Religious extremists oppose cervical cancer vaccine

[loinburger]

CNN reports on the cancer vaccine, but their article doesn't mention the fundy nutjobs.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
And what makes it worse is that the world's most powerful man is licking christian fundamentalists' asses, than to set a clear and strong signal against these tendencies. Him supporting ID to be taught in school and all that... YES I AM WORRIED!!!

Bush is just throwing his nutjob base a bone or two... his tongue is planted firmly between Haliburton's cheeks...

[Sava]

I like the new Oerdin

[Mr. Harley]

link BTW, I was pleasantly surprised by the Family News in Focus note - they have been consistantly opposed to all sex education programs except for abstinence only. I used to get to listen to them here on my way home from work - beautifully done scarey propoganda, for example every report that mentioned gay right mentioned pedophiles/pedophilia. I'd love to see them and Rove mix it up.

“We know that there is what could easily be called an epidemic of HPV infection, and that needs to be taken seriously,” says Pia de Solenni, an ethicist who serves as director of life and women's issues at the Family Research Council. “However, our concern would be that [a vaccine] really isn't comprehensive, especially when you're talking about administering it to 12-year-olds. It's important to focus on abstinence.” Abstinence, Solenni notes, would prevent not just HPV, but an array of other sexually transmitted infections, including gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HIV.

Many find the idea of incorporating the vaccine into school-entry requirements particularly troubling. “We need to look at this with a serious moral perspective and talk about it some more instead of just imposing it on every parent and every child,” says Wendy Wright, senior policy director of Concerned Women for America . “We're not saying don't make this vaccine available.” But, she adds, giving the vaccine at an early age sends a message. “What they've done is told this 12-year-old, ‘You can now become sexually active,'” she says. “Perhaps they could adjust this vaccine so that it could be taken at a later age.” Solenni concurs, saying that although she still wouldn't endorse it, the vaccine would best be offered only to people who are at least 18 years old. The only form of prevention she supports is abstinence from any sex outside marriage.

As a public health policy, delaying vaccination until age 18, an age before which many girls have become sexually active, fails. “In our study, we found that effectiveness was OK until age 15; then it decreased,” says Duke's Myers. “It's clear that waiting until 18 would reduce the overall benefits of the vaccine by a substantial proportion. I strongly doubt that those teens who aren't having sex are being held back by a fear of HPV, and that being vaccinated would suddenly change behavior.”

One notable exception to the abstinence only refrain of the family-values groups is Focus on the Family. Reginald Finger, a public health physician and the medical issue analyst for the organization , serves on the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. “If three doses of HPV vaccine is going to produce efficacy over a young-adult lifetime, then [age 12] might be a good time to reach them, just because they're easier to reach and you can implement a system for doing that with the adolescent visit,” he says. “I do not think that you necessarily need to infer that if you're giving it to 12 year olds, that 12 year olds are suspected to be at risk right then.” HPV, he notes, can be a long-lasting infection, to the point that it may be a risk even to people who have been abstinent until marriage. “With HPV, you could have a person in their 20s, never sexually active before marriage, marrying someone who has had a sexual history in their teens, who has turned around their lifestyle and had been abstinent for eight years,” he says. “Then all of a sudden, you have a situation where it's possible HPV could be an issue."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Seeker
Those wacky fundies...is there ANYTHING they don't oppose?

I hope that you have other sources than New 'Scientist' btw....

I'm sure there are other sources but what do you have against New Scientist? It's a respect science magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

[Sava]

It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

from wiki entry on it...

I've never heard of New Scientist magazine, so I can't really comment...

but since it's not peer reviewed, it should be treated as a regular magazine, NOT as a scientific journal...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm sure there are other sources but what do you have against New Scientist? It's a respect science magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

I believe Seeker was being a bit facetious, hence the quote marks around 'Scientist.'

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
but since it's not peer reviewed, it should be treated as a regular magazine, NOT as a scientific journal...

It's something like Scientific American or Science News.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant

What's that? A fundie exploding?

[MrFun]

BK will visit this thread and rationlize away why it's perfectly legitimate to oppose such vaccinations.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava


from wiki entry on it...

I've never heard of New Scientist magazine, so I can't really comment...

but since it's not peer reviewed, it should be treated as a regular magazine, NOT as a scientific journal...

It's not meant to be a journal where research articles are published and instead it is a news magazine dealing with science related topics. Just like National Geographic, The Economist, and others aren't peer reviewed but are still highly respected in their fields.

[Atahualpa]

[Q=MrFun]BK will visit this thread and rationlize away why it's perfectly legitimate to oppose such vaccinations.[/Q]

I don't think that this represents Ben's point of view, but I think you'll get what you call for.

edit: x-posted

[lightblue]

New Scientist is basically the UK version of something like Scientific American, and for example is the main place all universities advertise their science positions and studentships. They wouldn't do that if it were some random rag.

[DanS]

I doubt that even most whacky fundies oppose the vaccine, although I do note that there are no other vaccines of which I am aware that are given at age 12. This is just a tempest in a teacup.

Of course, abstinece is still the only way to prevent all STDs, etc.

[Lorizael]

Yes, because when a nurse p r i c k s you with a needle, you're actually having sex.

Edit: p r i c k is censored?