "you're getting our troops killed because you failed to plan for any of this, we need to end the pointless bloodshed". So by their silence they implicitly hand Bush the title of "troop supporter", boosting his rhetoric and ultimately dooming their own pathetic attempts to do what they were voted in to do.
It's amazing how it worked out. The other half of our two-party system swept into power in the interim elections with promises of immediate results. However, there weren't enough Democrats elected to actually change anything - as you say, it is a standoff. The Republicans in the Executive branch continue to do as they wish and can now blame everything on the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats in Congress refuse to stand up and force the Republicans' hand, leading to no changes in policy. There is no chance of an impeachment of either the President or VP. There is no chance of a change in the country's Iraq policy prior to the next Presidential election.Someone a bit more cynical might point out how the lack of action by the Democrats makes this look less like a two-party system and more like one controlled by something larger than the parties. This person might point out how those who have profited greatly from this war (and the one in Afghanistan) actually benefit from the mid-term elections since policy isn't changing and now the people have multiple scape goats. It might also be noted that after the early love-in with Bush, nearly every Republican Presidential candidate (as if on cue) suddenly became Bush critics. Or, we could consider that with polls showing Hillary trailing, her best chance at victory would be another maverick third-party candidate who this time pulls voters from the Republicans (note billionaire Michael Bloomberg's recent flirtation with an independent run with Republican Chuck Hagel).
Not that I believe any of this nonsense. The Democrats are for Blacks, Hispanics, labor unions, trees, and welfare. The Republicans are for rich people, guns, and pollution. And the parties hate each other. Everyone knows this.
Knock Knock
I can tell a joke. Want to hear a good one?
The suspense is killing me...
What comes after x4?
So I guess x4 would be next?