of no fixed subtitle
February 01, 2008
Theories of cancer
- On the purposeful hiding of environmental factors in cancer.
16 years ago
Fascinating! Although, not as surprising as I wish it were.
No, sadly believable.
What an experiment on a global scale has been developing since the 18th century. Despite tests and safety measures, it's only after they have affected the population that the real effect and cost of procedures and advances in chemistry and manufacturing are evident. But I hope more rigourous guidelines can help reduce those past mistakes... mmmh, anyone for a
Sorry, I know damn well there are many, many links to cancer, even if the government/health industry won't acknowledge it. The Trinity test, Titusville coal mines, Love Canal, Agent Orange, Hanford downwinder plume, US Ecology Idaho
formerly Envirosafe--weasel words in naming to hide the fact they're storing nuclear waste in porous lava rock 3 miles from the Snake River (hello Portland, via the Columbia)
These six environmental cancer causers, in particular, have affected people close to me. No link? Bullshit. Flags, it may well be genetically engineered food is absolutely safe to eat--after all, would Monsanto et al LIE to us? It will be a looooong time before you see cloned meats on the market simply because of the cost factor, but your Flavr Savr tomatoes and
Taco Bell corn tortillas
are already here. Forget the beef,
What the f* happened to our
RIGHT to know?
Went the way of all these other rights and freedoms Bush is so busy protecting, eh? Looks like the only rights belong, once again, to Big Business.
Not to dismiss environmental causes, but don't overlook
. A lot of people are starting to suspect that virususes may be the root cause of many forms of cancer.
My cancer was shown to be genetic, but I grew up in an area with a lot of industrial waste in the water and a lot of agricultural pesticides being sprayed. Oh, and a lot of cancer.
My favourite great-uncle's death was cancer linked to asbestos, to which he was exposed while in the RNZ Navy in the '50s. TUM, did Ms Brokovich come to your town? mechagrue, it's fairly common knowledge now that the herpes virus is a contributing factor to some forms of cervical cancer, isn't it? I've heard it in many places now, and hopefully heard correctly.
HPV is a known cause of cervical cancer, yes. But as far as I know, that's the only type of cancer that's been explicitly linked to viral activity. So yeah, if you haven't been inoculated for HPV, it's strongly recommended (at least over here) that you do.
Have to be young enough to get it done, MCT. I believe the cutoff point is something like 25.
Are you calling tracicle OLD? *puts up dukes*
They reccomend it be done for maximum effect on girls 11-12 years old.
US Centers for Disease Control
: * The HPV vaccine is recommended for 11-12 year-old girls, but can be administered to girls as young as 9 years of age. The vaccine also is recommended for 13-26 year-old females who have not yet received or completed the vaccine series. * Ideally, the vaccine should be administered before onset of sexual activity. However, females who are sexually active also may benefit from vaccination. Females who have not been infected with any vaccine HPV type would receive the full benefit of vaccination. Females who already have been infected with one or more HPV type would still get protection from the vaccine types they have not acquired. Few young women are infected with all four HPV types in the vaccine. Currently, there is no test available for clinical use to determine whether a female has had any or all of the four HPV types in the vaccine.
HPV != herpes HPV stands for human papillomavirus. There are over 100 known HPV genomes, 18 of which are currently associated with cervical cancer, and 6 of which are associated with genital warts. HPV is a slow-evolving virus, unlike the flu or HIV, so there is no need to develop a new vaccine every year. Some 80% of 25-35 year olds have been infected with HPV - however, the vast majority of infections are cleared by the body and cause no symptoms or long-term risk of harm. Even if you get one of the risky types - HPV-16 for instance - you are unlikely to get cervical cancer. And there are a bunch of companies working on detection screens, so clinical testing for HPV type is not far off.
Sorry, yentruoc. I thought mct's post already clarified that it was HPV, not herpes, that was responsible for cervical cancer. Didn't mean to seem to be confirming misinformation.
While visiting the U.S. some years back, I saw a decent documentary on a PBS station about the chemical industry in some town in, I think, Texas. The documentarian had survived some sort of fallopian tube illness (cancer?) in her 20s and was trying to follow up on environmental factors. Her presentation was devastating - whatever the area was (I don't know the U.S. very well), it had something like 10X the normal rates for a whole range of tumours. It was also a big big chemical town, to the extent that they weren't just the backbone of the economy, but probably the backbone and the digestive system.
Oops. Thanks for the clarification, yentruoc. I always had conflated the two.
From what I've read, if you're over 25, and even if you've already had cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine can help you. However, the FDA only approved it for women under 25, because that's who it was studied with, so most insurance companies won't pay for it if you're over 25. Also, the vaccine is so expensive that many doctor's offices won't carry it in stock. (My mom works for a large family practice, and they don't carry it because the vaccine costs a lot -- over 100 dollars a dose -- and I don't think the shelf life is very long. She also claims that the demand is low where they are, especially since they don't see children.) So, if you're over 25 and want the vaccine, you have to 1) Pay probably upwards of $300 2) Get a prescription for the shot from your doctor and pick it up yourself at the pharmacy, then 3) Take it to the doctor for the shot 4) Repeat 2 more times Still, I think it's a good idea to be vaccinated.
Oh -- I think the $300 figure that I've heard is for all 3 doses, but math and I are bitter enemies so I could be wrong, here.
Interesting, M, I hadn't heard that. Once again, insurance companies are proving that they have our best interests at heart... and that health care is for the rich. Wouldn't you think PREVENTION would be the best game in town?
Well, prevention doesn't make as much money as treatment.
But the flip side is that prevention doesn't COST as much as treatment... preventative medicine is good medicine. My knowledge on cancer is limited to animals. There are a number of cancers definitely caused by viruses (usually retroviruses, like Feline Leukaemia Virus, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, and Enzootic Bovine Leukosis, which mess directly with DNA); genes do play a huge roll, with certain types or breeds of animal overrepresented for some cancers. In terms of identifying environmental /nutritional causes, I think we're in the dark ages.
A run-down on the issue of parabens and phthalates in cosmetics products
. A surprisingly gripping account of the phthalate/cancer link, grassroots action against cosmetics companies, and the cosmetics companies' responses. Also includes a comprehensive and knowledgeable summary of the paraben issue. (Article reprinted from The Ottawa Citizen.)
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
The panel's advice was not to eat meat cooked well done? Not to microwave in plastic? Not to drink water from clear plastic bottles? Not to wash work clothes with regular clothes, nor to walk into the house with work boots? :( *Rx = full spectrum life change*