Early tests show 100% success for cervical cancer vaccine

November 20, 2002 2:09 PM

Early tests show 100% success for cervical cancer vaccine "It appears to be the real thing,'' said Dr. Christopher Crum, a pathologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "You're looking at some very compelling evidence that this vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.''
posted by nickmark (12 comments total)

This looks very promising.
posted by blogRot at 2:30 PM on November 20, 2002

this just came across CNN too.. i wonder how much it will cost. i want one.
posted by prescribed life at 3:03 PM on November 20, 2002

I'll take two, if it means no more pap smears. I hope it fulfills it's early promises.
posted by Salmonberry at 3:28 PM on November 20, 2002

Now, why would we possibly need a vaccine for cervical cancer, when abstinence is oh so much more effective? Can we look forward to the Bush administration stacking cervical cancer advisory boards with abstinence advocates, in place of immunologists/oncologists?

~sigh~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:47 PM on November 20, 2002

I'll take two, if it means no more pap smears.

Ooh, I hadn't even thought of that.

*gets in line*
posted by frykitty at 5:48 PM on November 20, 2002

Can we look forward to the Bush administration . . .

Right. This advancement in medical science is related to politics how? If you're going to troll, foldy, why not point out how incredibly sexist this vaccine is.
posted by yerfatma at 6:07 PM on November 20, 2002

As a childless woman this is just great news as I believe if I am not mistaken my childlessness makes me a higher risk for this type of cancer than the general population.
posted by SweetIceT at 6:18 PM on November 20, 2002

Actually, SweetIceT, it's just the opposite. Childlessness decreases the risk of cervical cancer while every pregnancy seems to ratchet up the chances. But it's good to note that most (95%) of cervical cancers are linked to Human Papilloma Virus, so following safer sex practices are the best way to keep your risks low.

On the flip side, childlessness does seem to heighten the risk of breast cancer.
posted by Dreama at 7:07 PM on November 20, 2002

Thanks for the info Dreama...There's just so much misinformation out there....but how does many years of contraceptive use (the pill) effect my chances?
posted by SweetIceT at 7:55 PM on November 20, 2002

Right. This advancement in medical science is related to politics how? If you're going to troll, foldy, why not point out how incredibly sexist this vaccine is.

Gosh, yerfatma, my point exactly....although for some reason I was able to get my point across without any name-calling whatsoever. Sorry you're not able to...My question remains: if providing "safe sex" information is frowned upon by this administration, can we ultimately expect that information dissemination for a vaccine for cervical cancer will fare any better? If so, what's the difference?

One might also think that providing information on the use of condoms (shown to most probably reduce the risk of HPV/STD infection and cervical cancer) would also be above "politics." If you examine the thread on today's MetaFilter front page (to which I linked above), you'll find that this is apparently not so. Those interested in the prevention of cervical cancer (readers of this thread) might therefore be somewhat alarmed by such politicization of a public health issue. I am.

And there is nothing sexist about work on this vaccine. At the very least, men suffer from the effects of human papilloma virus, too.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:55 PM on November 20, 2002

On second thought Dreama...I read your link after posting that and I found out for myself...Long term use of the pill does in fact increase my risk.
posted by SweetIceT at 7:58 PM on November 20, 2002

CNN is reporting that a herpes vaccine has also been developed. Oddly, it's only effective for women. (and only 70% of them).
posted by reverendX at 8:13 PM on November 20, 2002