Slashdot Mirror
Australia Set To 'Eliminate' Cervical Cancer By 2028 (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Australia is set to be the first country to eliminate cervical cancer, aided by its national vaccination and screening programs, says a new study. The country is on track to meet the threshold of four or less new cases per 100,000 women each year, effectively eliminating the cancer by 2028, finds the new study published Wednesday. The cancer could be classified as "rare" as early as 2022, meeting a threshold of six new cases per 100,000 and deaths due to the diseases are expected to decline to one new case per 100,000 women by 2034. But this is all contingent on Australia's high vaccination coverage and screening being maintained, write the study authors.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
An estimated 99.7% of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that spread though sexual intercourse and skin-to-skin contact around the genitals. In their new study, the researchers at Cancer Council NSW modeled data on HPV vaccination, natural history of the disease, and cervical screening to estimate the age-incidence of cervical cancer in Australia from 2015 to 2100. Currently, Australia reports seven cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 women, according to the study. As well as eliminating the disease within 20 years, the data showed that the annual incidence of cervical cancer will decrease and remain at fewer than one case per 100,000 women if screening for HPV every five years continues and as long as people have been offered the vaccine.
We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay? These are the same people who will enthusiastically vote for child molesters and men who admit to committing sexual assault because their helmet-haired preachers have told them they are "chosen".
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
https://www.thetrumpprophecymo...
You are welcome on my lawn.
but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine. We don't have single payer so we've got millions without healthcare. The numbers are higher than that stats since we define healthcare access as "having insurance" but lots can't afford to use the insurance they have.
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Don't you dare read the summary or anything!
HPV is a virus - that causes cancer.
A cancer virus.
Yes, HPV causes cancer of the cervix, vulva, and vagina.
But also cancers of the penis, throat, mouth, anus, prostate.
Men get HPV cancers too.
Penetrative sex is not required.
So HPV is a virus - that causes cancer - of the sex organs.
I wish they called it "Sex organ cancer virus."
Unlike ALL the other cancers, these cancers can be prevented with a single vaccine.
A cancer vaccine.
We are sexually active, and we both received the Gardasil-9 series.
Our insurance (KP) would NOT cover it. Said we were too old.
We went to Costco and paid out of pocket
3 shots in the series, about $220 each.
I hear cancer is expensive too.
It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix? I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
Since it is not to his personal benefit, but for the benefit of society at large perhaps it should be publicly funded? You know ... the way it is in Australia? Or would that be socialism?
not quite zero. Males can have issues caused by HPV as well.
HPV is a STI.
Immunizing both boys and girls stops the spread .
Perhaps his personal benefit is working toward not seeing a partner, family member or friend die of cancer?
Because you prevent him infecting his next GF or wife.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This costs next to nothing, and prevents a deadly form of cancer.
Sorry to burst your sad little troll bubble.
Exactly, 'for the greater good' is Actually a good argument (sometimes) for doing something. Especially when you can buy in bulk to drive down prices.
When the first vaccines were brought to market, there seemed to be a lot of questions surrounding the topic. It wasn't all that sure whether the presence of the HP virus was circumstancial... you know correlation versus causation. AND the vaccines seemed to sometimes have dire side-effects.
Does anyone know where science is standing on this topic? And I don't mean pharma. I mean science ;).
[T]he vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix
Well ... perhaps not zero benefit. He does have a throat I take it.
Which is in no way to disagree with your actual point, that this, and imo many other vaccines, ought to be freely available, where your argument should be irresistible.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
He does benefit. HPV can kill men, and men can spread the virus to women (I assume a living significant other is still regarded as a benefit).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why should it be way down the priority list? Because "sluts" or something? We're talking about a viral cancer that has a vaccine. Like other vaccination efforts, this is a sensible, efficient priority, and probably one of the best return rates for QALYs per AUD.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There's no evidence of dire side effects from vaccines, hyperactive immune systems can cause problems
HPV does cause cancer, that's the latest from science.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So were the young women being turned into vegetables mere media hype?
But, hey, who's gonna pay for it, amiright?
Indeed, you're right this mentality is problematic.
Cue in tons of citations from Margarett Tatcher about "running out of somebody's else monney".
Despite the fact that :
- there are several European countries here around which managed to have successful public healthcare, without being an enconomic shit-hole.
- the health domain is typically the situation where it will end up costing tons of money to these "somebody else"s in the long term if you don't spend a bit now in advance. (usually, prevention costs a lot less to the society than the actual handling of a disease. And that's at the society level. At the personal level it's even worse).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yes.
Want to sealion some more?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
And it would suck even more if your son had children with said future partner, and he is now a single parent and your grandchildren are motherless at a young age. Looks like decent benefits to me.
Putin won't be happy until the rest of the world has lower life expectancy than Russia.
HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.
Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.
"not quite"? Men get cancers from HPV as well. Men also suffer when family members get cancer. The OP is a fool.
...or BF or husband. Or preventing him from getting cancer from HPV given to him from his GF or wife...or BF or husband.
It should be obvious by now that this whole topic is rooted in sexism. The arguments for vaccinating boys are at least as strong as for girls.
We could do it in the US, but we've got evangelical so-called "christians" who refuse to give their kids the vaccine, because Jesus told them sex is bad, m'kay?
Correct but to be fair we also have the (mostly) granola munching anti-vax crowd who wrongly think that their kid will immediately become autistic if they vaccinate them. In both cases it is a result of individual freedom being foolishly prioritized over public and individual health.
but there are a ton of folks who can't afford the vaccine.
They don't need to be able to afford it. There are programs set up for exactly this issue. Cost is not an obstacle.
Literally, topic. You cannot eliminate certain type of cancer by eliminating one of the risk factors. The claim is patently absurd.
If I'm reading SB correctly, he's not saying "Why should I pay for this in any way", he's saying "Why shouldn't this be subsidized, so it's free for all, which I'll pay for through my taxes. Why should people have to pay for it directly when they may feel that it's no benefit to themselves to do so?" The first line of the post you're responding to says "This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
As an evangelical God worshipper, I fully support the HPV vaccine (and my children have been vaccinated for HPV and all other diseases as per the recommended schedule) and I don't support a lot of what Trump has done, nor did I vote for him.
As an atheist it's nice to see a religious person being rational about science.
I know, sample size of one and all, but we're not all anti-science.
We know that. It frustrates and confuses me why folks like yourself aren't as a group shouting down the crazy ones among you because I know you aren't alone. I genuinely don't care if an adult wants to worship privately and I'm fine with people having views that differ from my own. But when they start pretending that their fictional holy book should supersede empirical evidence or that their mythology has a place in the science classroom or in public health policy then we have a fight. I don't care what the bible says - it's not a basis for any rational discussion much less public policy about science.
You are also welcome on my lawn. Sorry some of my fellow Christians have behaved so poorly.
Likewise. What I'm puzzled by is how many self proclaimed "values voters" among the religious right shamelessly dumped any pretense at morality by voting for Trump. Trump is a guy who is a near embodiment of many of the sorts of values they claim to hate (lying, philandering, etc) and yet a shocking number of them are among his most enthusiastic supporters. I get that they didn't like Clinton but how Trump ever won the republican party nomination with the support of so many of these hypocrites will probably forever elude me.
You just proved my point: those who want child support use the exact same arguments and reasoning as those who want to force women to carry parental responsibilities they didn't want for 9 months. In this case, the "keep your legs crossed" if you don't want the consequences canard, which applies to women as well as men.
It isn't 9 months of responsibility. It's 18 YEARS of responsibility and mothers and fathers should share that equally since they were both required in the process. If the woman has to raise and deal with the kid (wanted or not) then so should the father in some capacity. If you don't think the father should have to support the child until it is grown then you are de-facto making an argument that women should be allow to abort the fetus to get away from the responsibility too.
If the child is the result of rape by a man then the father should be required to financially support the child but have no visitation rights without the consent of the mother.
And there are a multitude of folks who would want to adopt those "unwanted children". So abortion also affects a people.
Several problems with that argument.
1) The people who allegedly might adopt those children don't have to endure the pregnancy and risks that come with it
2) Very few people who are supposedly against abortion are actually willing to adopt a child to save it from an abortion
3) There are already no lack of children in need of adoption so it's hard to argue we should be making more children
4) A woman should have the right to control her reproductive systems just like any other part of her body at all times. Another person's desire to raise a child should not change that fact.
... Cancer treatments rarely improve quality of health and they typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
People who are live many years after successful cancer treatment would disagree about your dismissal of their years of life. In 1950 the 5 year survival rate of someone with a cancer diagnosis was 35%, now it is 70%. But you might have a bit of a point about the high cost of many cancer treatments.
There is no moral or fiscal reason to cure or prevent cancer.
Which is why your screed against preventing cancer is such a grotesque logical fail.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Or to consult a site that actually discusses genuine epidemiology, you find that there is no evidence of an elevated risk of death from the vaccine at all. As in - not even a tiny bit.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf...
The anti-vax site the Coward links to simply cites raw reports. People die sometimes, lots of reasons. Lots of people get vaccinated. They also do lots of other things for the first time. Some of these people will later die, lots of reasons. That does not mean the vaccination, of any of the other first time things they did, contributed to their death. You do controlled studies to tell the difference.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
You mean it is really strange how hard it is to type in "how is a vaccine made" in Google? I did and the first article listed described seven different methods in use for different types of vaccines. Google. Try it some time.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Yip. Total fabrication. And scientists have studied this, too.
You can make up your own mind, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Doubt it happens much, if at all.
Hyperactive autoimmune disorders do, and they're mostly caused by ultra-sterile conditions, unhealthy foods and unhealthy environments.
Fix those and vaccine "safety" will reach new levels.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The data shows otherwise.
Ultimately, if you stay otherwise healthy, you will die from either cancer or exhaustion of stem cells.
The latter occurs at age 120.
So eliminating cancer raises the average life expectancy to 100.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Nobody has died from the vaccine.
Thousands have died from anti-vaxxer propaganda.
I want those responsible in court. Since they knew the effect and knew there was no risk from vaccines, second degree murder seems appropriate.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Many ways to make vaccines.
The oldest was blood taken from people with related diseases.
Current methods use animals with similar immune systems, or deactivated pathogens.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You mean they "iced" them?
Those same strains of HPV are linked to other cancers that affect men. But a vaccine against ass cancer isn't marketable.
They only did a half hearted attempt to show it could benefit males after they faced opposition to the campaigns they were backing that would have required all school all girls to get the vaccine. One attack angle against these campaigns was going to be that the laws requiring girls to get vaccinated are sexist. So they said "Fuck it, vaccinate boys too here's a half-assed study also we knew about the potential benefits ages ago but didn't think it would sell.". They spent more time on political and media campaigns than they did on anything else. I can still hear the girls chanting "One less, one less. I'm gonna be one less." as they jump rope in an obnoxious commercial.
I don't know what became of the various efforts to require the vaccine for school kids in the US. I hope they failed. This was one of the most blatant and obvious attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to write their own profits into law.
The OP is a fool, a well known one here on Slashdot. But in this case it's not his fault. The vaccine was marketed only as helping females. Because that's what sells. They knew it could help males from many similar cancers caused by the same strains of HPV, but they barely explored it and sure as hell didn't market it.
They first ran ad campaigns yanking at people's heartstrings and accusing people of being bad parents if they didn't get their girls this one vaccine against certain strains of HPV which have been linked to higher rates of certain cervical cancers. Then they funded tons of efforts to require all school age girls to get the vaccine. Challengers stepped forward and were going to use, as one angle of attack, the fact that such laws would be sexist. Then they trotted out some basic info about the vaccine being safe for males, and switched their push to requiring all school age children, males and females, to be vaccinated.
Did they market the fact that they knew it had the same potential benefits for males? No, they marketed it as being the responsibility of boys to get vaccinated to protect girls.
Or, maybe he could not fuck people with HPV, never get HPV, and never spread HPV?
You can't win a moral crusade about STDs without addressing how they spread. We could wipe out nearly all STDs in a generation if people would just act responsibly. They can't do this for their OWN protection, how are you going to expect them to do it for the protection of others?
Yes, but unlike your fictional standards of responsibility, which incidentally, the religious authoritarians generally have the LEAST of, these vaccines exist in the real world. Humans are animals. Animals have sex. Get the fuck over it.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You *can not* know whether the person you're fucking has HPV. It's not detectable with a convenient blood test like HIV. The *only* way to be sure is to have that person vaccinated in their childhood before they became sexually active.
Months. If the mother gives the child up for adoption, her responsibility is measured in months, and if she has an abortion it's measured in weeks. Both of which she can do without the father's knowledge or consent.
When it comes to unwanted children, women have rights and choices, but men only have responsibilities. And that's sexist AF.
No. Its biology. Women carry children in their bodies, men do not. Cold hard science, folks.
HOWEVER!!!! Theres a way out! Take responsibility for your actions!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I'm not super knowledgeable on this but...
Socially beneficial policies driven by a democratically elected government that taxes the income from the workers in the free market economy does not equal socialism. I.e. publicly funded health initiatives does not equal socialism.
It is so far away from socialism it's not even worth putting them in the same sentence.
Which is a non-sequitur on the subject of child support and terminating parental rights.
Which is the exact argument pro-life people make - congrats on going back to square one.