Gender in Cancer Science. Two quick points for discussion on a boring Friday afternoon.
It's been known for a while now that increased exercise decreases women's breast cancer risk. However, in the January 2007 edition of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (I'm sure everyone here has a subscription), a group of German researchers discovered that only household activity had a significant effect on breast cancer risk. Occupational and recreational exercise made absolutely no difference. The study looked at over 200,000 women of varying ages, demographics, and nationality, so it's hard to really argue with many of their methods. And, like many Epidemiology studies, don't really give an explanation as to why this could happen.
This whole thing seems fishy to me, as I don't see why mopping floors would have an different effect on the body, then say, walking up stairs. Maybe it's the cleaning product? And I'm not sure it has much to do with the male-dominated science industry -- the main author on the study is a woman.
On another note of issue is the recent news that Merck will stop lobbying for mandatory support of its new HPV vaccine, Gardasil. Human papillomavirus has many subtypes, but the sexually transmitted kind has been linked to cervical cancer. Merck seems to be afraid of the fundamentalist backlash -- getting this vaccine would, of course, only encourage young women to engage in promiscuous sex, as there would no longer be any reason not to. Never mind the fact that this may prevent nearly 7,000 women a year from getting cervical cancer (note: this is my own rough number, figuring % vaccine success and # of new cases/year).
Is there any reason I'm missing as to why you wouldn't you give your daughter an HPV vaccine? Why don't elected governmental representatives have the courage to stand up for what's right? If this was a vaccine for a male-dominated disease, would the government treat it differently? Though it's really unfair that increased sexually activity seems to diminish the prostate cancer risk. Girls get it rough sometimes.
12 comments:
Well, hey, if I didn't have to worry about that one particular venereal disease, I'd be having indisciminate sexin' all over the place. Obviously.
Indisciminate sex? Whatever that is, it sounds pretty hot.
Er . . . indiscriminate *everyone* has heard of. It's the indisciminate stuff you have to watch out for.
So the HPV shot thingy...I'm not down with the folks opposing it because they are afraid that it will encourage promiscuity (though I admit, after I got my tetanus shot, I ran around and stepped on rusty nails ALL DAY), but I am ok with it being an optional, yet highly recommended vaccination. I personally get every immunization offered (flu, meningitis, etc) even if it's not required, but since this is such a newly developed vaccine, I'd rather they make sure it doesn't have any significant unforseen complications that didn't show up on the mice/rats before making every young woman get one. I like having a choice.
Sure, you make a good point, KE. I'm no way advocating mandatory immunizations. People are well within their rights to get any disease they want. But are people within their rights to forbid their children from getting these vaccinations? I think we need to separate the vaccine from any kind of social stigma, else people will be reluctant to get it for fear of being cast as promiscuous.
Greg, thanks for writing this. Really. Now I have a better reason to vacuum AND I could just hug you for the shout out against parental stupidity.
Did you know that 80% of all college students have HPV? At least that's what it was when I was diagnosed. Yep. First year of grad school. And the OB-GYN told me that, you know, I didn't even have to have sex to get it and that no amount of condoms will help. Oh, and it only affects women. Nice.
I'll spare the details, but suffice to say, my future daughters will be getting the vaccine.
My kid sister, though, is waffling with the "Do I get it or do I wait" decision. She's with KE on the unproven-ness of the vaccine. I can see the argument. I can. I just don't think it crries much weight. Shoot me an email and I'm totally happy to tell anyone about the super fun treatment options you could avoid with a vaccine. Good times.
Down with social stigma! Protect thy cervix! You only get one.
what can I say that hasn't been said already?
vaccines are good and for the most part safe. I don't see why anyone wouldn't get one. children are gonna have sex no matter what we do, with or without the vaccine. When they're that young they think their indestructable. "That'll never happen to me." This is just one more way to help protect them against horrible diseases.
Oh yeah, totally agree about separating from the stigma, making sure kids can get it, etc. Interestingly, my mom (who I still can't watch R rated movies with, and who watches Bill O'Reilly nightly and has been a loyal subscriber of Focus on the Family) is encouraging my little sister to get it. There's hope in the world. If only everyone's flaming conservative Christian parents were as sensible as my mother (on this topic alone)...
I guess my argument against making it required is that it's not an airborne communicable disease. But that logic falls down when I think about the fact that tetanus is required, and it's sure as hell not contagious. I think they should make it required in a couple of years when they make sure it doesn't cause serious complications.
I don't know who this Katy person is, but her tetanus analogies are impeccable.
Out of curiosity, how do the rates of incidence for malignancy in the study compare to the general population? In the study, they appear to be ~1% for premenapausal and ~2% post. I haven't had to know this sort of stuff in a while.
Are you asking about the incidence of breast cancer in the general population? I'm totally not an expert in this field, but I took a quick look around and couldn't find anything substantial. Also, where did you find the 1%/2% numbers?
Yeah, my quick scan didn't turn up any general population numbers that weren't too general to compare to the study groups.
My percentages are based on the numbers of participants and malignancies for each group as listed in the methods section. They seemed low, but I may be remembering a larger percentage because it included benign cancers and false positives in mammography.
I haven't had to know any of this stuff in more than a year, though.
Post a Comment