Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Bachmann's Scientific Illiteracy.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jayem" data-source="post: 58554338" data-attributes="member: 8344"><p>To a degree. Monogamous women, who've not had multiple partners do get cervical cancer. Men can shed HPV without having visible warts. (It's well established that the partners of circumcised men have a much lower incidence of cervical cancer, too.) But there's nothing wrong with an extra measure of protection. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>If the Congresswoman limited herself to this argument, I'd wouldn't quibble. I think it's prudent preventive medicine to give Gardasil, but I'm not convinced government should require it. However, she justified her objection by repeating a single, undocumented anecdote linking the vaccine to a conditon not demonstrated in published studies, and not even physiologically plausible. If she's not just pandering to the anti-vaccine crackpots, then she's one of them herself. In either case, she's scientifically ignorant.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jayem, post: 58554338, member: 8344"] To a degree. Monogamous women, who've not had multiple partners do get cervical cancer. Men can shed HPV without having visible warts. (It's well established that the partners of circumcised men have a much lower incidence of cervical cancer, too.) But there's nothing wrong with an extra measure of protection. If the Congresswoman limited herself to this argument, I'd wouldn't quibble. I think it's prudent preventive medicine to give Gardasil, but I'm not convinced government should require it. However, she justified her objection by repeating a single, undocumented anecdote linking the vaccine to a conditon not demonstrated in published studies, and not even physiologically plausible. If she's not just pandering to the anti-vaccine crackpots, then she's one of them herself. In either case, she's scientifically ignorant. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Bachmann's Scientific Illiteracy.
Top
Bottom