Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cookinwithgas

forget sexy, Obama is bringing science back

58 posts in this topic

do you really not understand why, until 2008, requiring that one-third of all money be spent on absintence only education which as a prereq does things like blatantly lie and restrict access to contraceptives and lies about their effectiveness in a continent ravaged by fuging aids?

this happened in the united states

In 2004, California Representative Henry A. Waxman led an investigation of abstinence-only education programs funded by the federal government. The investigation, titled “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs,” found that 80% of curricula used by two-thirds of SPRANS grantees contained false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.

The report looked at 13 abstinence-only sexual education curricula, and found errors in scientific information presented by 11 of them. Many contained errors regarding HIV prevention and the effectiveness of condoms.

According to the CDC, “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.” According to the Waxman report, multiple abstinence-only curricula use a 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller which found that condoms reduce risk by 69%, using an analysis which both the FDA and the CDC found erroneous. One abstinence-only curriculum, “I’m in charge of the FACTS” claims that “The actual ability of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, even if the product is intact, is not definitively known.”

yes, not having sex is the only certain way to stop the spread of STDs......in theory. In reality, it doesn't fuging work.

WASHINGTON - Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art32960.html#7

# The most rigorous published review to date of 28 sex education programs in the United States and Canada aimed at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs, including HIV, found that none of the three abstinence-only programs that met inclusion criteria for review demonstrated evidence of efficacy for delaying sexual debut.6

# Furthermore, these three programs did not reduce the frequency of sex or the number of partners among those students who had ever had sex.6

lol even abstinence pledges just make kids stupid

e study also found that those young people who took a pledge were one third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are, therefore, more vulnerable to HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and unintended pregnancy. Further research has confirmed that young people who have taken a pledge are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. The data also shows that in communities where “too many” adolescents (20%) take a virginity pledge, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings.

you know what has been proven to work? CONDOMS!

ut according to Guttmacher, condom use did significantly increase from an almost negligible rate in 1988 to almost 40% in 1995 among unmarried women 15-19 years old and there were massive increases in condom use across the board for all age groups, for both sexes, and even for married couples in the same time period. Such an impact of essentially introducing condoms into a population where their use was almost nonexistent in 1988 and the subsequent fall in HIV rates is hard to downplay

but by all means ignore overwhelming observable evidence and conjecture and continue to keep yourself uninformed so you can keep on cheerleading programs that were only successful assuming the observer keeps himself in the dark as much as possible.

to appeal to your supposed conservative side, you're basically praising a guy for pumping federal money into something everyone knew DIDN'T WORK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Dubya did not do all that bad in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one case, which doesn't mean a lot. Where are your "thousands" who have been cured of all the diseases you listed. I'm particularly, personally, interested in the cure of diabetes.

You're trusting that one case over the NIH, the experts in the field. OK ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was just the first google search result, i'll leave the next 10 pages of them up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was just the first google search result, i'll leave the next 10 pages of them up to you.

Translation: Rodeo can't back up his own statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it; I'm drinking a glass of fresh squeezed fetus juice every morning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it; I'm drinking a glass of fresh squeezed fetus juice every morning!

Raw eggs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you said:

wow. i'm sure the thousands of people cured of cancer, diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell, etc via stem cells will be sad to hear that.

14 cures for diabetes in an experimental program and the numbers in the sickle cell anemia program does not hold up your contention.

I'm not disputing that there is promise in stem cell research - adult and embryonic - and these experiments and trials show promise. It just doesn't hold up your "thousands of people cured" contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites