1 in 4 American women infected with virus that can cause cervical cancer





CHICAGO (AP) - One in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with the sexually transmitted virus that in some forms can cause cervical cancer, according to the first broad national estimate.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070227/health/health_cervical_cancer_virus


hummm questions

Why is the study just on U.S. women?? what about the other countries?? are the women of other countries immune to the HPV virus.. are women less promiscuis in other countries?


I get the impression that this underlaying claim is saying "Beware U.S. women are a danger to ones health" " Ban all relationships with U.S. women ages 14 to 59

Expect to see more of these types of "studies", as they are trying to make gardasil a mandatory immunization for school aged girls.

I beleive Texas, and one other state (I can't remember which now) are trying to make it mandatory.Others will soon follow, I'm sure.

More hype and BS, all courtesy of big pharma, to push more of their products.

These reports have two benefits:
1. More women will go to be tested/treated generating more revenue for the doctors.

2. How many women develope the cancer vs the number who can be vacinated against it?

Win Win for the medical community.

Bingo, Bruce.

Bump

Ditto - Bingo

quote:

Originally posted by 383rr:
Expect to see more of these types of "studies", as they are trying to make gardasil a mandatory immunization for school aged girls.

I beleive Texas, and one other state (I can't remember which now) are trying to make it mandatory.Others will soon follow, I'm sure.



More hype and BS, all courtesy of big pharma, to push more of their products.

I think the Other state is Virginia. (how appropriate)...

If Washington State tries to pull this crap, I WILL be protesting!!!

From what I understand there are SEVERAL forms of HPV that cause cervical cancer.

This vaccine only protects against one.

Anyone notice is appears ONLY MEN are pushing for the vaccine???

From what I have read they are in the process of developing the vaccine for males.
The other state pushing hard for this is Michigan. I forget the Governors name but she is a Hillary Clinton clone.

quote:

Originally posted by nemo31:
From what I have read they are in the process of developing the vaccine for males.

A vaccine for males? Cervical cancer? LOL

The gov of Meechegan's name is Jennifer Granholm-other wise known as Jenny Grandstand, Jenny Granhole, Jivin' Jen, Socialist Jen, Jenny Penny, Hillary Grandstand-there are about a dozen nicknames for her. Once her 2nd term is up and she can't run again, she'll pull a RHINOvich and be in the Michigan house or senate for life-watch and see. She's even WORSE than Hillary! in my book, since she's from Canada. She's already stated when she ran for re-election that she's chafing at the bit to sign a statewide smoker ban into law before she leaves the governor's mansion.

You all have to remember a little bit of American history. In the mid-19th Century as the American Medical Association was forming as an income protection mechanism for the small number of MD's extant back then, the focus was on women's health.

The newborn AMA wanted to get midwives out of the business. The association had a good reason: women's ob/gyn needs made them a cash cow. Of course, the crass profit motive was covered by oozing rhetoric about concern for women's health and the unsuitablity of "unscientific" midwives. Not surprisingly, the rate of death from delivery complications rose year to year as the docs replaced the midwives.

As an interesting sidebar note: historically every anti smoking campaign in US history since the 1870s has coincided with changes in the status and behavior of women. Could say more on this and will if anyone is interested.

quote:

Could say more on this and will if anyone is interested.

Sounds interesting to me.

yeah I want to hear what you got to say on the matter Drybones..

Well, it sounds like we are all interested. Please tell us.

OK, you all asked. So, I'll go ahead and bloviate a bit, trying hard to forget that I was a professor used to taking five thousand words to state my name. I'll leave out the footnotes and guarantee that all this won't be on the mid-term.

In the late 1870's the well-bred, properly raised American woman of the middle or upper classes was supposed to swoon at the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke. Aversion to smoke and smoking were class markers, separating the "true American lady" from women who presumably were neither truely American or ladies because they not only tolerated the smell of the foul weed, but indulged themselves. (You may shiver with horror.)

In the 1880's a rapid shift started in the US involving technology, new forms of business organisation, mass immigration and a flood of folks from small towns and farms into the cities. Within this set of rapid and dislocating changes in American society, another seemingly small one was hidden.

At this time, only 125 years ago, all male space in the US was defined by tobacco smoke: saloons, clubs, sporting arenas, legislative assemblies, you name it; if it was a place for the guys, it was smoke filled. Just the way men liked it, a place of their own, marked by a stench that was guaranteed to keep the fair, weak sex at bay. Then an unexpected thing happened: women invaded male space.

Space precludes my discussing all the reasons, but the bottom line is clear: young women came to the cities not only because of the new employment opportunities but also because the cities provided opportunities for personal freedom (and fun) denied in the tank towns and whistle stops from which most came, but with the annonymity necessary to enjoy themselves. Badda-bing, badda-bang, the girls invaded boys' club space,and, worse, took up smoking.

A review of newspapers (and sermon collections) shows an immediate reaction. It wasn't positive. In quick order, denunciations of this wanton, lewd female behavor were followed by municiple ordinances banning it. In some cities, such as New York, the laws regarding prostitution were interpreted so that a woman smoking in public could be (and was) arrested as a common whore. (Hey, it was their term, not mine. I simply report.)

From this beginning the anti woman movement grew, still focusing on smoking until states passed laws prohibiting the sale or possession of cigarettes. Not chewing tobacco, not cigars, not pipes. These were male preserves and so ignored by the law. Indiana's law was so broad and so well enforced that passengers on trains crossing the Hoosier state were told that they were liable to arrest if they lit a cigarette until safely across the stateline.

The justification for these laws? Indiana, Kansas and other locations used the same approach: Protection of the health and morals of women and children. Reading the records of debate one sees never ending and somewhat nauseating praise for the delicate American woman, the custodian of morals and gentleness, alternating with overblown denunciations of this paragon of virtue allowing herself to be debased by smoking and subsequently frequenting "low haunts."

The reality behind the laws was quite different. Men were both disturbed and angered by the shift in gender roles which continued into the opening years of the 20th century as women increasingly entered the workforce, agitated for the vote and sought to take control of their reproductive destiny. In addition, many guys were offended by having gender specific space denied by the new assertive woman.

President Theodore Roosevelt's eldest daughter, Alice, became an icon for the debate over the "new woman" when she lit a cigarette following a banquet. More than 1200 newspapers thundered editorially against Alice's outrage. I can't even estimate the number of sermons and other diatribes directed at her and her father who admitted to the press, "I can't be President and be responsible for Alice all at the same time."

Through WW I states and cities singled out woman as the target for anti-smoking measures ranging from medical warnings regarding deformed children, difficulties in menstration and split ends. (The last isn't true as far as I know, but I'm still researching. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up.)

After the war, women, particularly young ones, took to smoking in a significant way. It is interesting to see how often female smoking was linked with alcohol in the campaigns to establish national prohibition.

I suppose women were happy to have their smoking ignored as the nation entered the Noble Experiment which is the central feature of the Roaring Twenties. Still, it is worth mentioning how women who smoked were portrayed in the movies of the 20s and 30s. To put it simply: Only bad girlssmoked whether man-killing vamps such as Gloria Swanson or fallen women or villanesses such as Gale Sondergaard. (Movies always use imagry that fits prejudices, preconceptions and fears.)

The Second World War saw necessary changes in the roles of women. It was the necessity of wartime which spared them another anti-smoking campaign but it was a near run thing. Campaigns started but died quickly, under the pressure of war. Nonetheless, Washington bureaucrats considered using rationing to deny cigarettes to women with the reasoning that smoking caused lost productivity by Rosie the Riveter and might result in lose sexual mores as well as unhealthy babies. (At least some of their arguments have been rehearsed and expanded on by contemporary antis.)

Now we're up to almost modern times: The Sixties. Importantly, as smoking in the US hit its highwater mark in the first half of the decade one critical factor is often ignored. In the demograpic slice, males and females aged 15 to 25 from urban and suburban areas, the sex ratio was equal at just over sixty-five percent who smoked.

Behavorial equalty with this group was reflected not only in smoking but in sexual matters. Had this been the end of equality, it is quite possible that the anti-smoking crusade of the past thirty years would either have not happened or would not have happened so fast and hard.

But the move to equality didn't end with sex and the after lovin' cigarette. Women's Liberation came to the forefront of American consciousness in the period 1968 to 1973. Go back to the Congressional Record and consider the remarks made by the Honorables regarding the ban of cigarette ads on TV. A surprisingly high number single out women smoking and the failure of smoking mothers to protect their children against the foul habit as the reason the ban was needed. Some viewed with alarm the future of mothers working (and puffing) while the kids sat at home staring at TV huckstering cigarettes. Some even seemed to harken back to the good ole days when a man could go to his club, bar or what have you and enjoy a cigar free of female presence.

Because my rebuilt hands are getting more than a little tired, I'll wrap this puppy up fast. If a person puts together two time serated graphs, one detailing the legislative, judical and social triumphs of female equality in the areas of employment, politics and so on and the other tracking the growth of the antismoking effort, the second trails behind the first by somewhere between six and twelve months.

On the graphs one set of changes seems to be particularly critical: the required opening of the last preserve of male space, private men's clubs to women.

Whoa! you say. No way a guy will deny himself something he enjoys, like smoking, to play out some backlash fantasy. Wish it was that easy, folks, but men have shot themselves in the foot before. I mention only prohibition. Men cheerfully voted to deny themselves booze at the country club or corner saloon to, as the record shows again and again, "protect the health and moral welfare of women."

An anthropologist or social psychologist might point out that men are more likely to fret over health, accept the Voice of Authority, and follow rules. A cynic, which is to say a historian, might add that men make the rules and feel free to choose how to break them.

You are all familiar with how often "science" is used to show that smoking has particularly complex and disasterous consequences for women and children. Except for details, all of these have been advanced before. Every time they have been brought forward to justify the demonizing of smoking, it has been at a time of change in the status of women.

The same pattern can be seen in other countries. That's it. My right hand is shot to hell. I'll be happy to take on questions or offer details if anyone wants.

(The foregoing has been reviewed by my significant other (a woman) who says, "Send it! I think you've got it right.)

You said that modern times as being started in the 60's, and then the 70's for the women's movement when all the smoking stuff started. Well that means this has been going on for about 40 years. Why that long to start the banning? What do you think the catalyst is or was for the bans? A woman running for President?
I find your essay thought-provoking, to say the least.

Ladyteal et al, the answer to your question would take me a darn long time, if I gave all the details, the historically derived dynamics of political movements, including institutional pressures, sources of money and access to media etc. I can give a quick response which accurately reflects the gist, from the almost modern times of the Sixties forward.

Historical trajectories such as the move to ban smoking (at least cigarettes) develop slowly at first as inchoate opinion is coalesced. In large measure this depends on the social political context surrounding the agenda at the center of the emerging political-social movement. Regarding your concern, it took the success of the female liberation agenda of the '70s which has culminated in recent years. It also took the increasing medicalization of American society which grew during the 80s and 90s.

Finally the interaction of context and cause (kill the cigarette before the smoker kills us) required the aging of individuals constituting Generation Nine, Cohort One. (That's the first half of the nineth generation of Americans born since the Declaration of Independence) This group born between 1941 and 1952 formed the leadership of every social-political movement during and after the Sixties. They can be characterized as dour idealists raised to slay the Communist Dragon and make the world a better place.

Now Generation Nine (particularly the men) runs the national show. They collectively regret many things, the failures of the Sixties, the casual use of drugs, the equally casual use of sex, even the "revolutions" that succeeded including the move of women from the kitchen to the boardroom.

The place where medicalization, previous antipathy or guilt regarding personal gratification, (for which smoking is a fine epitomization)and the fear that the grim reaper is breathing down one's neck come together is the BAN.

Now, link in the persistant, back brain nagging felt by many (but certainly not all)men that the whole feminist thing has gone "too damn far!" and banning the noxious weed becomes a very attractive way of doing good, protecting one's own existence and striking back all at once.

What history suggests with great power is that political-social dynamics are never as simple as they appear to be

Mere vested interests such as humongous pharma or the health care industry cannot pull off a sea change in behavor. Even with the assistance of zealous individuals the sea of belief and behavior won't shift. The addition of politicians looking for an issue which gives government the appearance of being able to DO something will not change the tide.

For a major change to occur, a critical mass of motivated people with access to the levers of power is required. Gen IX gives that force multiplier. The long standing linkage of smoking to other changes in female status and roles provided an unarticulated roadmap, a streambed in our history to guide the effort.

Bet you're glad I gave the short answer. Historians and their subject alike tend to take a lot of words.

Oh, yes, a woman member of Gen IX seeking the presidency after nearly twenty years of controversial notoriety gives oxygen to the fire.

Not pretty, but the hidden motives, the ghosts in the machine of history, never are.

drybones..I assume you are a male ...

your posts are very thought provoking seams from the histroy of what you posted that we as a nation are on another wave, train ride, weather society finds a way to head off the train wreck these ban-addicts, leftist ect may pull it off.

it just feels really intense all the anti's propaganda flooding the news, all the brain washing , what gets me is a grater part of the mass population is being herded like sheep to slaughter..

I'm just cofused by all this. I've always thought that almost (but not quite) everything could have a simple answer. I personally think it all started out because some people didn't like the smell,and turned into the cash cow that it is today, but that's just me.