The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

HPV Vaccine Not a Gateway to Promiscuity Options
Daemon
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:42:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 29,903
Neurons: 88,887
Location: Inside Farlex computers
HPV Vaccine Not a Gateway to Promiscuity

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been recommended for 11- and 12-year-old girls in the US since 2006, but opponents of the controversial guidelines have questioned whether being vaccinated could give young girls a false sense of security and encourage them to become sexually active or engage in risky sexual behavior. As it turns out, this is not the case. Data show that girls who receive the vaccine are no more likely than their unvaccinated peers to get other sexually transmitted infections or become pregnant, a strong indicator that both groups are engaging in similar levels of sexual activity. More...
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:25:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
This appears to me to be some of the sloppiest reportage that currently passes under that label. From the body of the report on 11 and 12 year old girls:

Saad Omer is an infectious diseases and vaccine researcher from Emory University in Atlanta.
However, "Omer's team didn't have any data on how many of the girls were sexually active during the study period." Since two girls from each group did get pregnant, obviously there was some sexual activity happening.

If the headline is that the "HPV Vaccine Not a Gateway to Promiscuity", how could the researchers possibly come to this conclusion if they didn't have any data on the sexual activity levels of the study participants?

The study leaders simply assume that if 11 to 12 year old girls don't show up pregnant or infected with an STD, they aren't engaging in sexual activity, and [is] "a strong indicator that both groups are engaging in similar levels of sexual activity." Again, how can they know that if they have no knowledge of the sexual activities of the girls? Is pregnancy or STD's the only evidence?

This isn't science.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.