331–340 of 383 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
And if it turns out you weren’t a perfect judge of character and your partner cheats on you, then fuck you, right? I guess you deserved to die from cancer because you couldn’t read your fiancé’s mind. Or maybe it’s your fault for not being a good enough spouse.
But then, don't blame me for your partner being a slut.
Title is misleading > Among the 859 unvaccinated women, HPV16/18 prevalence was 6%, 5%, and 6% and > However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women. so… real summary is “hpv vaccination correlates with lower infection for vaccine specific HPV strain, but does not impact / po…
There's a lot in the paper to summarize, but I think it makes a reasonable argument that HPV16/18 are especially high risk, and that "simple" replacement of the 5% HPV16/18 with another 5% of any of the other HR HPV strains would be beneficial. The linked paper suggests up to 74% (depending on your assumptions) reduction in cancer with "simple replacement".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if 25 years ago I spoke out against opiods as highly addictive and dangerous. Remember, this was in contradiction to the scientific consensus at the time that modern opioids were not that addictive. A reasonable person could have said at the time that my claims were false and posed a danger to people who were in pain and needed this medication. In hindsight it's obvious that the scientific consensus was catastro…
If you did you'd have been in very good company because the world over the scientific consensus was that opioids were addictive. That scientific consensus you are alluding to is not what you claim it was. Finally, we're talking about celebrities without any qualification whatsoever spreading utter nonsense causing real harm, you can look at that in isolation and compare it to you making that statement out of an abund…
The dangers of medical misinformation, regardless of scale, do not negate the fact that criminalizing _what the state calls_ misinformation allows the state to arbitrarily imprison people publishing things, because it demands that the state be the arbiter of truth, something that does not have an objective legal method of determination. If it somehow did, promoting religion would of course be illegal as it is clear misinformation.
Also, consider for a moment the insane amount of harm the delusion that is religious belief has wrought. Should we be outlawing that, too? The suggestion that prayer is an effective treatment for ailments is a claim they have been making for millennia. Shall we somehow square your anti-misinformation law with religious freedom?
People should always be free to be wrong, because we often don’t know what is right until many decades or centuries or millennia later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if it turns out you weren’t a perfect judge of character and your partner cheats on you, then fuck you, right? I guess you deserved to die from cancer because you couldn’t read your fiancé’s mind. Or maybe it’s your fault for not being a good enough spouse.
Than take a jab, since your risk assessment shows you'll benefit from it. But then, don't blame me for your partner being a slut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider that it's possible that the person's partner may have exposed them to their then-unknown extra partners, creating one of the conditions for the divorce.
There are other STDs that you'd still be at risk of getting/giving in the case of infidelity, so getting this one vaccine doesn't actually make things all good. I imagine for some people, the thought of possibly bringing home a disease would actually be a sufficient deterrent to prevent infidelity. Not just because they wouldn't want to infect their partner, but because they know it could lead to them getting caught.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Than take a jab, since your risk assessment shows you'll benefit from it. But then, don't blame me for your partner being a slut.
I don’t understand your second sentence. Are you saying that getting vaccinated will cause my spouse to cheat on me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDC recommendation to get it at 11 or 12 does not make sense to me. I know they aren’t having sex - and I know that some kids do. We will discuss, together, the pros/cons as they get older to see if it makes sense. As they get older, they’ll make these decisions themselves. Until then, I’m weighing the pros/cons and in our case, it doesn’t seem they are at risk in the near future.
You know “sexual contact” is not the same thing as sexual intercourse, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand your second sentence. Are you saying that getting vaccinated will cause my spouse to cheat on me?
No, I just said promiscuous people are riskier. If you trust your spouse to cheat on you, and you don't want to kick them out, you'd better vaccinate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other STDs that you'd still be at risk of getting/giving in the case of infidelity, so getting this one vaccine doesn't actually make things all good. I imagine for some people, the thought of possibly bringing home a disease would actually be a sufficient deterrent to prevent infidelity. Not just because they wouldn't want to infect their partner, but because they know it could lead to them getting caught.
I'm 100% not sure where you're coming from on this one. What an odd thing to write.
But the fact remains that you are still at risk of many other STDs, so you can still bring home (or have brought home) plenty of other diseases.
The last point, which I knew some people here would dislike, is that the possibility of HPV transmission could, on the margin, discourage some people from being unfaithful. This is because it would be a telltale sign of infidelity, and would cause the spouse to investigate.
Granted, this is only the case where the spouse knew he/she did not have HPV before (mostly people who remained celibate before marriage). If you had many partners before marriage, this advice probably doesn't resonate, but for people who did it makes perfect sense. It acknowledges the risk of infidelity and creates additional accountability by not shielding one's self from a likely telltale sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main reason it isn't recommended for all ages is that it wears off. If you get it before 50, when your immune system starts declining, you might end up getting shingles when you're 60 or 70. Insurance companies used to only pay for the vaccine at 60. They've reduced it to 50 now because people (like me) were getting it in their 50's. I got it in my left eye and because my immune system is kinda shit, I st…
My PCP actually recommended holding off until later in the 50s for this reason. There's not currently a booster so his suggestion was to play the odds & delay a bit in order to get longer protection in my elderly years.
(1) a booster won't be invented in next say 20 years and
(2) you will live next 20 years (likely if you are healthy and have a healthy lifestyle)