To re-open the Cervical cancer vaccine debate...

[Vermilion]

This is the latest from the UK...
BBC News Article

Schoolgirls in Britain will be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer from September 2008, ministers have announced.

I still think it's a little inadvisable to force the vaccination on young girls, especially when it's still comparatively new and I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to be denied that choice as a parent. However, so far, they seem to be allowing parents some kind of jurisdiction over this. Surely it would be preferable to encourage safe sex primarily?

Besides which - would it not make sense to vaccinate boys and girls equally if this jab is so vital? Boys may not suffer from cervical cancer, but I presume they can carry it...

x
V

 

[R. Richard]

This is the latest from the UK...
BBC News Article



I still think it's a little inadvisable to force the vaccination on young girls, especially when it's still comparatively new and I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to be denied that choice as a parent. However, so far, they seem to be allowing parents some kind of jurisdiction over this. Surely it would be preferable to encourage safe sex primarily?

Besides which - would it not make sense to vaccinate boys and girls equally if this jab is so vital? Boys may not suffer from cervical cancer, but I presume they can carry it...

x
V

"Surely it would be preferable to encourage safe sex primarily?"
Right! All we need is a lecture that will prevent a woman from maybe getting drunk and having unsafe sex. There are certainly numerous examples of such lectures, but I forget them. Can someone please quote one of said effective lectures?

"Besides which - would it not make sense to vaccinate boys and girls equally if this jab is so vital? Boys may not suffer from cervical cancer, but I presume they can carry it..."
Unfortunately, the vaccine is only tested for women and thus not approved for use in males.

 

[amicus]

One of my daughters recently had a cervical cancer scare and it prompted me to do some online research.

I was just going to relate some of my findings, but some criticize for lack of documentation, so I thought to retrace my steps:


http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/cervicalcancer/CC_causes.html

Sexual History

A woman has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical if she:

Has had multiple sexual partners

Began having sexual relations before the age of 18

Has a partner who has had sexual contact with a woman with cervical cancer

Other Risk Factors

It is probable that other factors contribute to cervical cancer, such as:

Poverty. Women who are poor may not have access to medical services that detect and treat precancerous cervical conditions. When such women develop cervical cancer, the disease usually remains undiagnosed and untreated until it has spread to other parts of the body. Women who are poor are often undernourished, and poor nutrition can also increase cervical cancer risk.

Pap test history. Not having regular Pap tests increases the chance of unrecognized cervical cancer. Between 60% and 80% of women with newly diagnosed cervical cancer have not had a Pap test in at least five years.

Tobacco use. Women who smoke are about twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who do not. The more a woman smokes - and the longer she has been smoking - the greater the risk.

Eating habits. A diet that doesn't include ample amounts of fruits and vegetables can increase a woman's risk of developing cervical cancer.

Weakened immune system. A woman whose immune system is weakened has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical lesions that can become cancerous. This includes women who are HIV-positive (infected with the virus that causes AIDS). It also includes women who have received organ transplants and must take drugs to suppress the immune system so that the body won't reject the new organ.

~~~

There was another aspect that my original search turned up: that of the theory that the regular presence of male semen in the vaginal tract and cervical area acted as a deterrent to various carcinogenic events.

Now...read that last again and think about it. Regular, unprotected sexual intercourse that bathes the vaginal and cervical areas in semen, is a beneficial event in terms of cancer prevention.

I am quite certain I read that, but after a half hours search under a dozen different key word combinations, I was unable to document it.

Key words search: seminal fluid as cancer preventative... that was my first attempt, I tried many more, perhaps others might discover the information.

My personal convictions about human sexuality are not founded in any religious dogma or social stigma; I simply want to understand.

It seems to me, objectively, that the nature of sexual intercourse, procreation, can not be, by nature, harmful to either participant.

Thus it did not surprise me to discover the beneficial results of semen in the reproductive tract of a female.

I know this does not address the eleven year old girl immunization controversy, that has been addressed before and as I recall, the numbers do not justify the treatment regimen.

We are so early in medical understandings and records, that it is probably impossible to determine accurately the degree to which cervical cancer was a problem in pre modern times.

Thus, is the problem caused by specific modern issues, as the first article intimates, or is the disease inherent in the reproductive biology of humans?

And, if sexual activity began at a much earlier age in the past, and here is where I get slammed usually, does that play a role in modern statistics.

Does the use of condoms, contraceptive chemicals and vaginal spermicide applications play a role in what I am assuming is the 'increase' in cervical cancer?

Dunno...no hard and fasts here, just questions...

(Although, upon editing to add quotes, the social and political pressure for safe sex and no underage sex, as mentioned, seems to me, to make certain areas of the research suspect.)

Amicus...

 

[Oblimo]

It seems to me, objectively, that the nature of sexual intercourse, procreation, can not be, by nature, harmful to either participant.

I'm not sure what you mean by (or if you meant to say that) the "nature" of intercourse is procreation.

 

[amicus]

I'm not sure what you mean by (or if you meant to say that) the "nature" of intercourse is procreation.

~~~

I think you do know precisely my meaning and I did choose my words.

That is not to say that casual non procreative sex is a sin, it ain't.



Amicus....

 

[Oblimo]

I think you do know precisely my meaning and I did choose my words.

That is not to say that casual non procreative sex is a sin, it ain't.



Amicus....

I tell you truthfully I do not quite grok the way you used "nature." Did you mean intercourse is procreative in nature, or something else? And are you using "nature" differently from "function"?

Sorry for the dry-as-very-dry-toast post.

 

[Stella_Omega]

One of my daughters recently had a cervical cancer scare and it prompted me to do some online research.

I was just going to relate some of my findings, but some criticize for lack of documentation, so I thought to retrace my steps:


http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/cervicalcancer/CC_causes.html



~~~

There was another aspect that my original search turned up: that of the theory that the regular presence of male semen in the vaginal tract and cervical area acted as a deterrent to various carcinogenic events.

Now...read that last again and think about it. Regular, unprotected sexual intercourse that bathes the vaginal and cervical areas in semen, is a beneficial event in terms of cancer prevention.

I am quite certain I read that, but after a half hours search under a dozen different key word combinations, I was unable to document it.

Key words search: seminal fluid as cancer preventative... that was my first attempt, I tried many more, perhaps others might discover the information.

My personal convictions about human sexuality are not founded in any religious dogma or social stigma; I simply want to understand.

It seems to me, objectively, that the nature of sexual intercourse, procreation, can not be, by nature, harmful to either participant.

Thus it did not surprise me to discover the beneficial results of semen in the reproductive tract of a female.

Seeming is subjective, not an objective quality at all. And in fact, you say that you did not discover these benefits, after a search for them based on a memory.

Procreation is, in fact, a dangerous activity. That you wish it not to be is sentimental and fuzzy thinking, my friend. And very sweet of you, too. But women and babies die of a wide assortment of dysfunctions associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Men-- not so often.

I know this does not address the eleven year old girl immunization controversy, that has been addressed before and as I recall, the numbers do not justify the treatment regimen.

We are so early in medical understandings and records, that it is probably impossible to determine accurately the degree to which cervical cancer was a problem in pre modern times.

Thus, is the problem caused by specific modern issues, as the first article intimates, or is the disease inherent in the reproductive biology of humans?

And, if sexual activity began at a much earlier age in the past, and here is where I get slammed usually, does that play a role in modern statistics.

Does the use of condoms, contraceptive chemicals and vaginal spermicide applications play a role in what I am assuming is the 'increase' in cervical cancer?

Dunno...no hard and fasts here, just questions...

(Although, upon editing to add quotes, the social and political pressure for safe sex and no underage sex, as mentioned, seems to me, to make certain areas of the research suspect.)

Amicus...

Yes, sexual activity began much, much earlier in the past. So did the death process. 30 was old age, in the middle ages, remember?

One reason we see increases in so many cancers is because we live long enough for these cancers to take hold.

 

[amicus]

I tell you truthfully I do not quite grok the way you used "nature." Did you mean intercourse is procreative in nature, or something else? And are you using "nature" differently from "function"?

Sorry for the dry-as-very-dry-toast post.

~~~

Oblimo. I do not wish to divert Vermilions thread from the very important issue of cervical cancer, it is a terrifying aspect of modern life, as is breast cancer, which, if I recall, is a leading cause of death in women.

From the literature available and I did not read the thousands of articles, medical theorists seem uncertain as to the 'causes' of cervical cancer. I tried to offer a new direction to thinking about it by noting some of the things I did.

Perhaps another place, another time to discuss the nature of human sexuality, eh?

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

It seems to me, objectively, that the nature of sexual intercourse, procreation, can not be, by nature, harmful to either participant.

"Should not be" is probobly more accurate, and for the most part this is true, and the benefits of having sex are generally much greater the the benefits of refraining from it.

I'd like to hear more about this semen bathing business...

The whole business of forced vaccination strikes me as very odd: it's apparently the work of the devil himself to teach practical pre-emptive measures to avoid unwanted pregnency and STD's, including prophylactic measures, the joys of consensual monogamous sexual relationships (as opposed to celibacy), encouraging non penetrative sex; masturbation, etc., but fine to force women to get vaccinated against something she can really only catch from a promiscuous man - oh wait, money - never mind.

Still, I say get vaccinated, it's a jungle out there, grrrr...

 

[amicus]

Seeming is subjective, not an objective quality at all. And in fact, you say that you did not discover these benefits, after a search for them based on a memory.

Procreation is, in fact, a dangerous activity. That you wish it not to be is sentimental and fuzzy thinking, my friend. And very sweet of you, too. But women and babies die of a wide assortment of dysfunctions associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Men-- not so often.

Yes, sexual activity began much, much earlier in the past. So did the death process. 30 was old age, in the middle ages, remember?

One reason we see increases in so many cancers is because we live long enough for these cancers to take hold.

~~~

Setting aside my suspicion that you are being argumentative because I am who I am and advocate that which I do, I wish to try to restate:

It does not seem logical or rational that cervical and/or breast cancer is a basic function related to human sexuality.

It is an abnormality, an aberration, which, seems to be more prevalent now than before.

It may well be, as you imply, that longevity plays a role, support that assertion.

I don't recall stating that procreation was not a dangerous event, I am well aware that it is and I will advise you when I am being sentimental or fuzzy; such is not the case here.

I may resume my search to document my contention that seminal fluid is beneficial in the reproductive system of a female, however, it is illogical and irrational to assume that it is detrimental. If you assert that, support your contention.

Since you folks automatically bridle at any absolute assertion I make, I used the word, 'seems to', as indicating that I perceive it as rational and logical and I might add, natural, but being unable to document it with medical research, which I assume you might accept, I offered it as a caveat.

Onwards we trundle...


amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

And there's rape once in awhile as well.

but, really-- this vaccine protects against the human papillomavirus-- your basic wart. The constant return of warts on the mucous membrane is what leads to the cancer occuring. A woman can infect her very own vagina, if she has one on her hand.

 

[xssve]

It does not seem logical or rational that cervical and/or breast cancer is a basic function related to human sexuality.

It is an abnormality, an aberration, which, seems to be more prevalent now than before.

It may well be, as you imply, that longevity plays a role, support that assertion.

Well everybody dies from something, eventually. It's an opportunistic virus, there is nothing illogical about it, and the virus itself has nothing to do with human sexuality, other than using it as a vector of transmission.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

Setting aside my suspicion that you are being argumentative because I am who I am and advocate that which I do, I wish to try to restate:

It does not seem logical or rational that cervical and/or breast cancer is a basic function related to human sexuality.

It is an abnormality, an aberration, which, seems to be more prevalent now than before.

It may well be, as you imply, that longevity plays a role, support that assertion.

I don't recall stating that procreation was not a dangerous event, I am well aware that it is and I will advise you when I am being sentimental or fuzzy; such is not the case here.

I may resume my search to document my contention that seminal fluid is beneficial in the reproductive system of a female, however, it is illogical and irrational to assume that it is detrimental. If you assert that, support your contention.

Since you folks automatically bridle at any absolute assertion I make, I used the word, 'seems to', as indicating that I perceive it as rational and logical and I might add, natural, but being unable to document it with medical research, which I assume you might accept, I offered it as a caveat.

Onwards we trundle...


amicus...

I see, and I apologise, and freely admit that the long shadow of all those other things you've said on so very many issues has preceded this one

Well it's not that cancer is part of the procreative function-- except, in an odd way, it is. Cancer is famously "unbridled life" I.E. a growth that has no boundaries. And among the many theories in this regard, it's possible that among the chemicals and stresses of modern life are some elements that destroy the cellular 'clock' that controls growth and dissolution. As far as we know, most of these teratagens take a certain amount of exposure till the effect enough cells to start the cancer growth; so time is an important part of cancer...

 

[amicus]

Reading Xssve's post, I had another thought that I hope is germaine...

In early history, a young woman became fertile at a certain age and most likely was kept pregnant throughout most of her reproductive life, until the onset of menopause, if she survived that long.

Let us just suppose for a brief moment and for the sake of conversation that the human female reproductive system was enabled to support continual child bearing.

In the wilderness, as I understand, females bear young each and every fertile cycle, all things being equal.

With the birthrate per female in most of the western world at about 1.3 children per female, perhaps the reproductive system does not know what to do with all that unused capability to bear children?

Perhaps the absence of continual breast feeding brings about a rebellion in the system?

Perhaps it is an evolutionary thing and we are in a transitional stage from what was to what will be?

I see I am doing as I usually do, looking for a rational, logical explanation for something, cervical/breast cancer, that is abnormal in the natural scheme of things.

Dunno...but somehow I think immunizations and other artificial means to limit birth, are not the answers to cancer.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Reading Xssve's post, I had another thought that I hope is germaine...

In early history, a young woman became fertile at a certain age and most likely was kept pregnant throughout most of her reproductive life, until the onset of menopause, if she survived that long.

Let us just suppose for a brief moment and for the sake of conversation that the human female reproductive system was enabled to support continual child bearing.

In the wilderness, as I understand, females bear young each and every fertile cycle, all things being equal.

With the birthrate per female in most of the western world at about 1.3 children per female, perhaps the reproductive system does not know what to do with all that unused capability to bear children?

Perhaps the absence of continual breast feeding brings about a rebellion in the system?

Perhaps it is an evolutionary thing and we are in a transitional stage from what was to what will be?

I see I am doing as I usually do, looking for a rational, logical explanation for something, cervical/breast cancer, that is abnormal in the natural scheme of things.

Dunno...but somehow I think immunizations and other artificial means to limit birth, are not the answers to cancer.

Amicus...

Funny you should say that!

You may or may not know that the guy who developed the Pill was a Catholic. His intent was to make the "rhythm method" absolutely dependable. Since the pill turned out to suppress ovulation entirely, the Pope said Nope, and the doctor left the church.

All of that aside, the reason-- the ONLY reason-- why the pill is set up to mimic the menstrual period, is because of that Catholic thought process. There is no other reason why women should menstruate while on estrogen birthcontrol, and there are now BC methods where the woman menstruates three or four times a year-- or once.

One reason these new methods are being developed is that there is great deal of evidence that its the estrogen/progesterin surge-- back and forth, between ovulation and menstruation-- that stresses the breast tissue and induces cancer.

An anthropological group in Africa, were living with a tribe whose women retired to a particular hut while they were in menses. The two women of this study group followed suit. The hut was awful-- dirty, smelly, uncared for-- and except for the western women, rarely in use. The women of the tribe ususally had one or two menses at puberty; then were pregnant (Twelve and thirteen years old, Ami.) They brestfed their babies for at least two years-- longer if they could. Why? because breastfeeding suppresses ovulation, especially when the food supply is not optimum. Once the baby weaned, there might be one or two periods, and another pregnancy. In short-- we are not meant to menstruate too often in our lives. And we western women, of course-- we most certainly pile up the incidences, given that we start early and live long...

So, yeah. It's spoken of, that no periods, no ovulation is safer in regards to reproductive cancer. One way of doing it, of course, is to keep on making babies. But that's not the only way...

 

[xssve]

Again, there is nothing "unnatural" about a virus, it behaves like any other virus in macrocosm in that it's not going to respond to breasteffeding or anything else. The only way to limit it's actions by "natural" means is not to contract it to begin with, i.e.e, either through strict monogamy or proper prophylactic measures.

The female reproductive system has evolved a process to safely shed any unwanted or unneeded capacity.

It may well be that overall health, the strength of the immune system, will have something to do with the pathology of the virus, a lot of women contract HPV, not all of them contract cervical cancer.

Bit of a contradiction really, regular sex boosts the immune system, but increases the risk of contracting the virus, so if you already have it, eat right, get plenty of rest and have a lot of sex.

It may also be possible that breastfeeding offers similar benefits, I have only anecdotal evidence, but some women describe significant sexual response associated with breastfeeding - however, the benefits of sex appear to be related to endomorphin exchange, so if there is a benefit to breastfeeding, it may not be amenable to simulation.

The whole theoretical concept here is that as long as mother nature thinks you're still in the game, she'll keep you alive - as soon as you go on the sidelines, you're no longer of any use.

In non-anthropomorpic terms, selection stressors favor the horny.

 

[elsol]

Would you be as doubtful if it were an AIDS vaccine?

 

[amicus]

Most interesting, Stella, and surprisingly it meshes quite well with what I have learned about such things, plus adds a few things I did not know.

Thank you.

Curious...and this is not meant to be political...but with new knowledge, women's rights and 'reproductive choice', we, meaning mankind, have changed our basic nature and with it, a great deal more.

As one who muses about the future, I don't foresee things ever returning to the way they were and I am not nostalgic about any of it. However, I do sometimes, come up blank when I try, if only in my mind, to predict future lifestyles.

Amicus...

 

[angelicminx]

I maintain my stance that I do not want to be forced to vaccinate my daughter. I want the CHOICE.


Also, Amicus, I thought your questions, statements and the information you provided were interesting.

 

[angelicminx]

Would you be as doubtful if it were an AIDS vaccine?

Good question. My immediate answer would be the same, I would still want the choice whether or not to vaccinate my child and not have it forced on me. I know quite a bit more about the AIDS virus than I do about HPV, but 'they' would still have to prove to me the benefits outweighed the risks, etc. I would still want much more information than I have now.

 

[amicus]

Xssve...I readily admit a tremendous lack of knowledge about disease in general, or viruses, would virology be the study of such things?

I comprehend somewhat the nature of bacteria and I think I tend to relate a virus to a harmful (I know there are good bacteria), bacteria and that methods of sterilization and sanitation can restrain such bacterial outbreaks.

Things like Cholera and Diptheria, even HIV and the Herpes connections to disease or unsanitary practices are things I really have not studied and do not understand in the total scheme of things.

So many areas of ignorance, it was once thought that AIDS came about as a result of human and animal intercourse, dunno, also the transferral of Bird flue from avians to humans, another area of ignorance.

I am repelled by your assertions that virus's are natural things, perhaps they are, but something in my mind rejects what you say and questions it, dunno.

And earlier you said, 'we al die of something..' or thereabouts, yeah, I know, but very seldom any more of Bubonic Plague, or mumps or measles or Cholera, even Malaria. And as I understand, cancer deaths are far lower as a percentage with some forms of cancer than ever before.

I used to have a fancy thought that death was a disease and that once we found and cured the cause...voila, life everlasting...but yes, all things have a beginning and an end and so it will continue, I suppose, "Time enough for Love" notwithstanding.

Just musing...


amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Good question. My immediate answer would be the same, I would still want the choice whether or not to vaccinate my child and not have it forced on me. I know quite a bit more about the AIDS virus than I do about HPV, but 'they' would still have to prove to me the benefits outweighed the risks, etc. I would still want much more information than I have now.

since the risk in HIV is a miserable painful life and a painful long death...

There was a good dystopian erotic novel, "Doc and Fluff" by Pat Califia. One of the side bits was that there was a vaccine for AIDS, and you got a little tattoo to prove that you'd had the vaccine. The society was in ruins, and it meant a bit of trouble and expense. One black woman didn't bother to get it, because she figured the tattoo wouldn't show on her dark skin.

 

[Guest]

Would you be as doubtful if it were an AIDS vaccine?

Yep.

If they were still mandating that only females be vaccinated.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yep.

If they were still mandating that only females be vaccinated.

They don't want to talk about anal warts as an STD.

But honestly, SSS-- the thought is that females get cervical cancer, not males.

And as i said-- a little girl can infect herself, if she has a wart of her hand.

 

[john-the-author]

"Surely it would be preferable to encourage safe sex primarily?"
Right! All we need is a lecture that will prevent a woman from maybe getting drunk and having unsafe sex. There are certainly numerous examples of such lectures, but I forget them. Can someone please quote one of said effective lectures?

Yes, and one that would also talk about the perils of having unsafe sex with their >gasp!< husbands!