Maybe Jesus does NOT want you to get cervical cancer!

Maybe Jesus does NOT want you to get cervical cancer!
by daulton
Thu May 11, 2006

Where we left off:

- Scientists: Soon a new HPV vaccine will virtually banish cervical (and some penile) cancer. So, we should require vaccination.

- Jesus (via the Bushistas): Sorry. Vaccination would send the wrong message. HPV is spread by nookie...so either abstain, or die, strumpets!

This diary took us that far, stating:



Republican Christianism kills again.

But, now, a letter to the editor in the June `06 Scientific American may offer a way to defuse the battle (and save 4,000 American women's lives a year).

The letter is from Diane M. Harper, Director, Gynecologic Cancer, Prevention Research Group, Dartmouth Medical School. Responding to articles such as this, she says:



She goes on to explain that sexual contact is NOT the sole means of spreading HPV. Its pathogens are widespread, and fingers, Tampons, etc., can spread the infection.

So, unless Jesus wants to kill our women-folk for scratching "down there," there is no reason to oppose the vaccine.

Let's hope this reframes the right-wing objections out of existence.

(Note: The June Scientific American is not yet available at their site, but is on the newsstands.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/12/215/01653

Or ride horses or go to the gynecologist in case the sacred hymen might be ruptured before the blessed wedding night.

:rant:

I'm a guy and I'm SO tired of these patriarchal decisions that harm womens' health.

"We must protect the hymen even if doing so causes cancer".

What utter bullshit.

I had some friend in college who wrote a song about a fellow band member, sung to the tune of "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain," called "Saving My Hymen for the Lord."

:rofl:

from an angry mob, I'd think he'd rather stick up the butt abstinence crazed Calvinists drop dead than little girls who are exploring their sexuality.

What is it about these suburban doughboys that makes them want their daughters to die if they FUCK? Get a grip, dad! It's not your body.

would be glad we have used our brains and technology to develop a vaccine that will save thousands from dying a painful death every year.

with the ultimate goal being to prevent me from getting rubella in the future when I might be pregnant and it might cause my baby to be born hearing impaired, there was no hue and cry from the far right wing that I did not NEED to be vaccinated against rubella at such a young age, because if I was, it would only encourage me to have sex at a young age, given that I wouldn't have to worry anymore about my baby being born deaf?

Why was there no insistence that I not be permitted to be vaccinated against rubella until I applied for a marriage license, at which time it would be OK to vaccinate me because I would be legal to procreate as soon as the ink was dry on the signatures?

This whole thing just makes no sense.

...just be a gift from God too.

over time we would get the same results. Peace, Kim

is this vaccine supposed to protect against -all- forms of HPV, or just the carcinogenic / sexually transmitted kinds.

It's a little known fact that almost -all- warts are caused by HPV. The location, appearance, and whether it is potentially carcinogenic are determined by the strain.

Of the more than 100 strains of HPV, only about 30 affect the genitals, and these are broken into two groups, low-risk and high-risk.

Low-risk (strains 6, 11, 40, 42, 43, 44, 54, 61, 70, 72, and 81) are called this because there is little to no chance they will cause the changes that lead to cervical cancer. This is the kind that causes genital warts.

High-risk (strains 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 52, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68, 73 and 82, 16 and 18 being the most dangerous) account for 95% of HPV-related cervical cancers. This is why they are called this. These strains rarely/never cause warts.

There are two vaccines, one that targets HPV 16, and Merck's, which targets HPV 16 and 18, the two most aggressive strains. Australia is expecting to approve the vaccine within the next year. Where will we be on that? There is a DNA test which can detect high-risk HPV which can be done at the same time as a regular pap if using the newer liquidbased pap tests (ThinPrep and SurePath), but there is no test for high risk HPV in men. So, even if the guy you are with provides you with a full medical history and recent STD workup, you (woman) can still get this. Hell, condoms are not proven to be effective at preventing transmission (though there is some evidence of reduced rates of infection), because HPV is a skin virus, and condoms don't cover the entirety of the genitals. The yearly rate of reported HPV infection is so high that it qualifies as an epidemic. And this is leaving out all the cases where a woman doesn't get paps, or the virus is dormant, not causing cervical changes.

I had cervical cancer 3 years ago, caused by HPV 16. I had an extraordinarily aggressive progression. The old standard for progression from first abnormal pap to cancer was roughly 10+ years, though this is shortening more and more due to these aggressive strains. Also, it used to be thought of as cancer only women over 30 got, but more and more young women (and getting younger) are being diagnosed every year (I was 26, met a girl who was 19 that had it). I went from having 100% clear paps to cancer in less than 16 months. Thank god we caught it early and I was diligent about testing (and had the means to be), so I was able to keep my uterus. Many women are not that lucky, or able to afford the cost of a yearly PAP (and don't have a local planned parenthood that can reduce the cost), or they just don't get one. One part of this issue I think the fundies and pugs are happy to not mention (though I believe they keep it in mind) is to mention is that a yearly PAP is ESSENTIAL for detection. And studies have shown that poor and minority women are much less likely to adhere to the once a year pap schedule than rich white women. Also, the death and hysterectomy rates due to cervical cancer are disproportionately high in the poor/minority populations. This isn't just a woman/sex issue, it's also one of class and race.

This foot dragging is pissing me off to no end. We actually have a crazy effective way to prevent cancer, and they're trying to keep it from going through? Makes me wanna go and kick them all in the crotch (men and women). Would they do this if it were prostate cancer? I highly doubt it.

As soon as this is available I am getting it for my daughter(5 yrs. old) and myself.

Thanks for your post. Could you post any links for further reading?

Sorry so long for my response, I am typically a poor correspondent

cervical cancer sites
http://www.nccc-online.org/
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cervicalcancer.html

articles/studies on minorities and cervical cancer.
http://minority-health.pitt.edu/archive/00000387/01/article.pdf
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Women_May_Not_Get_Pap_Test_Despite_Insurance_Coverage.asp
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3707805.html

Good article on HPV
http://newscenter.cancer.gov/newscenter/benchmarks-vol2-issue4/page2

Also, just searching the terms "cervical cancer", "cervical cancer HPV", and "cervical cancer minorities" on google brings up a ton of info. Some info I got from reading several studies (on pubmed) which I can't link to, as I can't access it from home (I can from work though).

if they find out it causes penile cancer they will for sure approve it.

Instead of making the nation a fascist theocracy, allow people choice. Make the vaccine available for those who want it. Those who wish to remain in the dark ages and vulnerable can refuse it, and suffer if they prefer. Nobody says people have to make intelligent choices just because they are available to them.

But then the right wing never has been much for letting people make their own choices. :eyes:

The argument should be on why this is a must-have product.
This vaccine may be more harmful than helpful.