![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's been a while since I last made an STD update, because there's not much new going on. Same ol' same ol' with one side arguing to get vaccinated, the other side arguing it's dangerous, treatments awaiting FDA approval, blah blah blah.
This also isn't exactly new, but it seems we need reinforcements as to why the vaccine is GOOD FOR YOU. People insist on wanting to call HPV a "woman's disease" (as if that justifies lack of treatments & preventive measures) and they insist on claiming that cervical cancer is easily prevented & easily treated and therefore not worth the effort of better screening techniques, treatments, or vaccines.
Except that it's not either of those things.
Yes, in the Western world, thanks to pap smears, cervical cancer is more easily recognized than in other countries; it is recognized earlier and with better accuracy. This means that, once a woman HAS cancer, or pre-cancerous lesions, she has a better chance than a woman in a third world country of surviving it.
But that's not the end of the story. What about those women who, even with early detection, do not survive? What about those who do survive but have life-long side effects, like sterility? What about those women who do not have healthcare and cannot go do the doctor often enough to catch the cancer early enough to treat it? And what about everyone who is not privileged to live in the wonderful US where all women have fabulous healthcare, caring & knowledgeable doctors, and regular checkups (that was sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)?
And what about those MEN and women who get cancer somewhere other than the cervix?
Because cervical cancer is not the only thing that HPV causes, but cervical cancer is the only thing we regularly screen for. Well, that and breast cancer, but what does HPV have to do with breast cancer?
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/HPV_vaccine_breast_cancer/2010/02/01/312600.html
HPV Vaccine May Prevent Breast Cancer
70% of all breast cancers are invasive ductal cancers and are more deadly than non-invasive cancers. Out of those, 21% may have been caused by HPV. Of the remaining 30% of cancers, 39% may have been caused by HPV.
Do you understand that's a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BREAST CANCER CASES THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY HPV? And we can eliminate those with a vaccine that has been proven to be safe and effective, contrary to opponents' claims?
We can fucking eliminate cancer. Only a certain type right now, but it can be eradicated. Right now. With current medical technology. And people are refusing because taking the vaccine might make their children "more promiscuous" because the threat of death is supposedly removed as a punishment for sex. WTF kind of logic is that? And that a statistically-expected number of cases had totally unrelated illnesses and death coincidentally just after taking the vaccine. Guess what? People who don't take the vaccine die of totally unrelated accidents and illnesses too. But people who don't take the vaccine ALSO die of related illnesses, like CANCER.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020301299.html
Report: 40 percent of cancers are preventable
About 40 percent of cancers could be prevented if people stopped smoking and overeating, limited their alcohol, exercised regularly and got vaccines targeting cancer-causing infections, experts say. ...
According to the World Health Organization, cancer is responsible for one out of every eight deaths worldwide - more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. WHO warned that without major changes, global cancer deaths will jump from about 7.6 million this year to 17 million by 2030. ...
[E]xperts said about 21 percent of all cancers are due to infections like the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer, and hepatitis infections that cause stomach and liver cancer. ...
"Policymakers around the world have the opportunity and obligation to use these vaccines to save people's lives and educate their communities towards lifestyle choices and control measures that reduce their risk of cancer," Cary Adams, chief executive of the International Union Against Cancer, said in a statement.
(bold emphasis mine)
I'm going to repeat this part: 21% of all cancers are due to infections that can be prevented with the HPV vaccine and the hepatitis vaccine.
21-fucking-percent of ALL CANCERS can be PREVENTED by taking a vaccine.
I watched my father battle cancer. He survived. He was one of the lucky ones. Survival is not the only goal here, but quality of life is too, not to mention the financial burden on both the sick individual and the community that houses him. I don't know about you, but knowing one has a chance of living through that kind of pain and suffering is small consolation when someone is actually going through it. And it's only a chance, not a guarantee.
It is utterly absurd that we live in an age and a society that has the knowledge and the ability to prevent certain kinds of death, and there are people out there whose "moral" code, not only prevents them from taking advantage of this, but tells them to prevent others from avoiding a horrible, painful, prolonged, frightening death; whose "moral code" promotes unquestioning faith and belief in the Authority figure, not the stand-alone truth of the message, which results in people believing what someone says because they like him, not because he actually knows what he's talking about; a "moral code" which holds as a virtue roping off a section of one's belief structure as untouchable, unquestionable, so that one cannot be persuaded to change one's mind even in the face of rock-solid evidence, even when that belief causes the PAIN and DEATH of those around him.
How, exactly, am I the immoral one again?
This also isn't exactly new, but it seems we need reinforcements as to why the vaccine is GOOD FOR YOU. People insist on wanting to call HPV a "woman's disease" (as if that justifies lack of treatments & preventive measures) and they insist on claiming that cervical cancer is easily prevented & easily treated and therefore not worth the effort of better screening techniques, treatments, or vaccines.
Except that it's not either of those things.
Yes, in the Western world, thanks to pap smears, cervical cancer is more easily recognized than in other countries; it is recognized earlier and with better accuracy. This means that, once a woman HAS cancer, or pre-cancerous lesions, she has a better chance than a woman in a third world country of surviving it.
But that's not the end of the story. What about those women who, even with early detection, do not survive? What about those who do survive but have life-long side effects, like sterility? What about those women who do not have healthcare and cannot go do the doctor often enough to catch the cancer early enough to treat it? And what about everyone who is not privileged to live in the wonderful US where all women have fabulous healthcare, caring & knowledgeable doctors, and regular checkups (that was sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)?
And what about those MEN and women who get cancer somewhere other than the cervix?
Because cervical cancer is not the only thing that HPV causes, but cervical cancer is the only thing we regularly screen for. Well, that and breast cancer, but what does HPV have to do with breast cancer?
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/HPV_vaccine_breast_cancer/2010/02/01/312600.html
HPV Vaccine May Prevent Breast Cancer
A vaccine that prevents cervical cancer in women may also prevent some forms of breast cancer, according to Australian researchers. The team, located at the University of New South Wales, used genetic probes to test cancerous breast cells and found several strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV).
The researchers found the presence of high-risk HPV in 39 percent of the ductal carcinoma in situ cancers and in 21 percent of the invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) breast cancer specimens examined. Non-invasive or in situ breast cancers are those restricted to the glands that make milk and do not spread. Invasive ductal cancers are more deadly and account for 70 to 80 percent of all breast cancers.
"The finding that high risk HPV is present in a significant number of breast cancers indicates they may have a causal role in many breast cancers," Dr. Noel Whitaker, a co-author of the report, said in a statement.
The researchers found the presence of high-risk HPV in 39 percent of the ductal carcinoma in situ cancers and in 21 percent of the invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) breast cancer specimens examined. Non-invasive or in situ breast cancers are those restricted to the glands that make milk and do not spread. Invasive ductal cancers are more deadly and account for 70 to 80 percent of all breast cancers.
"The finding that high risk HPV is present in a significant number of breast cancers indicates they may have a causal role in many breast cancers," Dr. Noel Whitaker, a co-author of the report, said in a statement.
70% of all breast cancers are invasive ductal cancers and are more deadly than non-invasive cancers. Out of those, 21% may have been caused by HPV. Of the remaining 30% of cancers, 39% may have been caused by HPV.
Do you understand that's a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BREAST CANCER CASES THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY HPV? And we can eliminate those with a vaccine that has been proven to be safe and effective, contrary to opponents' claims?
We can fucking eliminate cancer. Only a certain type right now, but it can be eradicated. Right now. With current medical technology. And people are refusing because taking the vaccine might make their children "more promiscuous" because the threat of death is supposedly removed as a punishment for sex. WTF kind of logic is that? And that a statistically-expected number of cases had totally unrelated illnesses and death coincidentally just after taking the vaccine. Guess what? People who don't take the vaccine die of totally unrelated accidents and illnesses too. But people who don't take the vaccine ALSO die of related illnesses, like CANCER.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020301299.html
Report: 40 percent of cancers are preventable
About 40 percent of cancers could be prevented if people stopped smoking and overeating, limited their alcohol, exercised regularly and got vaccines targeting cancer-causing infections, experts say. ...
According to the World Health Organization, cancer is responsible for one out of every eight deaths worldwide - more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. WHO warned that without major changes, global cancer deaths will jump from about 7.6 million this year to 17 million by 2030. ...
[E]xperts said about 21 percent of all cancers are due to infections like the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer, and hepatitis infections that cause stomach and liver cancer. ...
"Policymakers around the world have the opportunity and obligation to use these vaccines to save people's lives and educate their communities towards lifestyle choices and control measures that reduce their risk of cancer," Cary Adams, chief executive of the International Union Against Cancer, said in a statement.
(bold emphasis mine)
I'm going to repeat this part: 21% of all cancers are due to infections that can be prevented with the HPV vaccine and the hepatitis vaccine.
21-fucking-percent of ALL CANCERS can be PREVENTED by taking a vaccine.
I watched my father battle cancer. He survived. He was one of the lucky ones. Survival is not the only goal here, but quality of life is too, not to mention the financial burden on both the sick individual and the community that houses him. I don't know about you, but knowing one has a chance of living through that kind of pain and suffering is small consolation when someone is actually going through it. And it's only a chance, not a guarantee.
It is utterly absurd that we live in an age and a society that has the knowledge and the ability to prevent certain kinds of death, and there are people out there whose "moral" code, not only prevents them from taking advantage of this, but tells them to prevent others from avoiding a horrible, painful, prolonged, frightening death; whose "moral code" promotes unquestioning faith and belief in the Authority figure, not the stand-alone truth of the message, which results in people believing what someone says because they like him, not because he actually knows what he's talking about; a "moral code" which holds as a virtue roping off a section of one's belief structure as untouchable, unquestionable, so that one cannot be persuaded to change one's mind even in the face of rock-solid evidence, even when that belief causes the PAIN and DEATH of those around him.
How, exactly, am I the immoral one again?
no subject
Date: 2/8/10 03:43 am (UTC)From:Heh, my original Twitter comments to Jeph were:
I wouldn't define Tai as "polyamorous" if she's looking to "settle down" with one person eventually - I'd call her "single."
The point of polyamory isn't "dating a bunch of people 'til something better comes along" (and I know it's a comic, but srsly!)
I do understand his perspective (that Tai's relationship needs have changed, and that she hasn't necessarily realized that -- heh, the sick part is that it is mirroring something that happened relatively recently in my own extended poly network, where my partner's partner claimed to be poly but turned out to really want monogamy, and wound up making all of us fairly miserable for a while until she finally admitted that she wanted something other than what she'd signed up for) . . . but the way he phrased it in the comic seemed like he was DEFINING polyamory as a phase, and one that involved fairly shallow and transitive relationships, at that.
*grrrrr*
Let's see where he goes on Monday, and take it from there. But, yeah -- I'm bummed to be losing a character who represented 'one of us,' even if she was a lot more on the casual-sex side than on the polyfi or multiple-LTR side (so, she represented one facet of poly, but not my side of the umbrella.)
I didn't have any issue with her portrayal because I know that there are plenty of poly people who self-identify as poly and have casual sex and are perfectly happy that way, I'd just prefer that it not be a *prescriptive* description, which is how Friday's comic came off (whereas every other comic has seemed like "okay, this is just how *Tai* is as an individual poly person, practicing her own personal brand of single/relatively-unattached polyamory.)
Meh.
-- A :P
no subject
Date: 2/8/10 03:53 am (UTC)From:Jeph does seem to think that Monday's strip will clear everything up, so I'm hopeful that this was just an unfortunate choice of phrasing.
As for the boys, I noticed that the approval of the vaccine for boys met with almost no media coverage, compared to the veritable shit-storm that preceded & followed the girl's approval. It's joked that if guys had a particular suffering that girls typically do, the "fix" would be immediately forthcoming & expected (i.e. if men got pregnant, abortions would be covered by insurance & celebrated with stag parties afterwards). So I was hoping that the realization that HPV caused male cancers too would change opinions.
Instead, not only has it not seemed to change anyone's opinion, but it seems to be swept under the rug as if they want to pretend no one ever said that boys get cancer and medical science found a way to prevent it.
But, that's where I come in ... to shout at people until they hear :-D