Discussion Forums > The Lounge
Grandma was right !!!! it is DIRTY and YOU WILL get disease from it !!!!
Guru Zeb:
--- Quote from: Fool010 on March 12, 2011, 02:33:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: Guru Zeb on March 12, 2011, 02:30:17 PM ---At least read an article before posting glib nonsense m8 .......... not all tissue types are at risk obviously some cancers only iffect certain types of tissue thats why men carry the HPV on the penis but don't suffer from it there.
--- End quote ---
Show you didn't look well into the matter yourself, HPV can affect any type of issue depending on the strain
--- Quote from: Guru Zeb on March 12, 2011, 02:33:05 PM ---no offence but get lost m8
--- End quote ---
I'm putting myself on your level dude.
Kinda like
1) scientist says 'boo wee, sucking dick gives cancer' 2) people go running in circles 'oh noes, we're gonna die'
As for now, the studies mentionned a 'possible correlation'. Now answer my question, if that correlation exists for real ... why has increase gotten noticeable only in the last 30 years, even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?
A couple of millenia should've been enough to push sexually transmitted HPV related cancer as main source of mortally for mankind.
--- End quote ---
You haven't been on 'my level' throughout this entire thread ........... apparently because i used a jokey title and admittedly used a slightly dodgy initial link you thought the topic completely bogus. I however know its not as i stated due to it featuring on BBC radio and TV news and the BBC producing a documentary.
I provided several HIGHLY credible sources ........ but because apparently your ego cannot handle you being mistaken, you persist in yapping away like a small dog.
The research is credible and factual your initial reaction was and is wrong ....... get over it.
As i've said i wish it wasn't true too ....... but it is ..............find credible evidence to suggest its not.
Fool010:
Nice for you, I'll let you swin around in your bubble of catastrophism since you consistently refuse to address the obvious flaw in logic, hiding behing 'scientific evidence'.
Once again, if there's such a high risk ... why does it take place only in the last 30 years even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?
You're seriously suggesting that though the source and the vector of transmission have been existing for a long time, they've been innocuous for the most time and only got dangerous lately ?
REALLY ?
Vague studies 'suggesting' 'possible correlation', is not what I call solid scientific evidence, despite what you're claiming.
AceHigh:
Fearmongering.
Fact number one: Sex has never been safer at any point of the history, than it is now.
Fact number two: Never before in our history have we had both preventive measures and treatments available for public.
Let's inspect this quote:
--- Quote ---In the United States, researchers have found a 225 percent increase in oral cancer from 1974 to 2007, predominantly in white males, reported Dr. Maura Gillison of Ohio State University, who has been researching HPV and cancer for 15 years
--- End quote ---
My question is, how many people were diagnosed that well in 1974? Could it be that only half of the infected ones were ever diagnosed in 1974? Hell, how many are even diagnosed today? This is so basic, that you don't need to be a researcher to know it. Indeed they knew about simple explanations for the 225% increase, but chose to ignore them because they are obviously driven by their own agenda.
Their research wouldn't pass any real scientific method to be stated as a "fact", so I decided that I will make my own bullshit research based on deductive logic, intellectual guessing and statements taken out of thin air driven by my own agenda. So here it goes:
Professor AceHigh that may or may not have any real degree, did a research on blowjobs that occur now and 40 years ago, and doctor AceHigh found an astonishing result that sex done in 60-ies during the hippie rise and 70-ies, when the hippies were still fucking, couldn't in any way be safer or less numerous, than the amount of sex people are having now under the pressure of government sponsored abstinence programs. The senior doctorate of bullshit AceHigh thus concludes that sucking your boyfriend's cock while knowing that all his STD results came negative is much safer than sucking dick of some "flower child" you don't know as a celebration of the end of Vietnam war in 1975.
Fool010:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on March 12, 2011, 03:02:29 PM ---Professor AceHigh that may or may not have any real degree
--- End quote ---
I always thought you majored with magna cum laude from Bogus Acedemy ... I am wrong ? ;D
PS : in case of doubt ... yes, it is second degree
PS again : afterthought, if sexually transmitted HPV is such a dangerous vector of cancer does (click to show/hide)Tit fucking and giving a pearl necklace cause melanoma and breast cancer ? ;D
Life is a sickness with a 100% mortality rate
Guru Zeb:
--- Quote from: Fool010 on March 12, 2011, 02:54:05 PM ---Nice for you, I'll let you swin around in your bubble of catastrophism since you consistently refuse to address the obvious flaw in logic, hiding behing 'scientific evidence'.
Once again, if there's such a high risk ... why does it take place only in the last 30 years even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?
--- End quote ---
At no point have I stated any 'risk rate' ( unless you want to include the obvious jokes )
--- Quote from: Fool010 on March 12, 2011, 02:54:05 PM ---
Vague studies 'suggesting' 'possible correlation', is not what I call solid scientific evidence, despite what you're claiming.
--- End quote ---
Vague studies that get picked up by new scientist and by THE most credible global news agency on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AceHigh on March 12, 2011, 03:02:29 PM ---My question is, how many people were diagnosed that well in 1974? Could it be that only half of the infected ones were ever diagnosed in 1974? Hell, how many are even diagnosed today? This is so basic, that you don't need to be a researcher to know it. Indeed they knew about simple explanations for the 225% increase, but chose to ignore them because they are obviously driven by their own agenda.
--- End quote ---
This seems a fair and cogent observation ...... but wouldn't that just indicate that the issue has been a hidden problem.
--- Quote from: AceHigh on March 12, 2011, 03:02:29 PM ---Their research wouldn't pass any real scientific method to be stated as a "fact", so I decided that I will make my own bullshit research based on deductive logic, intellectual guessing and statements taken out of thin air driven by my own agenda. So here it goes:
--- End quote ---
Hmmmm do you know something about the research group or the funding of the research to back this up ....... at least the idea that the research is 'Agenda' driven ??
EDIT newy:...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version