Posted on 02/16/2009 8:35:40 AM PST by rellimpank
I agree. The real problem with ovarian cancer is it is hard to detect even with a physical exam until the ovaries are very swollen. I don’t know why when you get a pap smear the docs just don’t routinely do the CA 125 blood work, its not completely reliable but has about 80% accuracy for detecting ovarian cancer.
Sexual contact, of course. Now, if you wish to label 80% of American women as "whores" go ahead, but this adds nothing to the debate. As a pathologist I diagnose invasive cervical cancer on a monthly basis and significant pre-cancerous changes literally every day. It's my job to prevent cervical and other cancers, not judge the moral worth of my patients.
You: Approx. 80% of American women will be infected with one or another type of genital HPV in their lifetimes, usually in their teens and 20’s. Protecting against these infections makes perfect sense. Using inflammatory terms like “whores” merely clouds the picture.
Me: LOL 80%!
If your daughter is a whore, by all means load her up with daily shots to stave off the promiscuous disease. Our daughter is not a whore and doesn't need it in her TEENS and TWENTIES.
Using PROPER terminology, a “whore” is what contracts this disease in their teens and twenties. We don't’ raise whore so it is not needed her to protect against promiscuity.
You: Approx. 80% of American women will be infected with one or another type of genital HPV in their lifetimes, usually in their teens and 20’s. Protecting against these infections makes perfect sense. Using inflammatory terms like “whores” merely clouds the picture.
Me: LOL 80%!
If your daughter is a whore, by all means load her up with daily shots to stave off the promiscuous disease. Our daughter is not a whore and doesn't need it in her TEENS and TWENTIES.
Using PROPER terminology, a “whore”, is what contracts this disease in their teens and twenties. We don't raise whores so it is not needed for her to protect against promiscuity that does not happen.
So again, understand what you are broad brushing!
bump
Only two groups of people have essentially no chance of developing cervical cancer. These are women who have never had sex and women who have had sex with only one man who has only had sex with her. Now, you may know with absolute certainty about how your daughter has spent all her time not under your direct supervision but can you say the same about her husband? If not, she is at risk.
No, it isn't. Is IS transmitted through sexual contact, but a virgin bride can contract it if her husband was not chaste before marriage.
I would bet that many of the women here on FR (and many of the wives of the men here) have had PAP smears come back showing pre-cancerous or cancerous conditions - and those were most likely caused by HPV, the virus this vaccine protects against.
“Aspberger’s syndrome falls far short of the MIT problem (which is ordinarily exacerbated by the use of a broomstick in an unexpected orifice.)”
It was why we all drank so damn much.
We couldn’t talk to each other, couldn’t look in each other’s eyes, couldn’t be touched, the whole spectrum.
And we all came out OK.
‘Course I still drink and can’t go to a party without drinking.
“A girl doesn’t necessarily have to be sexually permissive or a whore to get HPV or the type of cervical cancer that the virus causes.”
“Unless she marries another virgin, it could be possible for her husband to carry the virus.”
It’s really tough to get a sexual disease when you don’t have sex before marriage. Without sex, you can’t get this disease. Most peole get physicals .... frankly if I were getting married today, I’d require my spouse to have one.
Biggest spreading is not washing your hands perfectly EVERYTIME before wiping.
Not sex.
WSJ had a piece about the vaccine court case last week in its print edition. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123445313976177691.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I was disappointed — but by now not surprised given the state of “journalism” today — that the article correctly noted that specualtion about vaccines causing autism was launched by a 1998 Lancet study, but FAILED TO NOTE that the study’s author perpetrated a fraud when he published the article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece.
Why was I, someone who skims the news and does not follow the vaccination/autism debate intensely, aware of the FRAUDULENT nature of the study and the importance of it being fraudulent, yet the WSJ reporter who covers this sort of thing was not?
Of course the next day a WSJ editorial piece got it right and noted the fraud, but the intial lengthy NEWS story on the front page of the section failed to mention the fraud and took the usual tone of “system screws parents of disable kids” including an emtional photo of the poor parents.
“If you fund it, victims will come.”
You’re from the modern era, the only one I ever had was smallpox.
I got the rest of my immunity and everyone I grew up with from having the diseases.
Me too. I almost died of measles at age 3.
>>Now, if you wish to label 80% of American women as “whores” go ahead,<<
I didn’t.
However, stating that I have an 80% chance of contracting HPV because I am an American Woman is silly.
Same with my daughters.
80% would NOT contract it if they did not have sex except with a husband. (I’ll give the 20% for those that have hubby’s cheat). THAT is the point.
As a pathologist, you diagnose.
As a conservative, you should be speaking truth instead of muddying the waters. If it’s truly your job to be preventing those cancers, then remain non-judgemental with your patients but here, speak the plain truth. They would not end up with that disease without having sex with an infected partner. Fidelity is the best bet.
ASSUMING that the husband had never had sex except with his wife.
If the man had premarital sex, yes, he could transmit the virus to his wife even if both were faithful after marriage.
>>Biggest spreading is not washing your hands perfectly EVERYTIME before wiping.
Not sex.<<
HPV?
As a realist I recognize that human behavior is what it is. Of course I'd love to see people behaving as we know they should but given that even religious people can have a temporary lapse I say we should do everything in our power to prevent preventable diseases.
Which is why I gave it 80% and not 100%.
Personally, I would recommend that my fiance be tested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.