Skip to comments.
Israeli doctor heads Merck team that has developed vaccine against cervical cancer
ISRAEL21c ^
| June 14, 2006
| Staff
Posted on 06/23/2006 7:21:19 AM PDT by veronica
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-259 next last
To: Alama; ThisLittleLightofMine
But wishing cancer on those that don't have any problem with it is the sign of fanatical obscurantism... TLLOM never said that. Here's what they said....I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
She's talking abstinence, not promiscuity. Don't put words in her mouth she didn't say.
21
posted on
06/23/2006 7:57:29 AM PDT
by
processing please hold
(If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
To: veronica
I heard somewhere that the vaccine does not contain a live virus, not even a dead virus. Instead, the vaccine contains a protein from a virus that triggers the immunological response in a person.
Great news.
To: george wythe
23
posted on
06/23/2006 7:59:38 AM PDT
by
Alama
To: Alama
Oh yes it definitely is, you've definitely convinced me that you are ABSOLUTEDLY right and that I AM EVIL for questioning this vaccine.
To: ThisLittleLightofMine
"God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations." You wanted to see a real asinine statement? Some innocent girl that marries a man who is a carrier of this horrible disease should be forced to deal with that hell because of something she had no part of?
25
posted on
06/23/2006 8:00:02 AM PDT
by
Abathar
(Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
To: Abathar
And even if she had premarital sex... Is it a good reason not to immunize her against a horrible disease?
HELLO...
26
posted on
06/23/2006 8:02:53 AM PDT
by
Alama
To: pbrown; Alama; ThisLittleLightofMine
But wishing cancer on those that don't have any problem with it is the sign of fanatical obscurantism...TLLOM never said that. Here's what they said....I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.... She's talking abstinence, not promiscuity. Don't put words in her mouth she didn't say.I don't she meant it that way, but opposing the development of this drug doesn't "wish" cance on people, it assures it. Like it or not according to the CDC about 3/4 of American women have had a HPV infection by middle age. That's a lot of women.
27
posted on
06/23/2006 8:07:08 AM PDT
by
SJackson
(The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
To: Alama
I know, most of these people are all for any cure of some disease that they can get by walking around in a supermarket, but if its one that is contacted by any means other than what actions they approve of then all they say boils down to "It's about the SIN..."
28
posted on
06/23/2006 8:07:30 AM PDT
by
Abathar
(Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
To: veronica
"Because cervical cancer does not occur in women who have not contracted HPV ..."
That's not how I read the medical literature on this, which generally indicates that HPV is absent (or at least undetectable) in 30-33% of all cervical cancer cases.
To: veronica
Has it REALLY been tested?
I hate to say it but pharms are rather hard up for NEW products. They're up to their eye balls in law suits for shoddy testing and drugs.
30
posted on
06/23/2006 8:08:04 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
To: ThisLittleLightofMine
I can see it now.
"No, my daughter at age 10 isn't haveing sex".
Doctor: "It's mandatory to have this shot."
31
posted on
06/23/2006 8:09:39 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
To: nmh
If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:
Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer
You: But I told her not to have sex...
32
posted on
06/23/2006 8:12:31 AM PDT
by
Alama
To: SJackson
Who opposes the drug?
TLLOM, was talking about not have pre-marital sex. How did that get twisted into wishing cancer on someone or opposing the drug? Here's what she said....
Well hopefully if my daughter decide to marry men who have had previous relations, they would be tested for HPV along with AIDS etc. I haven't stated whether or not I would be for immunization or against having it, I just stated that once again one of the natural consequences of premarital sex are being removed.
If premarital sex was taken out of the equasion on the part of both the man and woman, they would have no need for the drug. In this day and age where children are having sex and getting pregnant at 13, the drug will be a lifesaver.
33
posted on
06/23/2006 8:13:21 AM PDT
by
processing please hold
(If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
To: pbrown
34
posted on
06/23/2006 8:14:57 AM PDT
by
Alama
To: ThisLittleLightofMine
Pay no attention to the riffraff.
"How long will it be before they require this as part of immunization schedule? God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations. I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage."
Our stance is NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.
Then you won't need ANY of these drugs for STD's and no side effects. Amazing how far just a little common sense will take you. Years ago it was standard advice and we didn't have the epidemic of STD's or HIV cases. Now that we chose to believe, "they'll do it anyway" and shove EXPLICIT sex at every opportunity - guess what? Kids are active at lower and lower ages. The emotional price of being used and tossed aside is also devastating - especially for females. Females are scarred emotionally by being someones "tissue".
Some will never get it! So ignore the ugly riffraff.
35
posted on
06/23/2006 8:16:12 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
To: nmh
No Problem ...
Just wait until your daughter comes up to you and announces that she is going to have sex - then get her to wait six months until the series of 3 shots can be completed.
Sure ... that'll work ...
36
posted on
06/23/2006 8:18:00 AM PDT
by
RS
("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
To: nmh
37
posted on
06/23/2006 8:18:10 AM PDT
by
Alama
To: Alama
If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:
Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer
You: But I told her not to have sex...
I suggest you don't have kids.
When you raise a child properly you don't have this ending.
They actually WANT to do the right thing - whether it's NOT having sex to NOT taking ILLEGAL drugs.
38
posted on
06/23/2006 8:19:16 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
To: pbrown
Who opposes the drug?...TLLOM, was talking about not have pre-marital sex. How did that get twisted into wishing cancer on someone or opposing the drug? Here's what she said....
The comment being addressed was How long will it be before they require this as part of immunization schedule? God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations. I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
Personally I think Merck should spend their money on developing drugs, not education. Personally I think the connection between the risk of disease and promiscuous sex it tenuous at best, and likely nonexistent.
39
posted on
06/23/2006 8:21:21 AM PDT
by
SJackson
(The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
To: Alama
If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:
Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer
You: But I told her not to have sex...
As a GOOD parent I won't be getting this shot for her.
As an IRRESPONISBLE parent who doesn't raise their daughter properly, I'd want to give it to her asap.
40
posted on
06/23/2006 8:21:43 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-259 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson