"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.

Expat...how can a vaccination possibly be compulsory?

Thanks crazypanda. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody doesn't take this to some kind of court for sexual discrimination. Which it is.

well, it can't be, abbie, that's why some won't take it up and the disease won't be eradicated, especially when it's still doing fine transmission-wise in the male population.

yep,this country is going down the pan,we'll have to pay to breath next,you'll see.

Exactly, that's why I thought it an odd point to make!

nite,nite,time for aand bed.

expat - I wasn't aware of that tbh..

Can you tell me how many boys will take the vaccine if they know it is to stop them from transmitting HPV via oral sex with boys - No teenage boy in high school would ever agree, and if they did they would get bullied!

dj - if it was a jab for all teenagers at a certain age then anyone who didn't partake would be the odd one out wouldn't he?

Interesting to see this as I have been thinking of getting a private vaccination of Gardasil for my ds (and eventually my dd) at 13/14.

Unlike Cervarix it has some protection against genital warts too so would be beneficial with both male and female partners.

Re the eradication thing it would need to be global, just doing it here wouldn't work as the next unvaccinated generation would just pick it up again.

I think some people are missing the point. This is a virus that can be transmitted by men or women, by the male or female version of oral sex.

the study's authors said men should be vaccinated - or at least discuss it with their GPs.

Afaik, the only benefit that is aimed from the current vaccination programme is lowering the rate of cervical cancer. Therefore the cost of treating cervical cancer, and presumably in the future of lessening the cost of screening programmes of cervical cancer. I don't think the aim is to wipe out the forms of HPV which are being vaccinated against.

It's just a cost exercise.

"Can you tell me how many boys will take the vaccine if they know it is to stop them from transmitting HPV via oral sex with boys - No teenage boy in high school would ever agree, and if they did they would get bullied!"

But it's to stop them giving it to women too.

"I don't think the aim is to wipe out the forms of HPV which are being vaccinated against." It's a shame it isn't. That would cost less in the long run - in terms of suffering and cash. But it wouldn't suit the drugs companies - more money to be made from something you have to keep on doing of course!

Also we think of budgets in short term cycles like a year / 5 years etc. Is this true in the health service I wonder? If so probably it's not the best recipe for long-term health improvements in society.