Topic: Science and Faith
Promiscuous Sex is Normal, Right? Recent Gardasil TV commercials have railed for HPV cancer protection for young girls. But that's not their real objective.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Promiscuous Sex Is Normal, Right?
The edict has been posted. We are now officially under the assumption that we all will have promiscuous sex out of wedlock, and we cannot stop it. We even have a vaccine called Gardasil to help prevent physical problems resulting from such activity.
With all the Gardasil (Merck) commercials on TV lately, you'd think that it's the best thing since sliced bread. Approximately six million women and men are infected every year with the sexually transmitted disease HPV (Human Papillomavirus). The commercial says "I want to be one less woman who battles cervical cancer."
All cases of HPV caused by about 40 viruses are self-limiting. That is, they usually do not form cancer. According to VRBPAC(Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee), when Gardasil is given to a woman with a harmless form of HPV the virus can become activated by increasing the likelihood of precancerous lesions by 44.6%.
And no, Gardasil is not a "one-timer". It's given in three shots, over six months, at a cost of $300-$500. But the FDA has noted "compelling evidence" that it could worsen cervical cancer for those that already have it. Even with the mass infections of HPV, it's recorded that only 12,000 women/yr in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and approximately 4000 die from it.
VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System) has reported 45 cases of spontaneous abortion following Gardasil vaccination in the two years it has been available. Those deaths by spontaneous abortion are nothing compared to the innumerable deaths resulting from the HPV virus being activated to cancerous lesions by Gardasil injections.
In 2 years, there have been almost 10,000 reports of side effects for taking an injection. These (Judicial Watch) include negative neurological responses, debilitation of the immune system, congenital birth defects, grand-mal seizures, Guillain-Barr Syndrome, paralysis, blood clots, lupus-like conditions, nausea, and dizziness, just to name a few. Even Merck reported to the FDA the shot gives 27% of pregnant women an adverse reaction, and stated it is not known if an injection can cause fetal harm.
This does not include the 21 deaths by girls who have just taken the HPV vaccinations (CWA/Crouse). The vaccine is only approved for younger women so it seems it's better to get a virginity test, pregnancy test, and an HPV test before the vaccination. It's unlikely this has ever been done, however.
Abstinence before marriage, and fidelity after, is the best protection against any sexually transmitted disease. The National Vaccine Informational Center(NVIC) notes cancer screening through annual pap smears have curbed cervical cancer in the last 37 years by 74%. This is especially true since the average age of a cervical cancer patient is 47.
Does animal instinct of sex trump good ol' common sense? Is Someone trying to tell us something, but we keep turning a deaf ear? A few things can be immediately concluded:
o the risk of acquiring HPV approaches zero by avoiding promiscuity
o Gardasil can activate a normally inactive and common HPV virus
o Gardasil inoculation says to a teenager, "Your going to have sex anyway, so we'll give up on trying to teach you against promiscuity."
o risk of cervical cancer is multiplied at least 10x with Gardasil
o with Gardasil, there's a 30% chance any cancer that might exist will not be affected, chances of serious side effects, possible death for those just injected, and possible miscarriage is if you're already pregnant
o abstinence before and fidelity after marriage, and annual pap smears result in a much higher likelihood than Gardasil injections for cancer-free life
What's next--that CO2 production is controlling the planet's weather, so we'll spend billions, cripple economies, and do nothing to change natural anomalies or the temperatures, but we'll feel good about it?
It's highly likely that if "Someone"{GOD} was asked about taking Gardasil, He wouldn't be in favor of a young girl deciding there were no risks to being promiscuous. But it really sounds like He's already given us an answer.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-03-31 07:33:27
Dear Kevin -
First I've ever heard of this drug, but its much the same as any other new molecule created by Big Pharm. Who knows what ANY of them will do to your mind/body? Thought you would appreciate this video on the bigger picture.
Like the comedian in the video says,
"Aspirin is perfectly legal but take 13 of them and you will wind up dead. Ever see someone overdose on marijuana? You might think you have, but he/she will wake up in 30 minutes later, hungry as hell."
Posted By: Paul T. Armerding, MD
Date: 2009-03-31 09:09:57
I support healthy, safe, sexual relationships--one man, one woman, lifetime commitment. In that context, virtually all STD's are non-existent. Unfortunately, this article is poorly written, e.g "the virus can become activated by increasing the likelihood of precancerous lesions by 44.6%". Increasing the incidence of (or likelihood of) pre-cancerous lesions does not activate a virus, and I know that is not what the author meant to say, but this is only one example of poor sentence structure obscuring the message. You cannot expect to be considered credible if you do not cite your references. If you want to be a spokesman for truth, don't be lazy--do your homework, and take the extra time to do your work well.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-04-01 13:27:00
Hi Kevin, Thanks for the information. Not being a TV viewer, I had never heard of Gardasil before reading your article.
You made some ridiculous and false assertions that lead me to question and discount anything you say. So, while your intent may have been to provide 'the rest of the story' so that discerning consumers could make truly informed choices, I can't take any of the data you provided as truthful and certainly cannot take your conclusions seriously at all when based on such patently false statements.
Here's what I mean:
First, your claim that because a commercial is on TV that "we all will have promiscuous sex..." Your ridiculous exaggeration is caused by the use of the word "All". It takes just one counter example to prove that assertion false. I'm not having promiscuous sex out of wedlock. You are just being hysterical.
Then, you finish that fallacy with: "and we cannot stop it". Which is absolutely true, has always been true and will always be true, yet you behave as if this were in question. Certainly if God can't stop it there is no chance that self-righteous humans can although some have been trying to do so since civilization began.
If I were inclined to overlook your blatant lack of credibility demonstrated above, I could imagine the middle of your article to be a relevant critique of the offending advertisement...obviously I couldn't do either.
Then at the end you abandon reason and integrity again in the following way:
You assert that "abstinence before marriage, and fidelity after, is the best protection against any sexually transmitted disease. This nearly true, but asserting it the context of your critique of Gardasil makes it ridiculous because it is completely off the point. Doing so leads me to believe you don't understand the reason Gardisil exists and further diminishes your credibility.
I say "nearly" true because there are two better ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, death is the best prevention, total abstinence before AND after marriage is 2nd. Your favorite choice is 3rd...however, this entire dialog misses the point. The question you are answering with your nearly true assertion is not the question Gardasil and the like are attempting to answer. Confusing the question and offering an out of context solution makes you look silly and even less credible at the end of your article than you did at the beginning.
No one asked "What is the best protection against sexually transmitted disease?". Do you know why this is not the question? It is because Gardasil is being marketed to people who aren't interested in the best protection. Just like cars are marketed to people who are not interested in the best way to avoid auto accidents...which is to abstain from ever traveling by car.
I think you'd be more effective by dropping the evil conspiracy angle and just admit your own agenda...which seems to be judging others in the name of your version of God. -Jahfre Fire Eater
I'm not a TV viewer, either. But the small amount I do watch when my family has it on, was pretty full of Gardasil adds. I'm glad you don't watch either, because you sure don't need to see them.
I never claimed that a commercial was making us have promiscuous sex. You haven't provided any counter example, and I'm sure not interested in your sex life.
Please don't take my words out of context. Many think "we cannot stop it". Of course there are many who wait till marriage to have sex. God gives us a free will, so we can do what we want. Darn, that's two mistakes. How many more do you have?
You forget I also didn't mention being abducted by aliens and never seeing another human again. The point was how you stop getting STD's in a normal sex life. But I guess you missed that.
No one you know of has asked the question. Most people will have sex. The point is to do it safely. The column made the precise point of doing that. I guess you missed that too.
I'm sorry you feel 'judged'. What exactly are you involved with? It seems you don't believe in God, either. What do you think hapens to all of us once we die a mortal death?
What's 'evil' and 'conspiratorial' about giving people an option out of a totally worthless, costly, and incorrect vaccination to take?
Nonetheless, I sure hope your week goes better next time.
i love how liberals and other elites always point out mistakes in grammar or sentence structure rather than actually debating the issues.unless of course you are a member of a minority group and then your grammatical errors are part of "urban poetry".
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
