Guru
the disease can be spread by either party without even knowing they have it, human nature being what it is people will contract the disease and have sex without telling future partners they have it, that's criminal, and if the partner dies of the resulting cancer that's murder...Originally Posted by Liberalis
both boys and girls should be vaccinated and it needs to be mandatory people will die needlessly because you want to play philosophical games...
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”-John Stuart Mills
Err, no, you don't force vaccinations on people. Like Liberalis said, that's criminalising them before they've done anything. I'm not promiscuous; I do nothing to warrant a forced vaccination.
Liberalis liked this post
Sr. Correspondent
Individuals are reponsible for their own actions. Unprotected sex with strangers is more likely to result in the contraction of an STD. If somebody lies about a disease they have and they pass it on, they should be prosecuted for it. At the core this issue has nothing to do with religion, and it is no philosophical game.
What you are saying is that you have the authority to stick a needle into someone and inject them with a drug against their will. You are claiming to have a greater right to someone's own body than they do themselves. And your justification for such authority is that said person may one day contract a disease that will harm the public health. But the harm is done during the sexual act, not by refusing to be injected with a needle.
If you believe that a woman can lose the right to control her body in the name of public health, then you must also believe that people with such diseases should be removed from society, for they are far greater threats to the "public health", human nature being what it is of course, than the healthy women who refuse to get the vaccination. For these healthy women cannot contract the disease if anyone carrying the disease is removed, no?
Last edited by Liberalis; Jul 03 2012 at 05:16 PM.
"We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish."
Friedrich August von Hayek
"Every bad idea in the history of the universe seemed like a good idea at some point in time."
Commentator
Legalize prostitution.
Guru
New cervical cancer vaccine...
Researchers Develop Vaccine to Treat Cervical Cancer
October 10, 2012 - Researchers have developed an experimental vaccine to treat cervical cancer, the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide.
The World Health Organization estimates that about 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year, mostly among women in the poorest regions of the world - sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia. The disease kills about 274,000 women every year. Most cervical cancers are caused by infection with the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Two varieties of the sexually-transmitted disease, known as HPV types 16 and 18, cause up to 75 percent of all cervical cancers. A vaccine already exists to prevent the acquisition and spread of HPV 16 and 18, as well as other strains of HPV that cause genital warts. The new, experimental drug is designed to treat women who already are infected with HPV and who are at risk of developing cervical cancer.
Niranjan Sardesai is chief of research and development for Inovio Pharmaceuticals, a Pennsylvania company developing the therapeutic vaccine. “Globally, you know, there is a large unmet need in terms of large numbers of women and men who go unvaccinated. So the disease burden is there. And our vaccine, if successful, has the potential to address large populations that are HPV-infected," said Sardesai. Unlike other vaccines that stimulate an immune response by exposing the body to a bacterial or viral protein, the cervical cancer treatment is what is called a DNA vaccine.
Researchers make the vaccine using small bits of viral DNA that code for a specific protein. Once injected, these DNA fragments direct the patient’s cells to produce copies of the infectious protein, or antigen, that stimulate a strong immune response against HPV-infected cells. Again, chemist Niranjan Sardesai: “So our approach works exactly like vaccines do, which is you immunize people with the target protein or the target antigen, have your body produce immune responses against the target antigen, with one major difference - we are asking the body to produce the target antigen on its own to which it can then produce an immune response," said Sardesai.
In a safety and effectiveness trial, the treatment stimulated a strong T-cell immune response in a small number of HPV-infected women. The next step, according to Sardesai, is to conduct a study to see whether the vaccine eliminates HPV infection in a larger group of patients. Sardesai says the vaccine could potentially treat several cancers stemming from human papilloma virus, including head and neck cancer, vulvar cancer in women, penile and anal cancers, and cancer of the urogenital tract. An article describing development of the HPV treatment vaccine is published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
Source
Kinda funny how, instead of a 'sequester', the Wall Street bankers got bailed out.
Participant
You mean I have to tell Hubby I can't give him oral sex anymore? He's not going to like this.
Guru
So this means that left-wingers are going to advocate banning gay sex right?
You know, I have heard of men even performing oral sex on women.
I am not sure why you would bring up homosexuality, as oral sex exists in heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.
“What is it you most dislike? Stupidity, especially in its nastiest forms of racism and superstition.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir
Guru
Have a cup o' coffee...
Study: Coffee Consumption Reduces Risk of Oral Cancer
December 13, 2012 - Coffee is one of the most popular beverages around the world. Now comes word from a very large study of Americans that the stimulating drink might play a role in reducing the risk of oral / pharyngeal cancer, a particularly deadly form of the disease.
One of the many questions put to the 970,000 American men and women taking part in the 30-year-old Cancer Prevention Study involved their coffee-drinking habits. The researchers -- population study experts with the American Cancer Society -- say the study has found that participants who drank about four cups of coffee per day reduced their risk of oral/pharyngeal cancer by 49 percent, compared to those who drank little or no coffee per day. Oral cancer and cancer of the pharynx, or upper part of the throat, are especially aggressive forms of the disease that are very hard to treat. In the study, there were 868 deaths among the participants, some of whom smoked. So, according to study leader Janet Hildebrand, it appeared coffee did not have a protective effect.
Hildebrand, an epidemiologist and population expert with the American Cancer Society, says there was a proportionally higher risk of cancer among those who drank less of the hot beverage, compared to the cancer risk of those who consumed the most coffee each day. “So it went down a little bit with each cup. And the lowest risk found was with four, five, six cups per day,” Hildebrand said.
Investigators found only a slight health benefit in drinking two decaffeinated cups of coffee, but no advantage was found among tea drinkers, although tea, particularly green tea, is known to have other health benefits. Hildebrand says coffee is thought to contain other health-promoting substances besides caffeine. “Two compounds for example have been studied for their anti-cancer properties and they have been found to possibly prevent cell replication and...prevent proliferation,” Hildebrand said.
Oral and pharyngeal cancer, although rare in the United States, are among the top 10 cancers worldwide. Study leader Janet Hildebrand says it would be interesting to find out whether coffee consumption leads to a better outcome among people who have already been diagnosed with the diseases. The study describing how coffee consumption can reduce the risk of oral / pharyngeal cancer is published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
http://www.voanews.com/content/coffe...r/1564648.html
Kinda funny how, instead of a 'sequester', the Wall Street bankers got bailed out.
Guru
here's a bit of info you're unaware of...you can carry disease and infect others without even knowing it...no sex required, HPV can be spread mouth to mouth, are you going to prosecute a mother for unknowingly infecting her child?...this is silly nitpicking philosophical crap carried to ridiculous levels...
What you are saying is that you have the authority to stick a needle into someone and inject them with a drug against their will. You are claiming to have a greater right to someone's own body than they do themselves. And your justification for such authority is that said person may one day contract a disease that will harm the public health. But the harm is done during the sexual act, not by refusing to be injected with a needle.
as I said you're extending this to ridiculous levels this public health not slavery ...If you believe that a woman can lose the right to control her body in the name of public health, then you must also believe that people with such diseases should be removed from society, for they are far greater threats to the "public health", human nature being what it is of course, than the healthy women who refuse to get the vaccination. For these healthy women cannot contract the disease if anyone carrying the disease is removed, no?
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”-John Stuart Mills
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks