re: #346 freetoken

BTW, the AJPM printed a criticism of that CDC analysis, by a guy (Dr. Weed -yes, that is his name) with a long time interest in Abstinence education, who of course had issues with the CDC study’s conclusion.

But even more than that, when reading his article I was struck by one of his arguments, that really appeared to me to be fundamentally non-sensical, to a point that I assume that the AJPM editors still printed article for political reasons.

Simply this: Weed contends that unless an comprehensive sex education program increases both abstinence and condom use by the target group then the comprehensive program is not superior to an abstinence program that had similarly increased the abstinence rate.

In his own words:

I bolded the part that needs to be thought about. Think deeply.

He wants on the same population to simultaneously see increases in abstinence and condom use.

Think deeply on this.

It’s the line that comes after that gets me:

Without the occurrence of this “dual effect” within CRR programs, decision makers (school administrators, youth advocates, parents) are left to choose between programs that do one thing or the other, that is, reduce sexual activity or increase condom use.

Except abstinence-only hasn’t been shown to “reduce sexual activity.” More to point, it’s seen the same level of activity, but higher rates of teen pregnancy because the kids who get such lessons are left ignorant as to how to practice safe sex. So this “doctor” is either A) willfully ignorant or B) a bullshit artist.