'Baby boomers' hit by sex cancers

[WRellim]

Some of you may recall my posts a while back concerning cancers, and the fact that many of them are caused by sexually (or intimate contact) transmitted viruses; and that as awareness of this is finally starting to take place in the medical community, we would begin to see stories and scientific articles about an "epidemic" of cancers caused by various STD's and other viruses. (Background: Viral causes of cancer were known & proven nearly a century ago, with significant research up to the 1950's -- but which was abandoned because of political & ideological reasons [think: advocates of "free sex"] and government funding changing the focus of cancer research from the 1960's onward to "other" environmental and genetic "causes" and "risk factors" despite their utter ambiguity.)

Anyway, just ran across this interesting article on the BBC website:
'Baby boomers' hit by sex cancers

The arrival of the "swinging sixties" may have heralded a rise in sexually-transmitted cancers, say researchers.

Rates of anal, vulval and vaginal cancers rose for "baby boomers" born in the decades after the Second World War.

The culprit, said the King's College London study, is the human papillomavirus (HPV), acquired during sex.

Changes in sexual habits may be responsible, the British Journal of Cancer reported.

[more... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7867884.stm ]


Note that the above is only discussing one virus, HPV (and really only one strain of that virus, the HPV-16 strain typically known for causing cervical cancer, but now indicted for oral and other cancers as well.)

Other viral causes of cancers include HTLV, Epstein-Barr (aka mononucleosis), Hepatitis B & C, and several others.

Again, you can expect to be reading more and more stories about a variety of previously "rare" cancers becoming more commonly diagnosed -- and perhaps most significantly that they ARE linked to transmissible (and therefore avoidable) viral infections.

If you are sexually "active" with even ONE partner, are young, or have children who are entering their teen years -- do NOT count on learning ANY of this from their school "health" classes -- you NEED to have the child themselves (and/or yourself) research and understand this (LetMeGoogleThatForYou (http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=sexually-transmitted+cancers)) -- such viruses can be transmitted w/o intercourse -- any "intimate" contact that where bodily fluids [yes, even saliva] can transmit them (hint: mono is the "kissing disease" -- yet can cause several types of cancers, which may not be revealed for decades after infection.)

[angelatc]

OK, how many people here are reading this going "Uh oh...." :)

[Truth Warrior]

And the virus shall inherit the Earth.

Next experiment. ;)

[angelatc]

I used to think of myself as a Republican, but when I read stuff like this I realize I had probably misnamed myself.

This science might be true, but I hate the right-wingers way of spreading it with the point actually being the undertone that sex is evil.

It's sex. Almost everybody does it, and those who don't have it are weirder than those who do. People have always had sex. People will always have sex. Trying to control sex is almost nonsensical.

[TonySutton]

Condoms, buy them, use them :)

[Truth Warrior]

Maybe D.C. has just found and chosen the "final solution" to the Boomer retirement threat to it's SS Ponzi scheme system.

[WRellim]

I used to think of myself as a Republican, but when I read stuff like this I realize I had probably misnamed myself.

This science might be true, but I hate the right-wingers way of spreading it with the point actually being the undertone that sex is evil.

It's sex. Almost everybody does it, and those who don't have it are weirder than those who do. People have always had sex. People will always have sex. Trying to control sex is almost nonsensical.


Sex is not evil.

But promiscuity and irresponsibility have consequences (both short term and long term; mental, emotional, and physical).

IOW, the whole "free uninhibited sex" thing is a lie; it's not free... there *is* a price tag.

[angelatc]

Sex is not evil.

But promiscuity and irresponsibility have consequences (both short term and long term; mental, emotional, and physical).

IOW, the whole "free uninhibited sex" thing is a lie; it's not free... there *is* a price tag.

Thank you for making my point.

[WRellim]

Condoms, buy them, use them :)

Your already own a brain ... why not use IT for a change!
:eek:


BTW apparently you didn't read the article or bother to do any additional research... despite the "lefty" propaganda about condoms, they will NOT prevent you from getting the vast majority of these infections.
:(

If you date a lot of different women (especially as a teenager in high school), even kissing can give you Epstein Barr... well, unless you kiss like the couple on "Pushing Daisies" (hilarious video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsPqWKT005A ).
:D

[WRellim]

Thank you for making my point.

I'm just waiting for all of the "do-gooder" liberals (the ones passing all the non-smoking laws to "prevent cancer" [purportedly to reduce medical costs]) -- to see what they will do when confronted with this info.

Seriously, the "summer of love" has probably caused a LOT more problems than all the tobacco ever grown.

I do NOT say it with any "glee" (only vindicated in that I have been saying this for decades and am now being proven correct) -- to the contrary, I say it to show that the "government" is utterly CLUELESS (and in many ways WORSE than simply incompetent, by focusing all the efforts and funding on a wide variety of "miasmas" they effectively derailed REAL cancer research by nearly 50 years -- a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided.

Instead they've had people freaking out about everything from power-lines to "third-hand smoke" as the cause of cancer...


This is similar to the "Big Fat Lie" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B 63&sec=health) about nutrition, cholesterol, heart disease etc -- pushed and promoted via the politically created "food pyramid" (funded by by government tax dollars) -- and which resulted in... our current "epidemic" of type 2 Diabetes (and the obesity "epidemic" and various other health problems).

[WRellim]

Maybe D.C. has just found and chosen the "final solution" to the Boomer retirement threat to it's SS Ponzi scheme system.


Doubtful -- instead this will cost even MORE (via medicare, etc) -- cancer treatments are notoriously expensive.

And sadly, medical people will use this to advocate for even more "screening" (mainly because they are ignorant of Bayes Theorem and real statistical science).

End result will be a huge increase in additional (and impractical-unnecessary-expensive) tests and "preventative" treatments, not to mention the emotional costs to people. (cf The whole "PSA" screening phenomenon causing the "epidemic" of expensive prostate cancer treatment, much of it unnecessary and VERY debilitating).

[TonySutton]

Your already own a brain ... why not use IT for a change!
:eek:

Yes, I already do.


BTW apparently you didn't read the article or bother to do any additional research... despite the "lefty" propaganda about condoms, they will NOT prevent you from getting the vast majority of these infections.
:(

Actually I did read the article, maybe you should read the last paragraph of the article where it says


Using a condom will lower the risk of exposure to the virus.



If you date a lot of different women (especially as a teenager in high school), even kissing can give you Epstein Barr... ~snip~


Yes, Epstein Barr aka mono. Of course even though mono is called the "kissing disease" it can be spread in other ways according to the Mayo Clinic


Infectious mononucleosis (mono) is often called the kissing disease. The virus that causes mono is transmitted through saliva, so you can get it through kissing, but you can also be exposed through a cough or sneeze, or by sharing a glass or food utensil with someone who has mono.

[WRellim]

Yes, I already do.

Glad to hear it (but sadly, these days that places you among a minority).
;)


Actually I did read the article, maybe you should read the last paragraph of the article where it says:


Using a condom will lower the risk of exposure to the virus.

Lowers the risk... but doesn't eliminate it.

Plus there are a lot of FREE condoms around:
:D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2498970632_48ae5cd44e.jpg


Yes, Epstein Barr aka mono. Of course even though mono is called the "kissing disease" it can be spread in other ways according to the Mayo Clinic

Sure it "can" be contacted that way... but the vast majority of cases can be tracked back to intimate contact.



Besides that's like acknowledging that kids playing in the back yard "can" still get hit by a car (if it goes out of control and crashes through the fence); kids are playing in the middle of traffic (even with a helmet and knee pads on) have a profoundly higher risk.

There's risk reduction... and then there's risk REDUCTION.



My point is that there is too damn much reliance on "condoms" as the be all and end all of what constitutes "responsibility" these days -- it's a minimal level of protection (and provides a false sense of security in regards to many intimate contact viruses).

A bit of brains, self-control, and how do we say it... "discretion" in one's relationships can go an awful lot further.

[torchbearer]

With government..its not a going problem... its a growing problem.
(set to the enlarged prostate medication commercial)

[Danke]

I watched David Phillip Vetter, the boy in the bubble, last night. They said that case did much to confirm viruses can cause cancer.

[danberkeley]

Anal cancer?

[orafi]

you know if your hand is bigger than your face, you have hand cancer?

[orafi]

And the virus shall inherit the Earth.

Next experiment. ;)

FOOL! WE STILL HAVE VIRGINS! o

[Truth Warrior]

FOOL! WE STILL HAVE VIRGINS! o They don't further and perpetuate the species. :p :rolleyes: DUH!!!

[orafi]

They don't futher and perpetuate the species. :p :rolleyes: DUH!!!

Mary, the self perpetuating mother of Jesus says whadup ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Doubtful -- instead this will cost even MORE (via medicare, etc) -- cancer treatments are notoriously expensive.

And sadly, medical people will use this to advocate for even more "screening" (mainly because they are ignorant of Bayes Theorem and real statistical science).

End result will be a huge increase in additional (and impractical-unnecessary-expensive) tests and "preventative" treatments, not to mention the emotional costs to people. (cf The whole "PSA" screening phenomenon causing the "epidemic" of expensive prostate cancer treatment, much of it unnecessary and VERY debilitating). On average, most of an individual's lifetime health care expenses are incurred during the last six months of life. ;) Fewer people, fewer expenses for the system. Think Medicare and Medicaid here also.

There's a STRONG government vested interest and incentive in shortening the 78 MILLION Boomer's life spans.

This explains, in part, the current and future push and plan for socialized medicine.<IMHO> Prepare for the government's health care rationing. :p

[heavenlyboy34]

On average, most of an individual's health care expenses are incurred during the last six months of life. ;) Fewer people, fewer expenses for the system. Think Medicare and Medicaid here also.

There's a STRONG government vested interest and incentive in shortening the 78 MILLION Boomer's life spans.

This explains, in part, the current and future push and plan for socialized medicine.<IMHO> Prepare for the government's health care rationing. :p

:( depressing, indeed. :p

[Truth Warrior]

:( depressing, indeed. :p I've been predicting the eventual government euthanasia of the aging Boomers since I began to understand US demographics. ;) :( :mad:

[Matt Collins]

I don't want to think about anyone over the age of 50 getting it on ugh...

[Truth Warrior]

I don't want to think about anyone over the age of 50 getting it on ugh... You'll think differently about it, well before the age of 50. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Mary, the self perpetuating mother of Jesus says whadup ;) How many of THOSE have there been? :rolleyes:

[constituent]

How many of THOSE have there been? :rolleyes:

exactly zero.

[heavenlyboy34]

How many of THOSE have there been? :rolleyes:
A couple...it's been a while since I did religious studies/anthropology in school, so I forget the specific names, though (except for Hera, mother of Zeus).:confused:

[M House]

Thread's been an eye opener. I thought old people having sex was an unwritten taboo. I mean they could produce more old people, this totally defies biology.