I'm sorry, but the claim that the HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer is just false. It has been empirically proven to the highest scientific standards. If you want to question that conclusion, you are in effect questioning the basic methods of scientific verification.

San:

So, the 6 times difference between 1-7 years and 7+ years in chance of having cancer does not make you understand that the 7 year period is a magic number when determining length of Birth Control use?

Sure looks like you can't read.

Huh. Where is that number from? From the two links you provided earlier? No. Nowhere is that time period (1-7 and 7+ years) mentioned. Nowhere.

So keep trying or stop lying!

It really is stunning that in the face of total embarrassment at making up 'facts' to support your argument, rather than admit you're wrong, you'd rather call me a retard, inept and accuse me of not being able to read. ESPECIALLY when you posted links to the studies in question, and NOWHERE do they mention your mythical 7 year cutoff.

So what's it going to be, you bitter little troll? Just keep calling everyone names or admit you were wrong?

San:

So, not giving children access to guns or knowledge that guns can kill people is then the surest route to children murdering via guns?

Thats what your logic says.

If you have a gun in your house, keeping it hidden under your bed and not educating your kids as to the dangerous nature of guns and the proper way to handle them is the surest route to getting your young child's head blown off.

Yep, that's what my logic says.

Of course, studies show that guns will spontaneously explode after 7 years of use, so no one should be allowed to have them anyway. It's true. Look it up!

Your experience is with teen sex is part of the picture. The guy that is dating your daughter may be interested in only one thing, what he gets out of sex. I am sorry if you didn't think having and driving your own cars wasn't a big deal as a young teen but your desire not to drive underage was a good thing. It kept you safe even though you didn't know any better. In the case of ME's handing out the pill, it is one thing for you as a young teen not to have the opportunity, but the situation might have been different for you if you had an adult facilitating your desires. The same is true for driving. If you don't give them keys, it makes yielding to the temptation of driving more difficult. But let's go with your plan. By supplying birth control, the school removes most of the worry of pregnancy. This is turn encourages more sex by removing more than one inhibition (If I am given contraception, don't they expect me to use it as well as fear of pregnancy). In middle school infatuations with a new person is weekly. At that age they are madly in love with someone new constantly. This results in multiple sex partners which in turn results in transmission of STD's some of which are fatal.

Your logic concerning already having the car is flawed. It is not having the car that is the problem, it is using it before you should. There is a story about a guy who was before the judge charged with making moonshine. He pleaded not guilty. The judge pointed out he was found with all the necessary moonshine equipment. At that point the guy told the judge he wanted to plead guilty to the crime of rape. The judge told him that was a very serious charge and did he understand what it meant. The guy replied that he had all the necessary equipment for it.

"I just believe denial of education and access to birth control is the surest route to #3."

Wrong. #2 and part of #1 is the surest route to #3. They used to hand out condoms in schools but found that they were either not being used or being used improperly. If you assume #2 how does that prevent #3?

I never said that it didn't prevent cervical cancer, I asked how you can "PROVE" that a person who does not have cervical cancer and is immunized would have gotten cervical cancer if they weren't immunized even if they are high risk for it. Just because someone is high risk for any disease does not mean that they will absolutely get that disease.

So I guess I am questioning the basic methods of scientific verification. How do you prove that a person who has been vaccinated would have gotten the disease if they were not vaccinated in the first place? Saying that you immunized 10,000 women and they didn't contract cervical cancer is not proof since you don't know if they would have contracted it in the first place.

"Of course, studies show that guns will spontaneously explode after 7 years of use, so no one should be allowed to have them anyway. It's true. Look it up!"

Bugger, that isn't the same group warning about the dangers of di-hyrdorgen monoxide?

"This is turn encourages more sex by removing more than one inhibition (If I am given contraception, don't they expect me to use it as well as fear of pregnancy). "

CDC statistics show that even when there is no contraceptive, sexual responsibility and STD's information or access available the rates of sexual enounters does not decrease but increases.

If you examine a large enough population, you assume that they will tend to get cervical cancer at about the same rate as the population at large.

If they've been given a vaccine and have a meaningfully lower rate of cervical cancer, and you've accounted for as many confounding factors as possible, it's fair to conclude that the vaccine is responsible for the change.

This without more doesn't mean that you can point to any single person in such a study and say "she would have contracted cervical cancer but for the vaccine." But it is reliable evidence that the vaccine is effective.

If people aren't taught sexual responsibility, what do you expect?

HPV vaccine is only 70 - 90% effective against HPV which cause cancer and/or genital warts.

The CDC says that Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, is nearly 100% effective against four types of HPV that, together, account for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.

But who's counting?

That is a fair statement. It is evidence that the vaccine "MAY" possibly be effective in some cases. That to me is not proof that it prevents cervical cancer as the data is incomplete.

Wait - the data isn't incomplete, it's been tested rigorously. What I think you mean to say is that the *effect* is incomplete, and therefore we shouldn't take the data to be true.

It just doesn't follow.

No, I mean to say that the data is incomplete. It is simple common sense.

A person is high risk for a disease but they do not have it. To ATTEMPT to prevent them from getting it (although we cannot prove that they will actually contract that disease) we will vaccinate them. If they don't contract the disease it does not necessarily mean that the vaccine prevented them from contracting it. So because we don't know if that person would have actually ever contracted the disease if they did not get vaccinated then the data is incomplete. And because they were vaccinated you will never know if they would have contracted the disease without preventive treatment. If there was irrefutable proof that the person would contract the disease if they did not receive the vaccination and they never did after they were vaccinated, then the data would be complete and you could say without out a doubt that the vaccination prevented the disease.

Since not everyone who is high risk for a disease contract that disease there is no way that you can have irrefutable proof that they would have contracted it if they would not have taken preventive measures. That is where your data runs short in any drug that is used to try to prevent something from happening. So it still comes down to just what they advertise, that it "MAY" prevent cervical cancer.