Cancerlingus
by
Uh oh:
HPV increasingly causes oral cancer in men
ATLANTA - The sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women is poised to become one of the leading causes of oral cancer in men, according to a new study.
The HPV virus now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.
The only available vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co., is currently given only to girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government permission to offer the shot to boys.
Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in U.S. women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too.
“We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine,” said study co-author Dr. Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.
The study was published Friday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Dang it!
Comments
Well, maybe the vaccine will take on importance now that it doesn’t limit itself to slutty ho’s.
/snark
i wonder if the religious groups that opposed the treatment for young woman are gonna come out and oppose this for men too?
To top it off
Grampa said
“Never lick a gift whore in the mouse.”
Well, maybe the vaccine will take on importance now that it doesn’t limit itself to slutty ho’s.
/snark
Florynce Kennedy: “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
I had always wondered why they didn’t offer the shot for males, too. The effect of HPV on men was not stated in ANY article about the vaccine, but it seems that the vaccine could’ve prevented male carriers.
It’s amazing to me that a cancer could be eliminated in a generation with a shot and there is even ONE person that objects. We are mandated to get our son a bazillion shots before he is even 5 years old or he can’t enter kindergarten. Why isn’t this one in there along with fucking chicken pox?
It’s amazing to me that a cancer could be eliminated in a generation with a shot and there is even ONE person that objects. We are mandated to get our son a bazillion shots before he is even 5 years old or he can’t enter kindergarten. Why isn’t this one in there along with fucking chicken pox?
Because of insanely stupid people who believe shit like this
But, dwex, we are already pretty much forced to give a zillion shots, why not add one more? To refuse to give him shots on those grounds would require home schooling and run the risk of child abuse charges.
Why isn’t this one in there along with fucking chicken pox?
Because it relates to the cooter and cooters is icky and naughty. Of course, this is sodomy so it surely spells the end of civilization.
But, dwex, we are already pretty much forced to give a zillion shots, why not add one more? To refuse to give him shots on those grounds would require home schooling and run the risk of child abuse charges.
This is EXACTLY what is happening. Read up on it. It’s mind-boggling.
Because of insanely stupid people who believe shit like this
Ah yes, the same dipshits who think eating soybeans will make you gay. For most it’s just one on one “counseling” with Ted Haggard.
<fundie>
“I’m not giving this to my son. That HPV virus is transmitted through the vaginas of dirty, slutty girls, and I’m certainly not going to give him the green light to perform oral sex on one of these harlots.”
</fundie>
Why isn’t this one in there along with fucking chicken pox?
Fuck! I’m only 29 years old and I had to get chicken pox the hard way. Got it during the summer after my sixth grade year. Had scabs for months. They say the older you are the harder it is. I believe it. I’d feel awful sorry for anyone who got the pox in their adult life. The vaccine must be fairly new.
This is one area where my libertarianism goes out the window. The Brute Force of Government is actually very effective for a limited number of things. One of these things happens to be the elimination of diseases through effective mandatory immunization schemes.
Polio, smallpox, MMR are all virtually gone thanks to the sweeping hand of government.
I hate the heavy hand of government. However, there are things for which it is universally useful. To say that you have a right to keep your son or daughter at risk of a virus that causes harm to others because you think they don’t have sex is absurd.
<fundie>
“I’m not giving this to my son. That HPV virus is transmitted through the vaginas of dirty, slutty girls, and I’m certainly not going to give him the green light to perform oral sex on one of these harlots.”
</fundie>
Good for you. Your son is better off licking asshole at the local bath-house.
Partly due to a batch of ineffective vaccine in the early 1960s.
More importantly - due to this stupidity of parents not getting their kids vaccinated because it “might cause autism”.
More importantly - due to this stupidity of parents not getting their kids vaccinated because it “might cause autism”.
Which is why I qualified the statement with “virtually.”
I’m about one two-step dance to the left of Ayn Rand.
Good for you. Your son is better off licking asshole at the local bath-house.
That’s my answer to your fictional evangelical child Lee.
Well,
There is one issue here. The vaccine has not been tested yet in men and it is not clear that the vaccine will work against oral transmission. I think it likely but i dont think the FDA will allow this for males until some preliminary data is presented for safety.
david
It can’t be true. I would have bee ravaged by cancer before I turned 25.
Good for you. Your son is better off licking asshole at the local bath-house.
Licking asshole at a bath house isn’t really a big deal. I’m just terrified that it’s going to come out that he’s a fundamentalist preacher.
This is one area where my libertarianism goes out the window. The Brute Force of Government is actually very effective for a limited number of things. One of these things happens to be the elimination of diseases through effective mandatory immunization schemes.
Absolutely. Fundamental public health is a completely legitimate function of government. It becomes less so, however, when the concept of “public health” turns into nanny state regulations concerning food choices by private individuals, or smoking in your own home, that sort of thing. That’s the justification they use, that because the government’s legitimate role as overseer of public health, anything they deem under the rubric of “public health” is then subject to regulation and intrusion.
I’m right there with ya, dude. Public health is a legitimate government function. Where the libertarianism comes in is in guaranteeing that “public health” remains just that, public health, not “Making sure private individuals make the choices that we feel are the healthiest.”
The one reason I oppose mandating the HPV vaccine is because, unlike polio or measles, it is not spread by casual contact. And I do worry that down the road we may have Diethylstilbestrol on our hands where the effects don’t show up for a generation or two.
So, the government shouldn’t interfere with your sex life or restrict your what you can read or use your tax money for anything but necessary government functions,
but
its okay for them to force a needle under your skin and inject chemicals they have decided are good for you into your bloodstream against your will? That’s a funny kind of libertarianism.
I’ve watched my 18 month old daughter get many many shots and I never gave credence to the autism theory, which always sounded like bullshit to me (I don’t recall if she got the HPV vaccine, but if she was supposed to, she did.) But what if I really, though stupidly, believed that the risk of autism was unacceptably high? Shouldn’t that be my decision?
I think that a “public health” exception swallows the rule. If the government can force you to take certain kinds of medicine for your own good its hard to see why they shouldn’t be allowed to tell you not to smoke.
I think the real exception to the rule is not that the government has a “public health” mandate that allows you to be medicated against your will, but that there are certain minimal standards of parenting that I do think the government can and should enforce. Vaccinations being one example.
So, the government shouldn’t interfere with your sex life or restrict your what you can read or use your tax money for anything but necessary government functions,
but
its okay for them to force a needle under your skin and inject chemicals they have decided are good for you into your bloodstream against your will? That’s a funny kind of libertarianism.
Hardly. We’re talking about a simple vaccination which can prevent one kind of cancer. If the girl doesn’t get it at the right age, then ends up with cancer later in life, she’s going to pay the price for her parents’ puritan views on sex. In a libertarian standpoint, which is the lesser of two evils, vaccinating a girl against a disease, or allowing adult women to suffer from cancer due to a decision that was completely out of their control?
But what if I really, though stupidly, believed that the risk of autism was unacceptably high? Shouldn’t that be my decision?
No. Let’s stipulate that there was a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that a vaccination would cause autism. Without a vaccination (let’s say polio) the chances of your child developing polio are infinitely higher. So, even if there is a risk (which the evidence now says there is not), it’s far more a case of the lesser of two evils. And since a baby cannot make a decision for itself, it is perfectly correct for the government to mandate vaccinations. Simply put, when the kid gets polio, the people who made the decision aren’t going to suffer, the kid is.
I think that a “public health” exception swallows the rule. If the government can force you to take certain kinds of medicine for your own good its hard to see why they shouldn’t be allowed to tell you not to smoke.
Smoking, eating fatty foods, eating too much salt, these areall choices made my consenting adults. A baby does not refuse to get a polio vaccine, and a 12 year old girl is in no position to choose to refuse a vaccine when she has parents who have been telling her since birth that she’ll be cast into the pit and tormented for all eternity by God for doing so.
Lee, we will never agree on anything, I guess.
Actually, maybe we do.
And since a baby cannot make a decision for itself, it is perfectly correct for the government to mandate vaccinations.
Yeah, that is what I was saying. Its not the government’s “public health” power but its “you can’t be that bad a parent” power that I think should apply.
Yeah, that is what I was saying. Its not the government’s “public health” power but its “you can’t be that bad a parent” power that I think should apply.
Fair enough. I think we agree, we’re just using different terminology. It’s like child abuse, you can raise your child however you see sit, but there comes a point where it’s appropriate for the state to step in. I think mandating vaccinations against idiot parents is perfectly reasonable.
A couple of points:
Dwex posted a link earlier in this:
Because of insanely stupid people who believe shit like this
The story is about high mercury levels in some vaccines, and I think it is a legitimate concern. I do think there are a bunch of nutters out there who are against ALL vaccination for completely bogus reasons, but this link wasn’t one of them. I don’t think we need to stop all vaccination, just be more careful with use of thimerosal in vaccine production with a view to phasing it out.
So, even if there is a risk (which the evidence now says there is not), it’s far more a case of the lesser of two evils. And since a baby cannot make a decision for itself, it is perfectly correct for the government to mandate vaccinations.
It’s strange for me to be arguing the libertarian POV against Lee, but there is some wiggle room here. Vaccines only have to be delivered to a certain percentage of the population to be effective - the ‘herd immunity’ threshold is generally about 85% depending on the disease and its method of transmission.
So not everyone HAS to be immunized, as long as enough people are, and if those who aren’t don’t mind running a slightly higher risk.
It’s strange for me to be arguing the libertarian POV against Lee, but there is some wiggle room here. Vaccines only have to be delivered to a certain percentage of the population to be effective - the ‘herd immunity’ threshold is generally about 85% depending on the disease and its method of transmission.
True that. The point I was making, though, is that say you have some kooky parents who don’t believe in vaccinations. If they don’t inoculate their kids against disease, and then the kid ends up catching it, it’s not the parents who suffer, the kid does. This isn’t something like obesity, which “can cause a higher risk” of certain diseases. If you’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or tuberculosis or polio, there’s a good chance that you’ll catch one or more of these three. (And there are tons more diseases we’re vaccinated against.) It’s a specific disease with a specific prevention and a known specific outcome. With food and obesity, it’s an “increased risk of,” not anything with any degree of specificity.
The whole idea behind libertarianism is free will. You have the freedom to choose, and to reap the rewards of that choice, but you must also be prepared to accept the responsibilities. In the case of the vaccinations, the only responsibility the parents will feel is the guilt over allowing their child to suffer a lifetime with polio when there was a perfectly safe vaccination available which would have prevented it.
The whole idea behind libertarianism is free will. You have the freedom to choose, and to reap the rewards of that choice, but you must also be prepared to accept the responsibilities.
See, I agree with all this. And I would add that some kinds of ‘free’ behavior deny others the right to do the same - and I guess your example of parents and their kids in this context of vaccinations works.
But where does it end? There was my argument yesterday, that a cyclist with no light was asking me to carry (what deemed an unacceptable) risk for his/her behavior.
Then there is education - you could argue that parents shouldn’t educate at home if they are not qualified to do so, because the kids are forced to carry the risk that they won’t be able to get jobs in the future.
My question, based on our discussion yesterday and this today, is: as a libertarian, you have used an example of state control for the benefit of the majority, but that other people would define that as a ‘nanny state’ intervention. So where is the line that you draw between the two?
In my mind, libertarianism is about letting you do your own thing - as long as it doesn’t screw with other people.
You can get as shit-faced drunk as you want. You get behind the wheel of a car, your ass should go to jail.
You can smoke all you want. You cannot smoke in places where other people are forced to be.
You can drive as fast and dangerously as you want on closed pathways (e.g. dragstrip or race track). You can’t do it on main street.
So in the case of vaccinations, the government requires them to prevent community outbreaks of extremely dangerous disease, not to keep you from getting yourself sick. This is consistent, libertarian policy.
I think the point about HPV requiring specific action to spread (rather than being airborne/casual-contact based) is a valid reason for not making the vaccine mandatory.
dwex, you do understand that nearly everyone comes in contact with HPV at some point in their lives, right. If we can be vaccinated for chicken pox, a non-lethal disease, why not a potentially deadly one?
HPV transmition requires direct skin-to-skin contact with an exposed lesion. It’s not casual transmitted, airborne, or a (generally) childhood disease (where you can’t expect kids to avoid spreading it).
I certainly think all women should get vaccinated; I think they are foolish not to. Assuming they actually do testing and verify safety & efficacy in men (which I don’t believe has been done yet), ditto for men.
I just don’t think it’s to a level of government mandates, because of the express actions required to transmit it. If the transmition vectors change, then I’d change my mind.
dwex, I am actually pretty libertarian about this, so I would prefer it to be up to me. However, we already have mandated, I don’t see a reason not to add this when nearly every woman will be exposed to some form of HPV during her lifetime.
If we didn’t already have mandatory vaccinations, I would probably see it differently. Does that make sense?
Sure it makes sense. I just don’t agree. If there were an effective AIDS vaccine, I wouldn’t mandate it either. I’d think people were stupid for not getting it, but I wouldn’t mandate it. Or a more real example, hepatitis A & B now have effective vaccines. Should they be mandated?
As long as we’re forcing vaccines, why hold back on the cooties that we are likely to run across like HPV? Skin to skin contact is very easy transmission. In fact, the mouth cancer aspect is interesting. Can you catch HPV kissing your Aunt Toody?
Polio can be transmitted skin to skin, by the way. The Fecal-Oral route has a skin phase. Vaccine coverage can be pretty low in Polio, because people can get “vaccinated” from a vaccinated person. Gross, but effective.
HepB is not ubiquitous and is not skin to skin, but it can be chronic if you are one of the unlucky ones. Throw it in. HepA is food borne, so I don’t know. They usually give HepA to people travelling overseas where food preparation may be lacking. Not really applicable to the average American household.
Dwex, your argument only works if you can show that an individual choice not to receive a vaccine does not result in an increase of risk to others.
Just to hypothesize:
What if the combined total of immunization ‘refuseniks’ and those who are allergic to the vaccines combined creates a situation where the herd immunity threshold is not reached. Those who refuse to take the vaccine are actually endangering those who cannot. I have friends who can’t because of various protein allergies. You ask that they bare the risk for those who don’t want to act responsibly?
The only alternative is pure nanny-stating. With what you hypothesize, there would have to be special exemptions written into the laws for your friends. That doesn’t work either. Especially for vaccines given as part of routine childhood immunization (which is what we’re discussing here); you’d basically be mandating expensive and painful allergy testing ahead of immunization. Sounds fundamentally unworkable to me.
I’m not sure I buy this “protein allergy” concept, with the exception of the flu vaccine, which is a whole different ball of wax (since it has to be done annually with a crapshoot on what strain of influenza is going to show up).
It’s not just influenza - the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella also contain egg proteins (not considered dangerous), and gelatine (potentially hazardous). Yellow fever and typhoid (which are non-standard) too. The Hep B vaccine contains yeast.
you’d basically be mandating expensive and painful allergy testing ahead of immunization. Sounds fundamentally unworkable to me.
Well not necessarily - there are treatments for anaphylaxis. But that still means that those who cannot take the vaccines have a greater chance of becoming ill because of those who refuse to take them. I wasn’t asking for special laws, but universal treatment- if the herd immunity threshold wasn’t reached, then no amount of laws could protect them. It would just be chance as to whether they caught the disease or not.
The only alternative is pure nanny-stating.
Is it though? I am trying to show that the ‘nanny state’ vs ‘freedom for the individual’ argument is not a matter or one or the other, but a matter of degree. The ‘nanny state’ isn’t always about protecting the individual - it’s about protecting the rest of society from those individuals who are unable or unwilling to assume responsibility for their own behavior.
About ten years ago I got into an online argument with this fundie moron I eventually started to refer to as “car washer” who thought that there was absolutely no reason why his daughter should receive a state mandated hepatitis vaccination in order to attend school.
Since he was living in Idaho, he was 100% assured that the strict fundamentalist upbringing he was giving his children meant that all of them would be virgins of their wedding nights, and getting married to other virgins (he would have absolute rights to select who they married - at least in his little fantasy world), none of them would ever have to worry about ever catching any sexually transmitted disease. He also said that this would prevent them from being curious about penis size as they would only see one of those in their entire lives and would assume that they were all the same.
He got particularly irate when I started recounting the number of women I’d banged over the years that came from backgrounds exactly like the one he was inflicting upon his family, their various mental issues, and how once they got out from under the thumbs of their various families they became rather wanton little sluts determined to make up for lost time.
When I explained to him exactly what a “catholic virgin” was he completely lost it - apparently all his girls were in catholic school, and the thought of them being expert cocksuckers and taking it up the ass in order to retain their boyfriends while remaining “virginal” was just too much for his puny little mind to behold.
Finally, I told him to just go ahead and keep doing what he was doing - there would always be guys like me on the lookout for girls like his, knowing that once they were away from daddy and his psychotic parenting they were glorious little sluts that were game for anything.
You should remember though, these women are generally unfit for any relationship that lasts longer than a few months - they are damaged goods after all…
You can always count on SO to raise the level of discourse…
It’s never boring, that’s for sure.
SO is right though, I “met” a catholic girl on a recent holiday who went through the same thing and lost her anal viginity long before her vaginal one; I find that somewhat amazing but it really happens.
You can always count on SO to raise the level of discourse…
I just wonder how his wife feels about all the creatures he’s banged, and about how he brags about it, and if she keeps up with him with her own bragging rights.
My husband did the Ren Fair circuit in his twenties and got all of this out of his system. No big deal, he couldn’t keep up now that he’s 40. He discovered that young chickies are fun to play with, but virtually impossible to deal with out of the sack. He went to the doctor before we started having sex to make sure he wasn’t crawling with cooties.
I just wonder how his wife feels about all the creatures he’s banged, and about how he brags about it, and if she keeps up with him with her own bragging rights.
She doesn’t appear to really give a shit - we were in our 30’s when we met and adult enough to realize that who and how many we banged in the past wasn’t relevant. And if I was “bragging”, I’d go into a lot more detail - kids these days, don’t know nothing about how free and easy it used to be....
And if I was “bragging”, I’d go into a lot more detail
Spare us. :)
(Well, the guys here might want to hear...)
kids these days, don’t know nothing about how free and easy it used to be....
Really? More so than now? I find that surprising. How old are you, SO?
kids these days, don’t know nothing about how free and easy it used to be....
Yea, I was quite a little ‘ho back in the day. The early 80’s wasn’t burdened so much with herpes, AIDS, and clenched sphincters. Back then we called date rape “to drunk to say no”. I was pretty over free love by the time I was 22 and I didn’t even do the gay divorcee bit when my first marriage tanked.
I don’t even know what college age kids do these days. We were crazy.
The early 80’s wasn’t burdened so much with herpes, AIDS, and clenched sphincters.
I’m old. I was married with a kid by then.
Heh, RepMom. I was very fortunate in not having kids early. It is nice to have my son when we aren’t struggling ..
Heh, RepMom. I was very fortunate in not having kids early. It is nice to have my son when we aren’t struggling ..
Total anathema to me. Of course, if you kids you becoming the douchebags described in the article.
Otherwise they sound more or less like me.
Of course, if you kids you becoming the douchebags described in the article.
The original article was about mouth cancer and Human Pappiloma Virus.
Otherwise they sound more or less like me.
Uh ....
(Well, the guys here might want to hear...)
Not so much. No.
Really? More so than now? I find that surprising. How old are you, SO?
Old enough to remember the moon landings, the summer of love, Sonny & Cher, when herpes was the gift that kept on giving, Linda Lovelace for president, Nixon bombing Cambodia, McGovern for president, knowing that LBJ was a crooked SOB, Laugh In, Deep Throat and The Devil In Miss Jones being a double feature, Hi-Fi stereos, Sean Connery was the only James Bond, watching Star Trek when it was new, Rat Patrol, streakers, love beads, people being upset about all the rock stars dying of drug overdoses on a regular basis, “We can rebuild him, we have the technology”, feeling up girls to Stairway to Heaven, Dyn-O-Mite!, don’t trust anyone over 30, bra burning, Joe Nameth wearing pantyhose, what it was like before Title IX, narcs, pigs, “the man”, foxy baby, tuning in, turning on, and dropping out, “hanging out with your old lady”, “Dave’s not here man”, Fudd’s first law of opposition, and wondering where I’d be on Dec 31, 1999....
Oh yeah, getting laid back then required little more than asking for it and having condoms (just in case she spent her birth control money on weed that month). And the girls shaved only their legs and pits, most of them didn’t give head, and if they did you’d be informed that “deep throat is a myth, so don’t make me gag” and “don’t come in my mouth”.
Sure they talk about kids being promiscuous these days, and how young they are when they get started, but compared to the days of hippies and free love they aren’t even in the competition.
The early 80’s wasn’t burdened so much with herpes, AIDS, and clenched sphincters.
I’m old. I was married with a kid by then.
I was in the USAF and wishing I could find a doctor to give me a vasectomy so I could quite worrying about all these crazy chicks trying to get knocked up…
Next entry: Kevinmkr Bowl
Previous entry: Mann on Man, Part Duh
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8497
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 39
Total anonymous users: 1
Malcom Hatstat,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(37 total, Last @ 10:02)
Miguelito: Not exactly sure what happened, but after a couple years on his own once he finished college and his tune changed. I think some of it was that his dad wasn’t there to fill his head with crap every day (union official) once he moved out of town. I'm guessing…
The Civil Rights Bully
(3 total, Last @ 07:04)
HARLEY: The differences between a government and a criminal cartel are generally pretty slight. They generally have more guns and the "moral right" to use them.
You Want to Make an Omelet, You Have to Break Some Eggs
(2 total, Last @ 06:51)
HARLEY: The miracle of the 1940s? You mean a World War that killed millions of people, and set the stage for even more global carnage in the post-colonial Third World? If this was true then when we should have gone into a boomtime with the Iraq and Afgan wars.
The Civil Rights Bully
(3 total, Last @ 06:13)
Seattle Outcast: The differences between a government and a criminal cartel are generally pretty slight.
The Civil Rights Bully
(3 total, Last @ 03:48)
HeartlessLibertarian: Note the middle paragraph, in which Perez is essentially using the power of government to blackmail his targets into donating to “qualified organizations” (a tactic that started under the last Administration). Rather instructive how the government has adopted the same tactics the Mafia uses, isn't it? And yet some people…
Last 30 Comments
OK, THIS is gonna be a fun comments section…