Gardasil

[EQD]

well. i hope everyone had a great time on this thread.

eventhough no one commented on my last few posts for whatever reason it was still an interesting debate. pretty cool i think.

[dragon lady]

I'm glad it didn't get locked.

 

Actually, I'm amazed it didn't.

[EQD]

i am too!! hahaha, never thought it would have gotten this far.

[karvala]

this is absolutely brilliant and what i was talking about in the first place.

 

Well, to comment on one your posts for you

 

Can you find a peer-reviewed study that actually does that? Of course it would be a terribly flawed procedure to claim efficacy in the simplistic way that is outlined in the article that ToV quotes there, but I don't think I've ever seen a study which actually does that, so it's a bit of a straw man.

[karvala]

I'm glad it didn't get locked.

 

Actually, I'm amazed it didn't.

 

Yeah, it's good that it was allowed to run it's course. I think it was quite respectful overall, for a robust debate at least. :splat:

[EQD]

Well, to comment on one your posts for you

 

Can you find a peer-reviewed study that actually does that? Of course it would be a terribly flawed procedure to claim efficacy in the simplistic way that is outlined in the article that ToV quotes there, but I don't think I've ever seen a study which actually does that, so it's a bit of a straw man.

 

 

well since injecting a healthy person with 4 strains of HPV to a supposedly 'immunized' person is 'unethical' i'd say all of the studies on gardasil are representitive of this fact.

 

i dont feel like chasing down all that boring longwinded study, but i will lazily bet internet money that it exists.

 

*yawn*

[tiredofvampires]

Thanks for the link, karv.

 

I agree that skewing the data could occur on either side. It's something like politics.

 

And I'm not interested in "pet theories" or "conspiracy theories" -- I'm interested in empiricism. Which is why, if I had the time and energy now, I'd prefer to find the medical literature -- from peer-reviewed sources -- that investigate and present the negative physiological ramifications of vaccines, i.e., introducing foreign proteins that might have serious, long-lasting deleterious affects on the immune system in susceptible individuals, and then secondarily how that cost/benefit risk translates into the epidemiological statistics, including extraneous factors like sanitation trends, etc.

 

I also think it's indisputable that "big pharm" is a massive money-making industry that lobbies the FDA heavily, and has a hand in drugs that are treated as "miracles" to the public.

 

And back to the OP, I don't think a vaccine that only protects me against 2 types of virus that cause cervical cancer is all it's cracked up to be. Even my relatively mainstream ob/gyn admitted this.

 

I think it's fair to say that "pure science" is not as easy to come by as a research grant, and we all know how hard those are to come by; so that's saying a lot.

 

I used to comb through the medical libraries, looking at hardbound journals, and I only wish I could do that virtually, so thanks again for the comment there.

 

I would still have to ask why ANY researchers would spend their professional lives punching holes in the efficacy and safety of vaccines, if they were so indisputably good. What would be the gain in that?

 

I don't have the time or energy myself here to find the most "respectable" article on the net for this thread, I regret.

[Seraphim]

I SO wish I could rep some people here but I already have.

[karvala]

I SO wish I could rep some people here but I already have.

 

I think you missed me.

[tiredofvampires]

 

i dont feel like chasing down all that boring longwinded study, but i will lazily bet internet money that it exists.

 

*yawn*

 

HAHA, yeah! You know, as soon as I linked that article, I thought, "The scientists of ENA are gonna have my ass for this. This is not the kind of reference they will respect -- this is not under a journal heading." And sure enough, my ass has been soundly whooped. Can't say I didn't see it coming.

 

I think lazy science (that is, a particular writer) coupled with a somewhat hurried (lazy?)/resource-compromised poster = destruction of an argument. Lol. I've blown my med cred!

 

But, great thread. Must be some kind of record here!

 

And I'm not gonna go injecting myself with live virus, or snorting it -- not for HPV, nor anything else right now (I was vaccinated as a kid, though.) No on Gardasil for me. They'll have to go back to the drawing table soon. It's no miracle. I'd love to have a take-a-shot-and-never-worry-about-HPV-again quick fix, but as I said, some things are too good to be true.

[Seraphim]

I think you missed me.

 

At least you were not insulting.

[karvala]

What would be the gain in debunking any mainstream research activity? But it happens a lot. Something motivates some people to leave the beaten track for the sake of novelty if nothing else; to make a name for themselves, to attract a following, to fulfill a sense of rebellion. Who knows? Motivation isn't always just pounds, shillings and pence, as they used to say in England. Similarly, what motivates me to defend vaccines? I don't work on vaccines, and never will, nor am I funded by any pharmaceutical companies (though if any are reading, I'm always open to offers.... ). I'm motivated by a desire to maintain and promote the integrity and benefit of science. Others, and I might be wickedly tempted to suggest those that for one reason or another no longer have a mainstream scientific job, are motivated to try and undermine the integrity of science and promote a sort of new mysticism. I'm sure there's a lot of fun to be had doing such things.

 

I like your empirical interest, and hope that you manage to get the resources to pursue it. They are interesting topics that you mention, and certainly there is enough uncertainty in them that the cost/benefit analysis you would like to do is something that should be done. More research on them is always a good thing.

[tiredofvampires]

While this is only an editorial, it is from JAMA. (Good enough for karvala and annie, I hope! )

 

I think it presents the dilemma of the OP -- HPV vaccination -- well.

 

In this review, it presents what I did eariler -- that at least 15 strains of HPV are cancer-causing, and only 2 are in Gardasil. For me, that just would not feel like a solid "insurance plan" in and of itself. When you weigh in the possible "hypersensitivity reactions" they say have been reported (like Guillain-Barre Syndrome -- ! Pretty terrible immune system malfunction) and the unknowns 20-40 years down the line for young girls/women being vaccinated, I think this points up the dubiousness of this vaccine.

 

link removed

[doyathink]

LOL..you are very much respected here. Any info you post....I'd believe it without proof. haha

[tiredofvampires]

LOL..you are very much respect here. Any info you post....I'd believe it without proof. haha

 

Aww, thanks bunches, DYT! That's seriously one of the best compliments I've gotten in a long time. I promise not to steer you wrong!

 

Now, if only I could just do something valuable with all this medical information besides...weird experiments on myself.

 

LOL.

[doyathink]

^HAHAHAA dont hurt yourself. Find a victim...yes, someone who's willing to take the torture with no hesitation.

[karvala]

While this is only an editorial, it is from JAMA. (Good enough for karvala and annie, I hope! )

 

I think it presents the dilemma of the OP -- HPV vaccination -- well.

 

In this review, it presents what I did eariler -- that at least 15 strains of HPV are cancer-causing, and only 2 are in Gardasil. For me, that just would not feel like a solid "insurance plan" in and of itself. When you weigh in the possible "hypersensitivity reactions" they say have been reported (like Guillain-Barre Syndrome -- ! Pretty terrible immune system malfunction) and the unknowns 20-40 years down the line for young girls/women being vaccinated, I think this points up the dubiousness of this vaccine.

 

link removed

 

Yes, that's certainly a lot better, not only for where it's published and how it got there, but for the quality of the argument that it presents. There are still some serious problems with it, and I'll give a few examples in a moment, but at least they are reasonable points that allow a sensible discussion in a way that the previous polemic did not.

 

Points I don't agree with

 

(1) The vaccine is not valid because it does not protect against all oncogenic forms of HPV. That's like saying the tetanus vaccine is not valid because it doesn't protect against polio. Yes, it's far from perfect, but if I had the choice of being protected against 2 out of 15 strains, or 0 out of 15 strains, I know which I would choose.

 

(2) " The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system." A curious statement, given that it had been preceded by a citation of evidence that at least 15 strains of HPV DO cause cancer. The author should make up her mind: either HPV is a cancer-causing threat, or it's not.

 

(3) The marketing smear: " But did these associations provide members with unbiased educational material and balanced recommendations? Did they ensure that marketing strategies did not compromise clinical recommendations?". It's posed as a question, because unless you were one of the members involved, you can't really know if you were providing unbiased recommendations or not. But as any PR person will tell you, putting it like that is enough to imply wrongdoing, to sow the seeds of doubt, when in fact no evidence of biased presentation has been offered. I could cheerfully speculate on whether or not she is sponsored by an anti-vaccine organisation, and if I did it in print, she would be outraged, but that's effectively what she's doing here in reverse, and it's a dubious practice in my view. Stick to known facts, not suppositions and speculations about potential wrongdoing for which there is no evidence, however nicely they're dressed up. The profit smear is repeated in the final paragraph as well.

 

(4) " VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system, and the authors call attention to its limitations. They point out that only systematic, prospective, controlled studies will be able to distinguish the true harmful effects of the HPV vaccine. These limitations work both ways: it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine." Here, and in the rest of the paragraph, she succumbs to the same temptation that the author of your previous article succumbed to, which is to assume that all reported serious adverse reactions are likely to be true and caused by the vaccine. As the authors of the report she cites have already made the same point I'm making here, which is that a report does not equal a cause (and in the vast majority of cases that are investigated, turns out not to be a cause; this is precisely why controlled trials are needed, because reporting is so unreliable). She then makes the bizarre statement that since we can't prove it's true, and we can't prove it's not true, then that somehow means it's still dangerous. By that approach, we should ban aspirin, paracetamol, ibuprofen, penicillin, latex etc., since these all have serious adverse reports every year as well, and we can't disprove the reports because the system is unreliable. It's an absurd argument: lack of proof that something is safe is not the same as proof that something is dangerous.

 

So, it's an improvement, but far from perfect. I'm not surprised it was published, since JAMA will want both sides of the argument to be put, but if this is the best that opponents of the vaccine can do, then I'm not overly impressed to be honest.

[EQD]

what are the odds that you will develop cervical cancer if you pap regularly?

I want a ratio on that.

[greywolf]

what are the odds that you will develop cervical cancer if you pap regularly?

I want a ratio on that.

 

I always thought that a pap smear wasn't for prevention of cervical cancer, just to detect it.

[EQD]

I always thought that a pap smear wasn't for prevention of cervical cancer, just to detect it.

 

thats correct. and if found and treated early enough cervical cancer is prevented and treated much easier than if you dont get regular screenings.

 

i mean just LOOK at the stats on cervical cancer. i posted them already on here.

deaths from cervical cancer are down 75% from 1955-1994 because of pap smears. and it continues to decline every year by 4%.

almost 4,000 women die of cervical cancer each year. and only 11,000 are dianosed with it.

those statistics are pretty low compared to the population of america today.

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

I always thought that a pap smear wasn't for prevention of cervical cancer, just to detect it.

 

Right. Basically a pap just says "whoa, hey look! you're getting cervical cancer. that sucks."

 

But still, getting a pap is hugely important. It's better to know when something bad is happening to your cevical cells early than later when the problems start surfacing.

 

If only these tests would include ovarian and uterine screens and a more detailed result. Paps are extremely beneficial but still primitive and lives are lost as a result.

[tiredofvampires]

There are still some serious problems with it, and I'll give a few examples in a moment

 

*sigh* I try and try and try, but I'm never good enough for you. I'm never enough. Seems I can't make you happy no matter what. No matter what I do, I can't get you to love me.

 

HA!! SOOO jokin'!

 

Points I don't agree with

 

(1) The vaccine is not valid because it does not protect against all oncogenic forms of HPV. That's like saying the tetanus vaccine is not valid because it doesn't protect against polio. Yes, it's far from perfect, but if I had the choice of being protected against 2 out of 15 strains, or 0 out of 15 strains, I know which I would choose.

 

I don't really agree with the tetanus/polio analogy, because that's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. I think a better analogy would be (from the standpoint of how this plays out in real life) is if someone told me a condom worn and used properly would protect me against contracting HIV, but would not guarantee my being protected against herpes and HPV. I'd feel RELATIVELY safe -- in that, I'd feel pretty reassured that I was safe from HIV, but would I feel safe from other STD's? No, I'd still be worried. I'd still have it nagging on my mind. And while it's better to have the sense of some safety, it would not eradicate my fears about getting a lifelong sexually transmitted disease, one that could compromise my heath and mental wellbeing in serious ways.

 

To continue the analogy, if my partner tested negative for HIV, herpes and other STD's (ruling out these risks if I were to stop using condoms), I'd still want the condom for protection against HPV, which is still a wildcard. I'd know that even then, it wasn't a full guarantee, but it would definitely give me MORE peace of mind over NOT having that protection (which is analogous to your saying vaccine protection against 2 strains of virus is better than none).

 

[incidentally, unprotected sex if I was vaccinated for HPV would worry me MORE than protected sex if I wasn't vaccinated, because 13+ cancer causing strains of virus doesn't sound good to me.]

 

But moving on with the anology, if someone said that there was a chance wearing a condom could cause the adverse affect of me going blind and paralyzed, or developing pancreatitis, or getting Guillain-Barre syndrome, I'd have to re-evaluate the risks. I'd ask myself if the threat of HPV alone (taking off the condom) was as scary as the possibility of blindness or some other horrid life-altering sickness (keeping it on), and that would change my actions. I would rather get HPV, as a disease, than go blind or get Guillain-Barre syndrome, even if it's more likely I'd get HPV (without the condom) than go blind or come down with Guillain-Barre (with it on). Because even though HPV is a serious matter -- and as I said, one that has personally caused major distress, though I'm negative most likely (but there was a big scare) --it's not as serious as a degenerative auto-immune disease in terms of overall prognosis and effect on quality of life.

 

So this is where I'd have to weigh out that cost-benefit ratio. Which I am paralleling to the vaccine. SOME protection may not be worth the risks or costs of those risks, when stacked up. And that's the point this writer is making.

 

And she's making it here:

 

(2) "The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system." A curious statement, given that it had been preceded by a citation of evidence that at least 15 strains of HPV DO cause cancer. The author should make up her mind: either HPV is a cancer-causing threat, or it's not.

 

While I'm not a scientist like you, just taking her statements on their own terms, it seems to me she's saying that these oncogenic strains CAN cause cancer, not that they necessarily DO or WILL. To make another analogy, I see it a bit like my 6 month stint of smoking when I was in high school (I was SO fed up with being perceived as the goody goody...but I digress.) Cigarettes cause lung cancer. But that doesn't mean that smoking I did caused lung cancer and I don't expect it will. There is no contradiction between these statements. My body has long recovered from it. So similarly, this author is saying that while the body may become infected with a cancer-causing agent (an oncogenic strain of HPV), the immune system will attack and overcome this infection in most cases (which is really great news for us women -- that it's not necessarily a lifelong infection like herpes, and nor will it progress into cervical cancer in many cases.) So since the body is able to fight this off in many or most cases, would it be wise to risk serious, longstanding illness from the vaccine? And given that regular paps and checkups can keep cervical dysplasia from becoming a deadly matter (which gyns say -- my gyn told me, "You will not die of cervical cancer, not with modern methods available") -- again, is this worth possible adverse reactions to the vaccine that might compromise the person's life more than the cervical dysplasia itself?

 

I think these are extremely important questions.

 

(3) The marketing smear: "But did these associations provide members with unbiased educational material and balanced recommendations? Did they ensure that marketing strategies did not compromise clinical recommendations?". It's posed as a question, because unless you were one of the members involved, you can't really know if you were providing unbiased recommendations or not. But as any PR person will tell you, putting it like that is enough to imply wrongdoing, to sow the seeds of doubt, when in fact no evidence of biased presentation has been offered. I could cheerfully speculate on whether or not she is sponsored by an anti-vaccine organisation, and if I did it in print, she would be outraged, but that's effectively what she's doing here in reverse, and it's a dubious practice in my view. Stick to known facts, not suppositions and speculations about potential wrongdoing for which there is no evidence, however nicely they're dressed up. The profit smear is repeated in the final paragraph as well.

 

Isn't it the responsibility of science to "sow seeds of doubt" as a practice? Isn't it the role of medical science in particular to challenge the biases that come out of or go into what becomes clinical practice?

 

If someone doesn't ask the hard questions about these matters, doesn't it risk a blinder acceptance than is prudent?

 

And excuse my naivete, but it seems shrewd scientists *should* be operating above the fray of "PR".

 

(4) "VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system, and the authors call attention to its limitations. They point out that only systematic, prospective, controlled studies will be able to distinguish the true harmful effects of the HPV vaccine. These limitations work both ways: it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine."

 

I see merely that she is asking the skeptical questions, not making "suppositions" of wrongdoing. (She is referring to articles in the journal we have not read, so we don't know if they are biased in a way that she is critiquing.) It seems an even-handed presentation of both sides, meant to spark inquiry. She is saying random reports of adverse reactions to this vaccine has limited reliability. And on the other hand, so it's equally unreliable to state that vaccines are safe. I see this as a reasonable, even-handed position, issued with conservative prudence and responsible caution.

[tiredofvampires]

^HAHAHAA dont hurt yourself. Find a victim...yes, someone who's willing to take the torture with no hesitation.

 

Sounds like something I should have gotten on top of YEARS ago, ahahaaha!!!

 

The campaign shall commence!....

 

(this could be loads of fun!)

[karvala]

*sigh* I try and try and try, but I'm never good enough for you. I'm never enough. Seems I can't make you happy no matter what. No matter what I do, I can't get you to love me.

 

HA!! SOOO jokin'!

 

Aww, but you know I love you anyway. In a purely physical way, of course.

 

I don't really agree with the tetanus/polio analogy, because that's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. I think a better analogy would be (from the standpoint of how this plays out in real life) is if someone told me a condom worn and used properly would protect me against contracting HIV, but would not guarantee my being protected against herpes and HPV. I'd feel RELATIVELY safe -- in that, I'd feel pretty reassured that I was safe from HIV, but would I feel safe from other STD's? No, I'd still be worried. I'd still have it nagging on my mind. And while it's better to have the sense of some safety, it would not eradicate my fears about getting a lifelong sexually transmitted disease, one that could compromise my heath and mental wellbeing in serious ways.

 

To continue the analogy, if my partner tested negative for HIV, herpes and other STD's (ruling out these risks if I were to stop using condoms), I'd still want the condom for protection against HPV, which is still a wildcard. I'd know that even then, it wasn't a full guarantee, but it would definitely give me MORE peace of mind over NOT having that protection (which is analogous to your saying protection against 2 strains of virus is better than none).

 

But if someone said that there was a chance wearing a condom could cause the adverse affect of me going blind and paralyzed, or developing pancreatitis, or getting Guillain-Barre syndrome, I'd have to re-evaluate the risks. I'd ask myself if the threat of HPV alone (taking off the condom) was as scary as the possibility of blindness or some other horrid life-altering sickness (keeping it on), and that would change my actions. I would rather get HPV, as a disease, than go blind or get Guillain-Barre syndrome, even if it's more likely I'd get HPV (without the condom) than go blind or come down with Guillain-Barre (with it on). Because even though HPV is a serious matter -- and as I said, one that has personally caused major distress, though I'm negative most likely (but there was a big scare) --it's not as serious as a degenerative auto-immune disease in terms of overall prognosis and effect on quality of life.

 

So this is where I'd have to weigh out that cost-benefit ratio. Which I am paralleling to the vaccine. SOME protection may not be worth the risks or costs of those risks, when stacked up. And that's the point this writer is making.

 

That's the point she should be making, but I don't see much ratio in her article, merely a complaint that the vaccine is limited in its scope. If she provided decent evidence of its downside, and even better some calculations about the relative risks and rewards, then that could be immensely useful. I certainly agree with you that the limited scope of the vaccine potentially limits its usefulness and brings the cost-benefit question to the fore, but I honestly don't see her making any useful contribution to that.

 

While I'm not a scientist like you, just taking her statements on their own terms, it seems to me she's saying that these oncogenic strains CAN cause cancer, not that they necessarily DO or WILL. To make another analogy, I see it a bit like my 6 month stint of smoking when I was in high school (I was SO fed up with being perceived as the goody goody...but I digress.) Cigarettes cause lung cancer. But that doesn't mean that smoking I did caused lung cancer and I don't expect it will. There is no contradiction between these statements. My body has long recovered from it. So similarly, this author is saying that while the body may become infected with a cancer-causing agent (an oncogenic strain of HPV), the immune system will attack and overcome this infection in most cases (which is really great news for us women -- that it's not necessarily a lifelong infection like herpes, and nor will it progress into cervical cancer in many cases.) So since the body is able to fight this off in many or most cases, would it be wise to risk serious, longstanding illness from the vaccine? And given that regular paps and checkups can keep cervical dysplasia from becoming a deadly matter (which gyns say -- my gyn told me, "You will not die of cervical cancer, not with modern methods available") -- again, is this worth possible adverse reactions to the vaccine that might compromise the person's life more than the cervical dysplasia itself?

 

I think these are extremely important questions.

 

Yes, they are important questions, but the answers need to be grounded in the known facts. And the two central facts are this

 

(1) Annual deaths in the US known to have been caused by HPV vaccine: 0

(2) Annual deaths in the US known to have been caused by cervical cancer, the majority of which were caused by HPV strains (types 16 and 18) that would be blocked by the vaccine: ~4000 (original evidence, that you can read first-hand for free: link removed).

 

So if you want to a cost-benefit ratio, that seems like a pretty good place to start, and the conclusion seems obvious. You can of course factor in non-fatal complications of the vaccine, if you can actually find any evidence that properly demonstrates them (as opposed to unconfirmed reports which might just as well say that the vaccine causes the Easter Bunny to turn into King Kong, given that there's as much conclusive evidence for that as there is for most of the other claimed side-effects), but then you're into the whole subjective area of quality of life, and how many nasty diseases is equivalent to one death etc., and that's certainly not a judgment I'd want to make.

 

Isn't it the responsibility of science to "sow seeds of doubt" as a practice? Isn't it the role of medical science in particular to challenge the biases that come out of or go into what becomes clinical practice?

 

If someone doesn't ask the hard questions about these matters, doesn't it risk a blinder acceptance than is prudent?

 

And excuse my naivete, but it seems shrewd scientists *should* be operating above the fray of "PR".

 

Yes they should, but in her article, she is engaging in PR; that's precisely my point. Science should not be about cheerfully throwing around doubt like confetti, or smearing people by asking questions the very act of which alters the beliefs of many people (we can argue that it shouldn't, but we know that it does). Doubt should be reserved for situations where there is evidence to support the doubt, then we usefully look at it and decide whether or not the scepticism is justified. That is something that adds to the overall knowledge pool. But if I wake up tomorrow and say "I've decided that operating theatres situated on the south side of hospital buildings are inherently dangerous, although I have no evidence to support this, and can offer no clear explanation or testable hypothesis as to why this is likely to be the case", it would not be beneficial. And if I were rash enough to publicise that view in my professional capacity, you be almost sure that it would end up costing some people their lives. All in the name of what? Of sowing doubt for the sake of it? No way.

 

I see merely that she is asking the skeptical questions, not making "suppositions" of wrongdoing. (She is referring to articles in the journal we have not read, so we don't know if they are biased in a way that she is critiquing.) It seems an even-handed presentation of both sides, meant to spark inquiry. She is saying random reports of adverse reactions to this vaccine has limited reliability. And on the other hand, so it's equally unreliable to state that vaccines are safe. I see this as a reasonable, even-handed position, issued with conservative prudence and responsible caution.

 

I would call it irresponsible caution because it's implying the need for a change of behaviour based on a stated lack of evidence. It's like you being charged with a crime (wrongly to your knowledge), then the papers were lost so there's no evidence either way, and the court's verdict being "could be guilty; we're not sure because there's no evidence either way". I think you'd be less than thrilled by that, as your reputation fell into ruins. If the evidence is unreliable, or lacking, then you must act as though there is no evidence. Yes, that means no evidence to refute the charges, but as the charges no longer have any basis, the absence of evidence to refute them is meaningless. To suggest in any way that this makes the vaccine more guilty than if the reports had never been made in the first place is an incredibly dangerous supposition which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if it were taken as a principle to be applied accross the board, would see all our pharmacies looking rather empty. Is there any reason this vaccine should be held to a higher standard, or have different rules of evidence, from other treatments?

[EQD]

karvala... i want to see actual evidence that this vaccine is protecting the female body from HPV.

 

so far the # of lives saved from this vaccine is also: 0

 

because it hasnt had enough time to show that its defending these women.

In the trials the women were checked and vaccinated, but there is no way of knowing if the partners they slept with even had the strains of HPV that cause those 90% of cervical cancer cases.

 

11,000 new cases of cervical cancer every year is an extremely low figure based on the population of women in this country. which.. if we go by the statistics then about 9,900 are caused by HPV (?)

 

*So.. precancerous cervical cancer cells take 10-15 years to develop...

*Incidence rate: 1 out of 20,923 women will develop cervical cancer.

*90% of which is treatable.

*Lifetime risk is 1 out of 117. says wrong link removed ref(Cancer Facts and Figures, American Cancer Society, 2004)

 

*9.2 white women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)

*12.4 African American women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)

*10.2 Asian American and Pacific Islander women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)

*6.9 American Indian and Alaska Native women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)

*16.8 Hispanic Latino women per 100,000 in the US 1996-2000 (SEER Cancer Statistics Review, National Cancer Institute, 1975-2000)

 

And i like this alot....

 

"Although the cause is unknown, several predisposing factors have been related to the development of cervical cancer: frequent intercourse at a young age (younger than age 16), multiple sexual partners, multiple pregnancies, exposure to sexually transmitted diseases (particularly genital human papillomavirus), and smoking. "

 

And this too:

 

"Cervical Cancer is listed as a "rare disease" by the Office of Rare Diseases (ORD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This means that Cervical Cancer, or a subtype of Cervical Cancer, affects less than 200,000 people in the US population."

 

link removed