HPV and Cancer: maybe there's hope

[danaeris]

I guess this is a quick heads up to everyone, since joedecker posted about it today...

My research into HPV for the article I keep on saying I'll write has yielded the following preliminary information:
(1) HPV is the cause of cervical cancer
(2) Some strains can also lead to penile or vulval cancer, though the causal link is not as strong here
(3) Strains 16 and 18 (the ones that the two HPV vaccines innoculate against) are also looking like the leading causes of certain types of anal cancer, as well as having a link to perianal skin cancer (i.e. skin cancer in the region around the anus)
(4) Strain 16 is looking like the leading cause of certain types of throat/oral cancer, closely following drinking alcohol and smoking

However, it also occurred to me today...

U of Alberta is supposedly starting human trials of DCA for curing cancer this spring, and hopes to complete them by the end of the year. If they indeed turn out to have a cure for cancer... Then all this will be for naught. It won't matter if you get HPV, because you'll just take some DCA and the cancer will go away.

And DCA is super cheap. Unlike the vaccines.

I guess we'll see.

Comments

Vaccinations versus cures

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

In general, I'd favor a vaccination over a cure even when the cure was available.

What if your doctor fails to detect the cancer, or misdiagnoses it? (IIRC some of these cancers can be pretty far advanced before someone notices...)

What if you get sick when you're travelling in outer mongolia, where they don't have the cure avaialble?

What if there are shortages of the cure, or it turns out to be expensive or have side effects? Lots of people have started trials of assorted cancer cures which have turned out not to be nearly as good in practice as they had looked in stage 1 trials.

Not being sick at all is far preferable to getting sick and then being cured...

Re: Vaccinations versus cures

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Of course. And normally we say that vaccination is cheaper than treatment. That isn't true in this case; the HPV vaccines are hella expensive and the DCA is very cheap.

From an ideal point of view, vaccination is preferred. But some people might not be able to afford the vaccine. Or they might already have a strain of HPV that isn't covered by the vaccine. Knowing that there's a cure if they do transmit HPV to someone else is likely to be comforting, and make it less likely that they will be excluded from certain acts of intimacy.

Re: Vaccinations versus cures

[secretsoflife.livejournal.com]

i'm taking a risk-management view on this one rather than a cost-benefit one: if you get the vaccine, there can be some side effects. if you get cancer, and DCS doesn't cure it or it doesn't get caught or it metastasizes or /whatever/, you can die. therefore i have 3 vials of gardasil in my fridge.

[garden_hoe21]

Doesn't HPV have a lot of other bullshit symptoms other than causing cancer? I mean, it does cause genital warts after all, and I would assume the garden variety itching, burning piss, etc.

[secretsoflife.livejournal.com]

the strains which cause cancer are different from the ones which cause warts. the vaccine on the market vaccinates against 2 wart-causing and 2 -cancer-causing strains.

Gardasil

[msseven.livejournal.com]

Actually the current HPV vaccine (Gardasil) protects you against 4 strains of HPV. Two of them are high risk which cause cervical cancer(16 & 18) and two of them are low risk which cause genital warts (6 & 11).

"HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and HPV Types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases." (www.gardasil.com)

So although you are not protected from the 100+ different strains of HPV you are protected against the ones that are responsible for the majority of infections.

The low risk HPV's cause symptoms such as genital warts but the high risk ones don't have any symptoms. At least none that I know of.

If caught early on, there is no reason why women with high risk HPV should develop cervical cancer. There are a number of treatments available including laser treatment and biopsy. As long as a woman is being monitored on a regular basis by a specialist there is a low risk of developing full blown cervical cancer.

[vsbooklady.livejournal.com]

In the US this argument doesn't work as well, since many people here can't afford to regularly see a doctor. Giving an HPV vaccine to teenage girls in low-income neighborhoods is far more likely to be useful than hoping they'll be diagnosed early on.

Re: Gardasil

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Tell me something I don't know.

Re: Gardasil

[msseven.livejournal.com]

"(3) Strains 16 and 18 (the ones that the two HPV vaccines innoculate against)"

I just found this statement a little misleading and wanted to clear up the fact that the vaccines do protect against more than just strains 16 and 18.

That's all, no need to get snippy at me.

[vsbooklady.livejournal.com]

...not that the US gov't gives a damn about teenage girls in low-income neighborhoods except to give them abstinence education.

[tocityguy.livejournal.com]

Are you saying 100% of all cervical cancer is caused by HPV? I just want to make that clear.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Yup. I believe that is the current medical understanding.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Just checked... I think it's something like 95.something % of cases of cervical cancer being caused by a known HPV type. But oddly, a lot of the more recent medical literature reads as though HPV IS the cause of cervical cancer. So I'm not sure what to make of the remaining <5%.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

(1) HPV is the cause of cervical cancer

Are you sure about that? I know that it greatly increases one's chances of getting cervical cancer, but I thought it was neither a necessary (it's still possible to get cervical cancer without HPV, no?) or sufficient (not all HPV 16 and 18 suffers develop cancer) condition. I'm possibly wrong though, but I'd be happy if you could confirm.

Then all this will be for naught. It won't matter if you get HPV, because you'll just take some DCA and the cancer will go away.

Yeah, but you'll still have HPV. Ideally, it's better to be vaccinated than not, especially as a 100% effective cure for cancer isn't coming out next week.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

First: yes, the current medical understanding, as I understand it, is that all cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

Second: DCA is being billed as an actual cure for cancer. And it cannot be patented so it is cheap. And it is already well-proven to be safe with little to no side effects. And U of Alberta is CLAIMING that they will complete their human trials on using it to cure cancer by the end of this year. We'll see. That's not next week, but it's pretty damn soon.

And, don't forget that DCA will cure all cervical cancers that you develop, if it turns out to work. The vaccine, on the other hand, supposedly only eliminates the two strains of HPV which normally cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Just checked... I think it's something like 95.something % of cases of cervical cancer being caused by a known HPV type. But oddly, a lot of the more recent medical literature reads as though HPV IS the cause of cervical cancer. So I'm not sure what to make of the remaining <5%.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Interesting... thanks!