Nope it doesn't say that at all. "There were significantly fewer pregnancies in young women who received a multifaceted programme (0.41;0.20 to 0.83), though baseline differences in thisstudy favoured the intervention."
Significantly fewer mean that if you could replicate this study an infinite number of times, getting these results would occur in over 95 % of the time. In other words the girls going through the multifacited programmes were less likely to get pregnant. At the same time there was a positive association (significant correlation in other words) between being partnered with a male graduate of an abstinance program and getting pregnant. I have neither the time nor the interest to discuss what you're missing and at what fundimental level. The full article I referenced is on the web, carefully study it. Also study and understand their methodology a case controlled meta-analysis, (hint, try an on-line article I wrote http://www.lyonsmorris.com/MetaA/index.htm) then read Cook and Campbell's book on quasi-experimental designs. Otherwise I really don't want to bother trying to correct your fundimental misunderstandings. I have better things to do. On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:28:48 -0800 (PST), Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Out of 22 studies 5 showed and increase in > pregnancies. > <clip>Four abstinence programmes and one school based > sex education programme were associated with an > increase in number of pregnancies among partners of > young male participants > There were significantly fewer pregnancies in young > women who received a multifaceted programme (0.41; > 0.20 to 0.83), though baseline differences in this > study favoured the intervention. > Conclusions: Primary prevention strategies evaluated > to date do not delay the initiation of sexual > intercourse, improve use of birth control among young > men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies in > young women. > </clip> > > According to this study nothing works so we should > just close our eyes and never mention sex to our kids > again. > Take sex-ed out of the schools while we're at it. Even > handing out condoms doesn't work so it's all a big > waste of money. > You present this as a report on abstinence only but > it's a report on sex education. Only 4 out of the 22 > studies are about abstinence. > Only one study, the Teen Outreach Program used 695 > students in grades 9 - 12 showed success. > > Also keep in mind the abstinence only is an added > effort not a replacement. If it fails at least we gave > it a try. > From the Heritage.org link I posted: > "2002 alone, the government spent $12 promoting > contraception and condom use for every $1 it spent to > encourage teens to abstain from sexual activity." > > These studies were done between 1960 and 1997. Maybe > we need a newer study since we're trying newer > programs. > Did you mention your study was done in Canada while > Bush's programs are in America? They might use > different material, ya think? > > --- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I also presented a lot of reliable data from peer > > reviewed journals > > that support the idea that Abstinence simply doesn't > > work. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:138734 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
