"Oral sex is bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco"

[threefeethighandrising]

Firstly I apologise. It's the DM. And not just that, it's the DM and yet another cancer story.

Even so - have you seen this?

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1358845/Oral-sex-bigger-cause-throat-cancer-tobacco.html

It basically says that HPV is a bigger cause of throat cancer in under 50s than tobacco.

The headline is wrong.

The under 50's statement may be correct.

Does it make a difference if you spit or swallow?

Haven't read the article but it's one of those DM twisting the stats things isn't it?

Say, for example, there is a 0.001% chance of most people getting throat cancer and smoking raises it to 0.002% and oral sex raises it to 0.004% then it doubles the risk. But it's still not that risky iyswim.

Not if an HPV infected helmet is rubbing against yer tonsils, Grumpala

Well i hope they intend to tattoo all cocks with warning photos of cancer with the slogan "sucking me causes cancer"

Great. Pass the Silk Cut.

I never understood why they were only offering the HPV vaccine to girls, anyhow.

It's endemic in sexually active males, too, not all of whom are exclusively heterosexual.

because if you eradicate it from one sex then sooner or later the disease will become extinct.

plus its cheaper

'because if you eradicate it from one sex then sooner or later the disease will become extinct.

plus its cheaper'

Then vaccinate the men. They are largely symptomless, that's why these strains of the virus have become so prevalent.

And it's not exactly going to become extinct when bi/homosexual men are still carrying it around.

"because if you eradicate it from one sex then sooner or later the disease will become extinct."

Slight flaw in that argument - gay / bisexual men.

"I never understood why they were only offering the HPV vaccine to girls, anyhow."

Makes sense medically. Probably too sensitive culturally?

cross posts expat

I think the thinking is that you aren't born with it so sooner or later you need to catch it from someone. If no girls have it at all then a male virgin would have to sleep with either a much much older woman, or a man.

So within a few generations the liklihood of that happening is getting slimmer.

but Mostly i think it is down to money. and the fact that the HPV is more prevelant in Cervical cancer than any others.

plus it is easier to sell it to girls as an anti cancer jab.

to sell it to boys it would be as an anti STI jab. No one wants to think they may have an STI

'So within a few generations the liklihood of that happening is getting slimmer.'

Considering that 10% of the population is gay and more are bisexual, that doesn't stack up.

Think it should be offered to males, too.

im not disagreeing, just trying to offer a theory as to the thinking behind the decision.

It's because women are the one's who get HPV related cancers.

'It's because women are the one's who get HPV related cancers.'

And gay/bisexual men, which means it probably won't be offered to men.

"i think it is down to money. and the fact that the HPV is more prevelant in Cervical cancer than any others."

You're right of course.

I doesn't make financial sense long-term though does it, if yo think about it? If they went all out to eradicate it, then long-term it would be cheaper.

If you don't eradicate it then we'll need to vacinate every new generation of girls.

Oh hold on - that's a good thing as far as the drug companies profits are concerned, isn't it?! Actually wiping it out would be bad for business, wouldn't it - so they'll harly be lobbying the decision makers to do that now will they?

But if you vaccinate most teenage girls, then it WILL be mostly eradicated, isn't that the point?

expat - You're right about gay men of course. Hopefully by eradicating/reducing infection among teenage girls then less teenage boys will be infected, and hopefully this will transfer to the gay population.

Is there and end goal to the vaccination program or are they just planned to go on forever I wonder?

I assume that if there are still people in society with HPV we'll still need to vaccinate, won't we?

'But if you vaccinate most teenage girls, then it WILL be mostly eradicated, isn't that the point?'

No, because the big transmitter was always the male, who is next to never aware he is carrying strains which can cause cancer.

And if you have 10% of the population of males who are never having sex with females, but only with males, who are still carrying the virus, you won't eradicate it and will instead see more and more of those males with throat cancer, which sadly isn't as easy to catch before it becomes cancerous, unlike cervical cancer.

Furthermore, these males having sex with men also increase their risk of anal cancer from HPV.

Because they went cheap on the vaccine, too, and ordered the one that you need three jabs for protection, you'll find more and more girls who are not immune to it, too.

It's not compulsory, either.

OK, forgive me for going in circles - why don't they give it to boys too then?

We could have a good go at eradicating it from the next generation on then.

If a teenage boy wants the vaccine, does he have to pay?

i saw a programe onthis before xmas,and it said that if you paid it would cost about£300-400 to vaccinate.