1 in 4 women have STD linked to cervical cancer

[Horse with no Name]

But only tiny percentage infected with strains targeted by new vaccine

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17364887/

The numbers are astronomical. Thankfully the results showed that about the same number that they thought would were still at risk of death, but the overall number is staggering.
My hope is that with the success of Gardasil, that vaccines for the other strains won't be far behind. We've come a long way baby...but we still have so far to go.

>>>snip
One in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with the sexually transmitted virus that in some forms can cause cervical cancer, according to the first broad national estimate.

The figure is mostly in line with previous assessments. The highest prevalence — nearly 45 percent — was found in young women within the age range recommended for a new virus-fighting vaccine, according to a report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
>>>snip
Just 3.4 percent of the women studied had infections with one of the four HPV strains that the new vaccine protects against. But that doesn’t mean the vaccine should be written off, said Dr. Yvonne Collins, an assistant professor of gynecologic cancer at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For one thing, Collins said, that relatively small percentage corresponds with a lot of women — about 3 million, according to the report. And it does not include those with past infections that have cleared up.

[ShortnFiery]

1. And the other 3 will live forever.

It's a LEAP from having a the HPV and succumbing to cervical cancer.

However, if long term, people don't start dropping dead, this is a POSITIVE STEP toward curing cervical cancer.

But gee, hype hype hype ... like some right wingers are invested in the company that produces this like Rummy is to Tami Flu? :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

4. Hardly.

I refuse to engage you though.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Good! Today you are demonstrating more maturity than myself ...

But that's not saying much. ;) :hi:

[xchrom]

2. you don't have to have sexual intercourse to be exposed to the viruses.

fingers will do the job.

[Horse with no Name]

3. Yes

So...the person who chided me yesterday for not liking to shake hands....:evilgrin:

[xchrom]

5. lol --oh -- that's good!

i'd ask where you were -- but i think i'll leave that up to my imagination.:evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

17. Gee, you wouldn't be a hit at Mass in my Parish.

Refusing to shake your neighbor's hands is only considered OK by the Chronically Ill and/or Seniors with compromised immune systems. Otherwise we shake hands and sip wine from the <shriek> same chalice. :wow:

Shame on us dirty liberal Catholics for refusing to show potentially obsessive-compulsive behaviors. :rofl:

Truth be told, I fear getting killed by other drivers on the road 1000 times more than catching "a virus" from shaking hands with my neighbor or the fellow parishioner in the next pew OR some terrorist attack in my D.C. area. :shrug:

Come On Babe, live on da wild side? <tease>

[ShortnFiery]

16. I didn't need to know that! Arrrgh!

However, thank goodness there's no INACCURATE "I got it off of the toilet seat excuse" today. :shrug:

[havocmom]

6. One worry I have about the vaccine is it might make pap smears seem unimportant

With the bean counters in charge of medical care with most (if not all) insurers, how long before they start changing the recommendations about pap smears if not flat out de-listing the essential exam from coverage all together? It's already harder for some women to get the mammograms they should have.

Or will they just use the power of spin to convince millions of women they are save if they got the shot when they were young? Big possibility for some insurance companies to further reduce their costs at a great cost to the health of their female clients.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Every legitimate study that I have read

calls for no change in regular Pap smears. This is an adjunct to it, not a replacement.

[havocmom]

14. Key words: Legitimate Study. Insurance company bean counters seem not to care

about legitimate care. Any excuse to deny or lean towards discouraging service is good for the bottom line and that's what matters most to Big Insurance.

I really do fear this will be spun to dissuade far too many from insisting on good preventative screening.

[ecstatic]

8. With these figures, it really is time to do something

before the problem spirals out of control and there are no women left to bear children.

I can actually envision an Outer Limits episode where UFOs are testing us to see if we've matured when it comes to looking out for the health and safety of women (and if not, we'll be destroyed or something). Just a random thought...

[Lobster Martini]

9. Mark Twain must have seen this coming

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

These numbers are being twisted more than Gumby. It is hard to know what is believable.

One thing is certain: whether or not it's a tiny percentage, we're still talking about roughly 3,700 dead cervical cancer patients every year. That's more than the number of people killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. And this happens every year. And people are arguing against vaccinations.

[The Cleaner]

10. That's not what the NIH says.

From the NIH National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
Most HPV infections occur without any symptoms and go away without any treatment over the course of a few years. However, HPV infection sometimes persists for many years, with or without causing cell abnormalities.

From the National Institutes of Health
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

[TZ]

11. okay lets us the example of carcinogens like benzene..

exposure to them has been linked to cancer and other disorders. But not always and sometimes its difficult to prove it but scientific studies suggest that there is a link. So its okay to just let us be exposed unnecessarily to known carcinogens?No I should think. Thats the same premise here. The vaccine basically limits exposure to a KNOWN carcinogen, in this case a virus instead of a chemical.

[The Cleaner]

18. But the NIH says

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm
Most HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer.

So why mandate a vaccine that isn't really a threat to public health? Or is Merck simply buying undue influence over our state legislators, polluting our democratic system?

[Lurking Dem]

12. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=308036&mesg_id=310791

[TZ]

13. HPV/cervical cancer mantra

Repeat after me: *HPV vaccine+ regular pap smears+ plus safe sex/abstinence= a very good chance of never contracting cervical cancer.
*the caveat here is that the vaccine is only effective in people who don't already have ANY HPV infection and in the adult population that number is not very high.
edited for spelling before the spelling police pounce!!:)