08-16-2016, 04:05 AM
(08-15-2016, 04:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because I love when there's a big debate on this board, I intentionally set out to see if anyone had attempted to "debunk" these numbers and, unsurprisingly enough, I was successful. I present to you a counter-argument:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-did-not-reduce-colorados-teen-pregnancy-rate-40-percent-callie-gable
TL;DR:
Let's get it on!
The article did point out some flaws in the study. But, I got the impression the person reviewing the study wasn't being objective in their critique. It's getting late so I don't want to get into all of it maybe tomorrow.
But I will point out this one thing. . .
Quote:There also remain plenty of unanswered questions about CFPI as health policy: This study doesn’t cover data on discontinuance rates, reinsertion rates, changes in STI transmission, or on many other factors that are important. For instance, it’s possible that since LARCs are effective for a number of years, birth rates could increase again in a few years when the devices expire, especially if women forget to replace them or delay replacement due to cost.
The study claims LARCs are effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies while the critique doubts that claim because of unanswered questions like "it's possible that since LARCs are effective for a number of years, birth rates could increase again in a few years when the devices expire."
Okay, that's not even a question. It is a statement. A statement which claims while the LARCs may actually do what they claim, how will we know they are effective if the unwanted pregnancy rates climb after they stop being effective?
So basically how will we know they are effective if they are effective when they are supposed to be effective, but then they stop being effective when they aren't supposed to be effective anymore? And what if they aren't replaced because of cost which is one of the reasons the LARCs were given away for free to low income women. It's almost as if they gave them away for free initially so they wouldn't be cost prohibitive to low income women who don't have a lot of money to buy cost prohibitive LARCs to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies the critique inadvertently admitted are reduced by using LARCs, but inexplicably the author isn't sure they are effective because they are effective until they expire at which point they won't be effective anymore which is what expired ***** means, Callie Gable.
WTF?
That's the stupidest critique I've ever read which explains why the mainstream media is over run with liberals with their useless degrees in liberal arts like journalism and the sciences.
