311–320 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. The fact that some animals are especially immune to cancers suggest there are ways to prevent the outcome (cell replication/mutation).
Are they immune to cancer, or do they simply not live long enough to develop them? AFAIK, only plants are immune to cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burl
There is recent research showing that it can (slightly) help even during HPV infection, see "Effect of HPV Vaccination on Virus Disappearance in Cervical Samples of a Cohort of HPV-Positive Polish Patients", J Clin Med (2023) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ . Also, the eligibility criterion of not vaccinating people above certain age is NOT valid. I mean, sooner better. But if you are adult and there is any…
The eligibility criterion has primary been about controlling cost to focus about the groups where the societal effect is greatest.
I expect it may gradually get broadened, but most places you can also get it privately even if you fall outside those ages.
E.g. in the UK, most private providers will vaccinate you up to 45, and at least some private providers will give you the vaccine with no upper age limit (and a lower age limit of 9) at a relatively reasonable cost (~180 pounds per dose - 2 to 3 doses)
If you're living in the US: please consider getting the vaccine, ragardless of your age. It was covered by my (rather shitty) health insurance. It consists of just 2 (EDIT: 3 for adults!) doses. It is recommended for both Males and Females.
And note i believe they just increased the recommended age of administration up to ~40yo? Throat cancer sucks. Get the vax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
very few people are against vaccines per se, they are just against *unsafe* vaccines. "anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss dissident without having to deal with their arguments i.e an ad hominem. As an analogy, if I object to high levels of mercury in fish, am I anti-fish? or anti-poisonous-fish ?
Which vaccines that are widely used today do you believe are unsafe? And why do you believe they’re unsafe? > “anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss [dissent] No, it’s a term used to dismiss people who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been refuted over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a truly naïve way of thinking about a pharmaceutical product. Would you say the same about any other drug? What about blood pressure medicines, should everyone "consider getting it"? Completely ignorant, you have to consider multiple factors for the individual before taking any pharmaceutical drug and then you have to consider the risk from the drug, yes, low and behold, even vaccines can give side effects! T…
Apples and oranges. Blood pressure medicine is for people who have hypertension, and not everyone does. And hypertension is not contagious. Conversely, almost every adult over 45 is carrying some form of HPV and a few of those forms cause cancer. If any of those adults has unprotected sex with someone without HPV who is unvaccinated, they almost certainly will transmit the virus. Even if condoms are used, HPV can sti…
Common causes of hypertension are "contagious". Summary:
spousal concordance: one partner’s chronic disease raises the odds the other has it too. If one spouse has hypertension, multiple studies suggest the other spouse’s risk is about 1.3 to 1.5 times higher than their cohort.
Genetic causes can easily double risk over baseline cohort for children.
However there is a strong environmental/lifestyle effect in children. Studies in Scandinavia show that children adopted into hypertensive households carry an elevated risk compared to the general population. A hypertensive parent with an adopted child nudges the child’s later-life risk by about 20–30% higher than baseline.[1] The list has just a single entry for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors. Such people have always existed, unfortunately. I don't…
The people existed, but a portable always-running conveyor belt of bad news that is addictive enough to make them glued to the screen did not. In the 1990s, you had maybe 15 minutes a day on average to consume news, either from a paper newspaper, or from an evening TV relation. Now, quite a lot of people spend 20 times as much time doomscrolling. Of course the impact will be much more massive.
This is similar to the myth that people communicated less before the messaging apps: they were glued to their phone for hours, sent telegrams and even sent very short letters (delivered same day!) to just say "thanks for the lunch that was very nice" (I found some in my grand-parents’s papers)
Our (social) communication appetite has always been quite insatiable.
No worries. Some developed countries[1] will make sure to preserve these strains. [1] The list has just a single entry for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on the state you’re in, you likely have to get a prescription from a doctor, not a pharmacist, due to the wording of the law. Simplest route would be to call your primary doctor and ask if they can give it to you at your next annual checkup.
My Dr doesn't give me stuff. But that's only because I'm one of the millions of Americans who has no healthcare beyond what can paid out of my pocket. Not his fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels like a wild assumption to me - we really think people 45+ aren't having casual sex? less casual sex maybe, but I would imagine still a decent amount, statistically.
If you’re having casual sex at 45+ you probably already carry HPV.