Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday March 06 2018, @06:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the still-have-a-long-way-to-go dept.

Naaman Zhou at The Guardian writes that Australia's free human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme in schools has been highly successful. The International Papillomavirus Society calculates that within 40 years, the number of new cases of cervical cancer will become nearly negligible.

HPV (human papillomavirus) is a sexually transmitted infection that causes 99.9% of cervical cancers. In 2007, the federal government began providing the vaccine for free to girls aged 12-13 years, and in 2013, it extended the program to boys.

Girls and boys outside those ages but under 19 can also access two doses of the vaccine for free. In 2016, 78.6% of 15-year old girls and 72.9% of 15-year old boys had been vaccinated.

As a result, the HPV rate among women aged 18 to 24 dropped from 22.7% to 1.1% between 2005 and 2015.

Eradication is still a few decades out but within reach. The vaccinations are backed up by more advanced cervical screening tests, which are themselves highly successful in detecting high-risk HPV infections before they turn really bad.

Source : Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer. The Guardian


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:42PM (50 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:42PM (#648633) Journal

    1. If we vaccinate 15 year olds then they will have sex
    2. . . . without getting cancer that should result
    3. . . . as God intended.
    4. It would cost public money to have such a program. (socialism! next we would have roads without toll booths!)
    5. The HPV virus would die out, and it is (questionably) a form of life, and thus should be protected. (despite the irony of comparing the value of life in items 1-2 above)
    6. Rich people can afford it for themselves and their offspring and thus we do not need a public program.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Funny=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:55PM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:55PM (#648646)

    A quick googling yielded: "Each shot costs $130 to $150, for a total of around $390 to $450 for the series. "

    That's for a lifetime, right? If you can't pay that for your kid, then you shouldn't have had kids, and your kids should be taken away to be wards of the State.

    Also, rich people tend not to have HPV, because they're not filthy animals who can't restrain themselves.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:14PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:14PM (#648656) Journal

      A quick googling yielded: "Each shot costs $130 to $150, for a total of around $390 to $450 for the series. "

      Interesting.

      That's for a lifetime, right? If you can't pay that for your kid, then you shouldn't have had kids, and your kids should be taken away to be wards of the State.

      Agree. But that assumes this strange little known concept called Responsibility. Of course, having a job an opportunity might result in some responsibility. Or at least occupy one from reproducing on a whim, because "I'm bored".

      Also, rich people tend not to have HPV, because they're not filthy animals who can't restrain themselves.

      Hilarious. Yeah, right.

      The rich are the worst of all because they don't have pesky distractions like having to think about where their next meal is coming from. Or the mythical 'consequences' that poor people talk about. At least we'll always have the virus that causes affluenza.

      Lack of consequences leads to lack of inhibition to conceal the worst aspects of humanity that most people would find shameful to exhibit.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:20PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:20PM (#648659)

        According to your thinking, the "rich" are most likely to engage in risky, unsafe, diseased sex.

        Therefore, the "rich" are the ones who need to be targeted for this vaccine.

        And, the "rich" can pay for it themselves (as you say).

        Ergo, there's no problem.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:55PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:55PM (#648683) Journal

          You derail from your own statement that the Rich can restrain themselves. (therefore don't get HPV)

          You ignore that I point out they are as human as everyone else, no better, but are sometimes unrestrained in showing the worst behavior. Because consequences. Or lack thereof.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:00PM (#648687)

            We can all see what was said. That is not what went down.

          • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:59PM

            by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:59PM (#648731) Journal

            You ignore that I point out they are as human as everyone else, no better

            There is substantial evidence that the rich are considerably less human than everyone else.

            --
            You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:20PM (11 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:20PM (#648660) Journal

      "Each shot costs $130 to $150, for a total of around $390 to $450 for the series. "

      That's for a lifetime, right?

      President Regan could have done a lot to stop, slow down, or merely educate about AIDS. For very little money. But the wrong people were getting it.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:26PM (#648662)

        Do you people even hear yourselves? You're nuts.

      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:58PM (#648685)

        Do you people even hear yourselves? You're nuts.

      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:09PM (#648694)

        Do you people even hear yourselves? You're nuts.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:58PM

          by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:58PM (#648730) Journal

          FYI, your repeated posts are being marked redundant per the moderation guidelines. [soylentnews.org] Please read the sections titled "What is a Good Comment? A Bad Comment?", and "Be original:".

          Feel free to continue posting whatever original content you like; as an AC you don't have Karma to worry about, so the troll mods you've been given for the first instance of your repeated messages are simply serving to tag the content type for easier identification. Insightful and informative comments will be given the appropriate tags as well, keep the posts coming.

          --
          Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:41PM (6 children)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:41PM (#648723)

        educate about AIDS

        I saw a documentary on that topic from PBS so its kinda leftist biased, but the summary is in the earliest days the .gov blew as much time and effort as they could and were told to fuck off by the gays who felt it was just persecution. The gays only came around and flipped to the other extreme after the death rate went insane high. When even the leftist documentaries look like that, the narrative that Reagan left them to die is pretty laughable.

        Its not even a good meme. The right hears that, knows the leftists are trying to guilt trip them, and replies with a nice short "good" or "wrong people is in the eye of the beholder" or whatever.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:07PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:07PM (#648733)

          That's not true. In the early days, they were focused only on the gay community, and basically used it to spur homophobia. The gay community is the only reason that the virus ever received any serious attention as the view by most folks was that it was just gays and drug users that were effected. It wasn't until years into the epidemic that anything meaningful was done about it.

          After years of protests and bringing it up again and again and again, eventually the government started taking it seriously.

          And no, the community was not responsible for holding research back for all those years.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:37PM (#648780) Journal

            That's both right and wrong. Many in the gay community were "committed" to indiscriminate sex (among willing partners). They were quite reluctant to accept advice on how to restrict the spread of AIDS. This isn't to say that they held back research, but they weren't willing to change dangerous patterns of behavior for quite awhile. So they (and needle sharing drug users) acted to significantly spread and intensify the AIDS epidemic for long after it became known.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:06PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:06PM (#649036) Journal

              +1 informative, because I remember some of those attitudes and conversations. And, in retrospect, it seems that the gay attitude probably influenced hetero attitudes toward AIDS and homosexuality. In common street terms, "If the queers insist on trying to infect everyone they meet, then maybe AIDS really is God's punishment."

              I highly doubt that anyone could do serious research on it, but that is food for thought.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:52PM (#649058)

            yeah, they were focused on the gay community, all right. they seeded the hiv with the hepatitis vaccines. why do you think it was intravenous drug users and homosexuals who contracted the virus originally? they were eating monkeys or some shit?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)

          by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:07PM (#648734) Journal

          but the summary is in the earliest days the .gov blew as much time and effort as they could and were told to fuck off by the gays who felt it was just persecution

          That is horseshit.

          https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aids [vox.com]

          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/nancy-ronald-reagan-aids-crisis-first-lady-legacy [theguardian.com]

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/12/01/a-disturbing-new-glimpse-at-the-reagan-administrations-indifference-to-aids/?utm_term=.5da97d04537b [washingtonpost.com]

          And thirty-plus years later, the GOP is still complete shit when it comes to AIDS:

          https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/under-pences-leadership-response-to-heroin-epidemic-criticized-as-ineffective-226759 [politico.com]

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:29PM (#648741)

            Don't mind VLM, he is the resident neo-nazi-lite. He spews mind numbingly bad information and believes there is a conspiracy to keep whitey down.

            TL:DR just mod down and move on

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:01PM (12 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:01PM (#648689) Journal

      A quick googling yielded: "Each shot costs $130 to $150, for a total of around $390 to $450 for the series. "

      Even if this could be made freely available to teens in the US which seems unlikely . . . Good thing then that there are people who would want to make it illegal for kids to get this without their parents' consent or knowledge. That would prevent the parent from exercising some kind of right.

      Hopefully most kids would have no reason to hide the fact that they get a vaccination.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:07PM (#648692)

        Indeed, parents are allowed to cut a chunk of flesh from the sexual organ of a completely healthy child.

      • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:40PM (7 children)

        by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:40PM (#648721) Journal

        <sarcasm>Good thing then that there are people who would want to make it illegal for kids to get this without their parents' consent or knowledge. That would prevent the parent from exercising some kind of right.</sarcasm>

        (sarcasm tag added for clarity)

        That is one of the most interesting statements I've read in a long time, and I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm worried that anything I say will be a strawman attack, since I honestly don't comprehend your position. I'm going to lay out what the situation is as I see it; would you please explain where you see me going wrong?

        Assumption: adults are competent to judge what medical procedures they want to receive in order to keep themselves healthy, and are responsible for their own health care.
        Assumption: children are not competent to judge what care they need, and a responsible adult needs to oversee their care to keep the children healthy.
        Observation: responsibility without authority is meaningless, therefore a child's legal guardians are granted authority to oversee all aspects of the child's medical care, including what care to reject. The guardians are held accountable legally for the outcomes of these decisions (neglect/abuse are both crimes and are prosecuted).
        Observation: while different people mature at different rates, the law needs some way to distinguish adults from children, and imposes arbitrary (and unavoidably faulty for everyone) thresholds for emancipation into adulthood. Despite being arbitrary and universally unfair for the child, this clarifies and limits the accountability of the guardian: full responsibility and authority until the child reaches age of majority.

        In the framework I just described, what legal guardian wouldn't be freaked out by hearing that someone injected something into their child without consulting the guardian? Would allowing such a thing make the guardian guilty of neglect?

        Please explain what part of the above you think is inappropriate, because it's obvious you think there's some problem with it, and I can't fathom what it should be.

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
        • (Score: 2, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:50PM (5 children)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:50PM (#648726)

          As a practical matter all vaccines have side effects up to and including death, admittedly at low rates.

          "We don't have to tell you that there's a 1 in 1e7 chance your kid would end up dead, so we didn't, so tough cookies, have a nice funeral" seems a weird protocol.

          Also any parent knows the nightmare of getting school to not stand in the way of simple prescription medicines, but this gets a free pass, in fact its mandatory, because of a tangential relationship to whore like sex. You need a doctors note to administer freaking advil but this will be forced into your kids like it or not, which is just a little inconsistent.

          Another oddity is the three hour parent and child concussion training and waiver form I have to sign for all sports including, I kid you not, track and field. But this is tangentially related to whore like sex lifestyle so you will not be informed nor require consent.

          You can hand wave around all the poor impoverished kid sex stuff and with careful propaganda techniques it can be made to seem seems rational or crazy to oppose, but in comparison to other school relationships with medicine or school relationships with medical issues and consent, its totally bizarre.

          • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:01PM (4 children)

            by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:01PM (#648732) Journal

            You can hand wave around all the poor impoverished kid sex stuff and with careful propaganda techniques it can be made to seem seems rational or crazy to oppose, but in comparison to other school relationships with medicine or school relationships with medical issues and consent, its totally bizarre.

            Exactly, which is why I'm confused by DannyB's apparent displeasure that there are people lobbying to allow parents to maintain their medical authority over their children.

            --
            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:04PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:04PM (#648765) Journal

              I'm not too displeased with it seriously. It is the edge and corner cases I'm thinking of. Really, there are just some people who should not be parents.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:11AM (2 children)

              by dry (223) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:11AM (#648867) Journal

              There are people refusing any types of vaccinations for their kids in a world where herd immunity is a real thing.
              There are people feeding their kids bleach because, despite all evidence, they belief it is healthy.
              There are people who refuse blood transfusions for their kids when it is a matter of life and death due to some words in a book.
              There are people that instead of taking their really sick kid to a doctor, use a (bad) herbalist or other weird practitioners of so called healthcare.
              There are even people who tie their kids up in a cellar or closet, barely feed them and give no medical care.

              At what point does society interfere with these and similar practices? Wait until the kid is dead and charge them with neglect or failing to provide the necessities of life?
              It's a hard problem as parents/guardians should be largely free to raise their children how they like but children shouldn't be abused.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:47PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:47PM (#648966)

                VLM feeds his kids bleach. He wants them to be white inside and out.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:55PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @04:55PM (#649062)

                other people's kids are not your business. fuck off.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:07PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:07PM (#648769) Journal

          I think you are right. I think that is the right place to put things.

          But there are some bad parents that have kids more responsible than the parents are.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:42PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:42PM (#648784) Journal

        To clarify what I believe to be your point:
        Unless the vaccine has been improved, it is only effective before you are exposed to the virus. So to be maximally effective, the vaccine needs to be given before the first sexual encounter. I'm not sure why they decided on 10 years rather than 2 years, but there's probably some reason. One reason might be that it's only effective for a few years after being given unless it's reinforced by exposure to the virus, but that's a guess...some vaccines work that way (see tetanus).

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 07 2018, @01:28AM (1 child)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday March 07 2018, @01:28AM (#648812) Homepage Journal

        A quick googling yielded: "Each shot costs $130 to $150, for a total of around $390 to $450 for the series. "

        Even if this could be made freely available to teens in the US which seems unlikely . . . Good thing then that there are people who would want to make it illegal for kids to get this without their parents' consent or knowledge. That would prevent the parent from exercising some kind of right.

        Hopefully most kids would have no reason to hide the fact that they get a vaccination.

        It is widely available in the US. Most kids get it from their doctors. Especially as more people have insurance these days.

        What's more, putting your kids at risk of getting cancer is bad parenting. Irresponsible at best and neglect at worst.

        There's absolutely no reason to "hide" anything, unless there's something shameful about not wanting to contract cancer. Is there something shameful about that? I don't think so.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @05:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @05:00PM (#649068)

          "What's more, putting your kids at risk of getting cancer is bad parenting. Irresponsible at best and neglect at worst."

          as if you know what's even in the fucking vaccine. are you retarded? or you're just a groveling slave who thinks kissing up to the medical establishment makes him modern and sophisticated? you think you're going to get an extra slave star on your folder? they're just going to let you be further up the slaughter line (right after your trusting kids), you dumb ass, bleating sheep.

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:35PM (3 children)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:35PM (#648665)

    1. If we vaccinate 15 year olds then they will have sex
    ...
    4. It would cost public money to have such a program. (socialism! next we would have roads without toll booths!)

    Hmm ... so if we combine the two:

    1. Educate kids that they first need to save up money.
    2. Every time they have sex, they need to contribute to the vaccination fund beforehand.
    3. Partners are allowed to narc on each other if they didn't contribute to the fund.
    4. Health and prosperity!
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by VLM on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:37PM (8 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @09:37PM (#648719)

    Somewhat more practically and realistic:

    1) Its success rate is only about 70%, and teens are stupid, so you know the inevitable result is "I got the shot I'm 100% bullet proof" leading to inevitable infection. Its almost medical malpractice, like teaching teens the best method of birth control is pulling out. Actually probably 10% of the teens are likely dumb enough to think they're on birth control or the vaccine magically is effective against gonorrhea, leading to lots of extra pregnancies and STDs. Given the general level of stupidity and rareness of the disease it "cures" I'm not sure the sum total of human suffering will lower because of this vaccine.

    2) The problem isn't the cost, which is only $200 per person, but the aggregate of selling millions of doses at that price, where its billions in profit and of course uncountable government officials are getting kickbacks. Now they DO get kickbacks for everything so corruption does not prove its bad for you, but there are implications from history where some official making a quick buck does not imply safety for everyone else. F my constituents, I got my bribe. As a side dish, mysteriously, its one of the most expensive vaccinations in human history; isn't that fascinating that the best way to increase sales of a total ripoff would be government mandates to buy it?

    3) Those cancers killed a lot of people in the past but have trended downward such that they're a rounding error. The odds of a woman dying of that in 1910 are actually depressing; the counts in 2010 are literally around lightning strike / meteor hitting head upon reentry. By the time a young chick in 2010 is "die of cancer" age, what will the numbers look like? For this, we're paying a lot of money and taking a lot of risk. How about I sell you the most expensive vest ever sold in human history, that will be required for all public school teachers to purchase, that is guaranteed to prevent death from goring horn attacks 70% of the time solely from Northern White Rhinos (which is about 3 animals away from extinction today)? How much money can I make off that fearmongering? Enough to pay off politicians to demand it, that's for sure.

    4) No long term studies. None. Zero. All you literally have is prayer that they didn't fuck up. Actually we're rushing a long term study into place as fast as we can using the general public as involuntary test animals, which historically has been ethically and morally challenging. Luckily last century nothing bad ever happened medically like:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment [wikipedia.org]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide [wikipedia.org]

    So only a paranoid lunatic would suspect malfeasance, that never happens, well, maybe it happens every decade to tens of thousands but who cares theres profits to be made. But hey, if 100% of American women die or become sterile in, perhaps, 20 years, it was just an innocent unavoidable accident, and there's plenty of people who won't lament the loss, right?

    I'm surprised how fast its being rushed into place for such a fringe disease, fastest in human history with the least long term testing. But hey, its only the health of our kids, what could possibly go wrong, LOL?

    There are also engineering arguments like $200 of extra budget for better cafeteria food per kid would result in less malnutrition and obesity which surely will kill more kids than a declining disease. In terms of human lives saved, $200 of diabetes screening or diet education or gun safety or driving training would likely save more lives... I know all that matters is politicians kickbacks, but if we want to pretend its "for the kids own good" we're going to have to ignore that its really shitty allocation of limited resources.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:12PM (7 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:12PM (#648738) Journal

      4) No long term studies. None. Zero.

      Good grief, you are such a dumb fuck. I mean if you google, the very first goddamn peer-reviewed article is titled: "Long-term efficacy and safety of human papillomavirus vaccination"

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/ [nih.gov]

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:56PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:56PM (#648758)

        Don't bother with VLM, he is either a circle jerking jackass who refuses to acknowledge info that doesn't confirm his bias

        OR

        he is a professional troll account used to sow discord and make conservatives look exactly like their more negative caricatures

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:46PM (3 children)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 06 2018, @11:46PM (#648785) Journal

          The problem is, *some* conservatives, just like *some* liberals, are exactly like their more negative caricatures. I've met a few of both.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:10AM (2 children)

            by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:10AM (#648846) Journal

            he problem is, *some* conservatives, just like *some* liberals, are exactly like their more negative caricatures.

            Except all conservatives are now VLM. They have to be or they're expelled as "RINOs" and "cucks". There is no longer any moral equivalent.

            --
            You are still welcome on my lawn.
            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday March 07 2018, @06:59AM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 07 2018, @06:59AM (#648910) Journal

              I'm sorry, but "VLM"?? What does that mean? I also don't recognize either "RINOs" or "cucks".

              FWIW, I don't consider the US right wing to be conservative. They aren't even reactionary. "Jingoist" could be defensible.

              A conservative is one who wishes to conserve whatever they thing is good about the current situation, so those defending their right to purchase guns could fairly be called conservative *on that issue*. They're trying to conserve what they consider good about the current situation. But on most other issues the term conservative is wildly inappropriate.

              Now to go back to what I said, some conservative are like their caricatures. I'm not talking about the general run of right wing spokesmen, who seem to either be unable to express whatever their actual goals are coherently, or to actually have an incoherent set of goals. (I'm talking about individuals. For a category of people to have incoherent goals is only to be expected.) This is sort of the way the spokesmen of the left were like back when they were pushing "coalition politics" without bothering to get an agreement about just what they intended to include. So the spokesmen would just say any garbage that they thought sounded like it might be attractive to *some* potential supporters. Bob Wilson satirized this in Schroedinger's Cat as the Necrophile Liberation Front and the Foot Fetishist Liberation Front. But the current crop of right wing politicians are a bit difficult to satirize.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:27PM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:27PM (#648962) Homepage Journal

              Except all conservatives are now VLM. They have to be or they're expelled as "RINOs" and "cucks". There is no longer any moral equivalent.

              No. VLM is a radical reactionary. He's authoritarian, intolerant and is unable to understand or empathize with others.

              I am a conservative, because I want to maintain the ideals of liberty, freedom of expression and making the ideals of equality of opportunity and equality under the law as expressed by our forbears apply to everyone, regardless of their melanin content, ethnic/religious background or philosophical bent. All of which makes me center-left. That's conservatism -- striving to maintain the ideals of our society.

              Sadly, the radical reactionaries have appropriated that term for themselves, even though it's doesn't represent their beliefs and goals.

              What VLM advocates is exclusionary, authoritarian, repressive and hateful. Which makes him a bigoted, far right, nativist [wikipedia.org]. That's not conservative. Rather it's destructive and advocates moving away from our ideals, not preserving them.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2, Troll) by VLM on Wednesday March 07 2018, @02:51AM (1 child)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 07 2018, @02:51AM (#648843)

        LOL a species that lives 100+ years, and is fertile for 25+ years, and like the 8th line in your lame paper is the longest study ever attempted has 9 years of data. Not all studies, not average, longest.

        Nine years is aeons for javascript web framework lifespan, not so much compared to human lifespan.

        • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:49AM

          by ilPapa (2366) on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:49AM (#649288) Journal

          LOL a species that lives 100+ years, and is fertile for 25+ years, and like the 8th line in your lame paper is the longest study ever attempted has 9 years of data. Not all studies, not average, longest.

          Nine years is aeons for javascript web framework lifespan, not so much compared to human lifespan.

          So no medical treatments should be approved unless they've been studied for longer than the lifespan of the oldest human?

          How about this: No genetically-modified organism should be approved for human consumption until it's been studied for the same length of time. That satisfy you?

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:09PM (5 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:09PM (#648737)

    Texas made this vaccine mandatory for Middle and High school attendance even before it was proven safe or effective in children, but that's another story.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:13PM (3 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:13PM (#648739) Journal

      Texas made this vaccine mandatory for Middle and High school attendance even before it was proven safe or effective in children, but that's another story.

      No, they didn't. It had been proven safe and effective, but the god-bothering jackoffs in Texas don't believe in science, so they just ran around saying, "There have been no studies!" because they don't believe in clinical studies.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:51AM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:51AM (#648801)

        Even the governor himself backtracked - after the fact (and the money was in-pocket):

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-reverses-himself-calls-hpv-vaccine-mandate-a-mistake/2011/08/16/gIQAM2azJJ_story.html?utm_term=.39bb8c7ceafe [washingtonpost.com]

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by ilPapa on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:15AM (1 child)

          by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @03:15AM (#648847) Journal

          Even the governor himself backtracked

          You're talking about Rick Perry, who may be the stupidest man in all of Texas. You know, this guy:

          https://goo.gl/images/SkaDqA [goo.gl]

          How can you possibly imagine that any thought at all went into his opinion about the safety or medical efficacy of a vaccine.

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 07 2018, @01:10PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @01:10PM (#648972)

            How can you possibly imagine that any thought at all went into his opinion about the safety or medical efficacy of a vaccine.

            Oh, no, absolutely no rational thought was involved in the process. Nonetheless, the Governor of Texas pushed an opt-out mandate scheme for a new, at the time wholly unproven in the field, vaccine on all Texas Middle School girls - most likely because his buddies in the pharma industry winked at him.

            The thing that really grinds my gears about all this graft and corruption is how little it takes to actually buy a relatively powerful politician. Not even $100K, sometimes less than $10K and you can get decisions pushed that make tens of millions of dollars profit, while simultaneously potentially causing hundreds of millions of dollars of harm to the electorate the politician is supposed to be representing.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07 2018, @12:41AM (#648798)

      Steers and queers, which one are you boy.