New Link Between STDs and Cancer

[joreth]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178660

There has been a new link discovered between the Herpes virus and brain tumors.  Let me be perfectly clear here.  This does NOT, I repeat, NOT mean that herpes causes brain tumors.  At this stage, the relationship between the cytomegalovirus and the tumors is uknown.

What is known is only that in nearly two dozen samples analyzed, nearly all of them were " teeming" with CMV.  Researchers are net yet sure if the virus causes the tumors, or their coincidental presence merely enhances the progression of the tumors in some way, and the answer to this question will be a long time coming.

Cancer has been the big bogeyman for several eras.  It has eluded detection, treatment, and cures.  For a long time, no one knew what really caused cancer, why one person would get it and another person wouldn't.  The medical community has had some of these answers for a while now, but it still strikes fear into the hearts of the general public who does not understand science or who does not keep up with medical research, or who are forced to face their own mortality.  It still has an aura of mystery to it, why me, why mom, why now?

But with diligence, we are slowly unraveling the mystery.  We know the causes of several types of cancer, but we still don't yet know why some people manage to fight and win, and others succumb.  The article made a slight mistake, it cited only 3 types of cancer with known causes:  liver cancer (Hepatitis B), and lymphoma (Epstein-Barr virus), and the article points out only cervical cancer that is caused by HPV, although we now know HPV to be the cause of genital cancers in general, as well as many cases of head and neck cancers. 

This may sound frightening at first, that yet again we are faced with the possibility that a "sexually" transmitted disease that was once thought to be non-fatal, merely profoundly annoying, could actually be lethal.  But first, I'd like to point out that brain tumors are not actually all that common, and that the incidents of brain tumors have not increased with this discovery. 

Second, I'd like to point out how exciting this discovery is, because it, as the article says, opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry for one of the most intractable cancer which is almost always fatal.  With this discovery, medical science has a new direction to look in for prevention and treatment of an illness that, frankly, has been kicking our asses.  Not only does it shine light into the area of this particular study, but combined with the HPV-cervical cancer link (and subsequent links to all the other genital cancers and the now-leading cause of oral/throat cancers), it is forcing the medical science research community to overcome their bias against the virus-causes-cancer theories and it opens a whole new realm of possibilities for research for a lot of different illnesses that have been kicking our asses.  Although there are several different causes for cancer, including tobacco, pollution, radiation, etc., some continue to elude us and discoveries like these make it progressively more difficult to continue putting our fingers in our ears and singing "lalalala, it's not a virus, it's not a virus!"

This story also helps to remind us to have more respect for those STDs that are "just annoying" and the people who suffer from them.  We can't take a cavalier attitude about something that just happens to not be immediately fatal and we can't condemn people who suffer from illnesses because of a bias that says they're "dirty" or they "deserved" it because of their behaviour or to overlook their suffering because of the misassumption that the disease is "just annoying" (have I ever mentioned how much I hate the rationalization that any STD is "just annoying" simply because you don't keel over and die immediately?).  HIV is scary, but it's also pretty easy to avoid, now that we know so much about it. 

But HPV and herpes are not easy so avoid.  I put the word "sexually", from sexually transmitted disease" above in quotes because both HPV and herpes are so easy to catch that you don't really require sexual behaviour.  But up until recently, both viruses were not taken very seriously by society in general, because neither one killed, or so we thought.  Since the advent of the pap smear, the mortality rate of cervical cancer has dropped like a stone in a deep pool.  And that's fantastic.  But it's not the end of the story.  It could have been, but someone out there continued to research, continued to investigate, continued to say "that's not good enough, we should not have to live with the threat of cancer, no matter how small".  And now we have the vaccine.  And better diagnostic tools are on the way.

And now, we have learned of a link between CMV, a virus that is found in approximately 80% of the population (similar to HPV) and previously thought to be "harmless", and one of the most aggressive forms of brain tumor we know.  To say "well, the odds are high that you'll probably get it sooner or later, so just don't worry about it, there's nothing you can do anyway" is not only insensitive, it's also incorrect.  There is plenty we can do, including education and research funding, not to mention taking care of our own bodies and modifying our behaviour to minimize risk - although we can't live in a bubble, we don't have to throw all caution to the wind either.  There is already research being done into a vaccine and treatment medication for the tumors using the CMV research.  Science gives us hope.  I do not put my faith in science because I do not need to.  Rigorous research and testing provides answers ... slowly, cumberously sometimes, with plenty of false starts and blind alleys, but answers nonetheless.

Comments

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

You don't have to throw all caution to the wind, but at the end of the day, with 80% of the population carrying hsv, if you avoid it you are either monogamous with a hsv negative partner, you're celibate, or you just got lucky. After being so careful about testing, behavior, after hsv/hpv talks being such a huge part of my life and such a huge cause of stress in relationships, Limiting myself to 3 sexual partners in a decade, I got it through oral/genital transmission with an asymptomatic long term partner.

To be perfectly honest, I think the stress I suffered trying to avoid hsv probably contributed more to my demise, than the virus itself will. I am honestly relieved to finally have it.

Having said that, I am encouraged by any useful correlations between a cancer and something a little more tangible.

[joreth]

Everyone has to find their own comfort level with the risks involved - and those will be different from everyone else. What I take exception to are the comments I've heard that amount to "well, I'm gonna get it anyway, so why bother with any protections at all?" What really angers me is the statement that so often follows, which is "it's not like herpes (or HPV or any non-lethal illness) is a big deal anyway". Having had genital warts as a teenager, I can most assuredly vouch for them being a "big deal" and I take exception to people minimizing what others have to go through. Just because it won't kill you doesn't mean it's not a "big deal".

I don't like having the common cold either, but I take measures to reduce my risk and to reduce the risk of passing it on to others. It's more than just "annoying", it makes me miserable and impacts my daily life while I'm symptomatic, and it lowers my resistance to other, more serious illnesses while I'm fighting it. We have to find a balance between those risk-reducing behaviours and our general quality of life, and that's a balance that won't be the same for everyone else, but plenty of people are, indeed, "throwing all caution to the wind" simply because they're under the impression that these non-lethal illnesses are "just annoying" (in fact, that's a phrase that an STD clinician once said to me when I got angry at being denied an HPV test, before the link to cervical cancer was made public).

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

I agree that the whole "why bother?" attitude is frustrating. The attitude that condoms are the end all be all of protection is also very frustrating. I've always felt with hsv/hpv that it's important not so much to try to absolutely avoid them, but to ask, "is it worth it?" A long term relationship is absolutely worth it in my opinion - a just sex arrangement or short term fling isn't.

[joreth]

Yes, I've also heard the condom = perfection argument too. That quite often goes along with the two arguments of "non-lethal = not a big deal" and "It's impossible to avoid, so why bother", all of which I've heard recently from several people and it infuriates me.

I once had a partner who objected to my choice of another partner, who had several of his own, on the grounds that partner A couldn't control all the other people on partner B's side. There were too many people involved and therefore a higher chance of getting infected with something. Partner A claimed as his excuse that he was just looking out for *his* other partners. But partner A also said that I could have sex with partner B as long as I used a condom. This doesn't follow, IMO, since everything a condom *can* protect against can also be tested for. This falls under the "condoms fix everything" myth ... either that or there was something else going on and he was just using the safety issue as a cover (which is my personal theory).

[aclaro.livejournal.com]

I think one of the most frustrating situations I've had to deal with (several times), is when someone says "this is a matter of trust. I'm not going to do anything dangerous." Which is code for "I'll use a condom," or even worse "I'll use a condom unless they have fairly recent test results or probably don't have AIDS." It's so frustrating because any argument I make is suddenly about me not trusting them. When the fact of the matter is I trust them absolutely 100% to behave within their own risk tolerance.. it just may not be the same as mine. And the condoms are god attitude that so many people just can't let go of makes it impossible for us to even agree that people can have different risk tolerances.

[joreth]

Exactly! It's not a trust issue, it's a difference-in-levels issue, whether it's a difference in risk tolerance or a difference in education and understanding, or any number of things, it's not about trust. When someone starts to pull the "don't you trust me" card, that's when I know I should stay as far away from them as possible (romantically speaking).

[leora.livejournal.com]

*nods* Nothing has become any more dangerous than it was before this finding. Now we just have more information to use when we make our decisions.

[stacycat69.livejournal.com]

But, there is an important piece missing.

CMV is transmitted the most in people under 6. Many of those receive it in the womb. Its not just a "use condoms" kind of thing. Most people are not tested for CMV unless they are receiving blood products. So, if one were worried about CMV specifically, they would have to require testing for it for everyone they kiss.

As far as throwing caution to the wind, its not so much throwing caution as recognizing that STIs are a possible consequence of having sexual relations with someone. One can take many precautions, including testing and/or condom use and/or lifetime monogamy or celibacy, and some people choose multiple methods. But, there are many infections that can be passed through intercourse, and many of those are not tested for, nor are sometimes even testable.