Men going Down

[synchromesh]

I think I've posted enough about this now. Being that there's now enough information for people to make an informed decision (even though much more is still available-including documentaries), I think that any more posting from me would just prove futile. And so yeah, toodles then.

[Amazonian]

As my side of the family have a predisposition to cancer, when i saw Torstens percentages ( 400 times more likely to die from cervical cancer than from the vaccine), it was like a shinning beacon of hope. You have made some interesting points Synchromesh, but when you say that if i allow my daughter to be vaccinated and (god forbid) she dies, it would be on me...... what if i don't get her vaccinated and (god forbid again ) she dies, it still would be on me. All i can say at this time, is that i am glad that i still have a few years before i (we,my child and I ) have to make that decision.

[Torsten]

Oh, no?

"HPV is not associated with cervical cancer."

 

where does it say that on the supposed FDA link? I did a text search and it doesn't, but not going to read it again. Just tell me which of the 6 pages it is supposed to be on.

[tripsis]

First off, there's no real money in allowing people to swim or have pets.

Incorrect. There's plenty of money to be made. Industries exist for both swimming related products, swimming as a sport and swimming as a recreation. There also happens to a very successful pet industry, along with all the related industries that exist as a result of it, such as pet veterinary medicine. If either swimming or pets were banned, money would be lost as the industries that exist as a result of them collapsed.

And thirdly and lastly, unlike many vaccines, swimming and pets actually serve a purpose.

That is an amazingly stupid comment to make and really does not serve to make you sound any more credible.

[synchromesh]

Incorrect. There's plenty of money to be made. Industries exist for both swimming related products, swimming as a sport and swimming as a recreation. There also happens to a very successful pet industry, along with all the related industries that exist as a result of it, such as pet veterinary medicine. If either swimming or pets were banned, money would be lost as the industries that exist as a result of them collapsed.

How does that make pharmaceutical companies and governments any richer though? Ah, forget it. I'm done.

That is an amazingly stupid comment to make and really does not serve to make you sound any more credible.

 

Sorry, but I didn't realise it was my job to sound credible in the first place. Especially not to people like you. I prefer to just let the facts speak for themselves, ya know. To the people who'll actually look at them anyway...

Okay, that's it now... Done. Later.

[Sheather]

(I just realised this post is really rather massive, I shall add it anyway, and have the sea of anger wash over me after I have a nice ol' sleep. (Upon reading also seems much angrier than it did as I wrote the thing too.))

Facts. Ah, that seems to be the whole issue in contention though isn't it? Just what are the facts? Where is the unbiased information? Why is there an argument at all? With a little transparency of information all would be readily available, whether it be in favour of or against the vaccine being appropriate.

On the note of this comment. "And thirdly and lastly, unlike many vaccines, swimming and pets actually serve a purpose."

What makes you think many vaccines do not serve a purpose? Sure, you don't see polio or tetanus killing people left right and centre, and largely that may not be the case anyway, but the fact that you don't see the disease does mean neither that the vaccine works or doesn't work. I am inclined to believe that that indicates functional vaccines, in which case I would rather small chance of effects against my system to the potential of lockjaw in the future from an animal bite or rusty piece of metal. The thing is, synch, that vaccines are to people, like insurance. You take it now, and are protected from bad stuff in the future (it insures you against it as it happens to be). It just so happens, that most of the time, people are told that the risk is smaller than the gain, which largely happens to be TRUE.

I'm sure you may have many links as to why every vaccine ever made was a complete waste of time and money, and I'm sure Torsten and tripsis could shut them down with equal ease. The whole problem with this argument is YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. You are all arguing in the typical sense in that you wait for the person to stop their piece and immediately think "Let me show you why you're wrong and why I'm right." Have you, any or all of you, put any effort in to understanding and curiosity for what information led them to their view? Do you automatically think everyone else less well educated than you, more gullible than you, or any more or less of a damned fool than you are? (Just as we all are(in our own ways))

I have a feeling like I'm going to cop a ton of back talk and such for this post but I am really tired both from being awake for a while and from the incessant fighting that constitutes almost every interaction I witness ever. It's ridiculous to the point where it would be amusing were it not so aggressive. Probably a mostly irrelevant post but I forgot to stop typing after the first paragraph (I am sorry, truly, I'm sure I will regret it come the morning, or the next post to pop up here.)

Everything is okay. You are loved, you are real, and you are free. You are unique, you are divine, and each and every single one of you should treasure, as you are treasured. Sleep well fellow human beings.

[Razor]

On the note of this comment. "And thirdly and lastly, unlike many vaccines, swimming and pets actually serve a purpose."

What makes you think many vaccines do not serve a purpose? Sure, you don't see polio or tetanus killing people left right and centre, and largely that may not be the case anyway, but the fact that you don't see the disease does mean neither that the vaccine works or doesn't work. I am inclined to believe that that indicates functional vaccines, in which case I would rather small chance of effects against my system to the potential of lockjaw in the future from an animal bite or rusty piece of metal. The thing is, synch, that vaccines are to people, like insurance. You take it now, and are protected from bad stuff in the future (it insures you against it as it happens to be). It just so happens, that most of the time, people are told that the risk is smaller than the gain, which largely happens to be TRUE.

I'm sure you may have many links as to why every vaccine ever made was a complete waste of time and money, and I'm sure Torsten and tripsis could shut them down with equal ease.

i don't think sync was referring to every single vaccine as this thread was originally started about HPV in this world things aren't black or white, right or wrong or true or false but in every industry in the entire world they need to make money to keep their jobs going so when it comes to CEO's making decisions about what they are making, selling or promoting they will with hold hide and even destroy evidence that it is bad or that its somewhere in between and still sell it anyway to keep them in business because of money, hell they would not be CEO's if they didn't give a shit about coin. ever heard of the "rockefellers" the "free masion's" all part of the illuminati and if they aren't in control of the world financially than who is? so the tobacco industry never with held info to keep themselves going now did they? anyways i don't think all vaccines are poisons nor do i think that they are all out to help us, money is evil and it controls us as we are lead to believe that we could not survive with out it so i think some companies rush certain vaccines to the market just to make money, some of the companies don't care about side effects as long as it helps or band aids certain illnesses. its hard to know who is right and who is wrong because of corruption and you only have to look at your local government to realise people will say anything to get into power. if you just totally trust your government then you are being foolish.

anyways this topic started over an article i read in a local paper warning that HPV studies indicate that going down on a women is more of a risk of oral cancer then smoking. some people smoke till there ninety five and then die from unrelated smoking issues but others are more susceptible to smoking, the point being that women should be more grateful to the risk a man takes in pleasuring them thats all. we should be more careful you can get dental dams that are basically a condom like concept where a large, thin piece of latex can cover the females genitals to avoid any std orally. we are all guilty of taking stupid risks in the heat of the moment because it may ruin the moment but that is the risk we all have to think about. condoms have saved more people from std's then any vaccine

Everything is okay. You are loved, you are real, and you are free. You are unique, you are divine, and each and every single one of you should treasure, as you are treasured. Sleep well fellow human beings.

i love this quote it is real and sometimes people forget it, i could not have said it better

piece everyone

Razor

[Teotzlcoatl]

Is it just men or can women get mouth cancer too if they go down on other girls? probably a stupid question... but...

[Razor]

Is it just men or can women get mouth cancer too if they go down on other girls? probably a stupid question... but...

 

HPV is a vaginal virus not sure how it starts though but apparently that HPV is a category and has over a hundred different forms like VD there are many forms its just a broad name for that area

but if you go back over the thread there are heaps of references to it and links as well sorry i can't find my article but it was in the Townsville bulliten on Tuesday just gone on about page five only a small article

[ThunderIdeal]

that seems a bit misleading razor. genital warts for instance can occur on the penis, anus, mouth, so calling it a vaginal virus??

[random]

human papillomavirus is the thing being mentioned. Unless mouth cancer is gender specific no doubt females and males are equally at risk... So yes anyone is potentially at risk... without adding to the debate about the efficacy of the vaccine gardasil.

[Razor]

that seems a bit misleading razor. genital warts for instance can occur on the penis, anus, mouth, so calling it a vaginal virus??

 

your right i did start this thread from a news paper clipping and i'm no expert in this field but i am now starting my own unbiased study on the matter as i love to give women that pleasure as there is nothing better then a pleased woman imo

piece, love and empathy to you all

have a dam good weekend too i

ps. i thought the tongue out smiley was appropriate for this thread

[Razor]

human papillomavirus is the thing being mentioned. Unless mouth cancer is gender specific no doubt females and males are equally at risk... So yes anyone is potentially at risk... without adding to the debate about the efficacy of the vaccine gardasil.

 

again i appologise you are right both sexes are at risk but (keep in mind i'm still researching) i have not seen in the study where the penis is to blame directly for the problem if someone has found some info on that please feel free to post it , just keep in mind that this thread turned quite nasty for awhile and that information is what we all seek

[ThunderIdeal]

it's a confusing thing no doubt. hpv (certain strains) cause genital warts, men can get genital warts, i conclude that men can harbour hpv. vaginas can have genital warts without anyone being the wiser, not so true of penis but i suppose also true of anus/mouth?

[Razor]

it's a confusing thing no doubt. hpv (certain strains) cause genital warts, men can get genital warts, i conclude that men can harbour hpv. vaginas can have genital warts without anyone being the wiser, not so true of penis but i suppose also true of anus/mouth?

 

i wonder how HPV first started?

[rahli]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2544257

Epidemiologic, histologic and immunohistochemical data concerning male (penile) and female (cervical and vulvar/vaginal) genital carcinomas in a Hindu population are reported. The data are from Bali, an Indonesian Hindu island in a country with a predominantly Muslim population. In contrast to the surrounding Muslim population, circumcision is rare in the people of Bali, and the rate of phimosis in grown men is very high. The Balinese epidemiologic data of 1985 to 1986 were compared with 1986 data from The Netherlands. In Bali, cervical carcinoma was the most frequent carcinoma in women, and vulvar/vaginal carcinoma ranked seven. These carcinomas were much less frequent in The Netherlands. In Balinese men, penile carcinoma is the second most frequent carcinoma, whereas it is rarely diagnosed in The Netherlands. Penile carcinomas are found in Bali in younger age groups than in The Netherlands. Based on the immunohistochemical staining results, it is estimated that over 75% of the studied Balinese genital carcinomas contain human papillomavirus (HPV). The data presented in this paper may indicate that the cofactor of impeded postcoital hygiene can be of great importance for male and female HPV-associated genital carcinogenesis. It is clear that Balinese men, in particular men with extreme phimosis, are both vectors and victims of HPV. In The Netherlands the man is exclusively the vector of HPV.

[ThunderIdeal]

i hope nobody thinks that is an argument for circumcision. don't know the full story but phimosis is the exception not the rule. the foreskin is not directly to blame!

[weedRampage]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/02/26/1053862.htm

I think you can get vaccinated for this [but not paid for by the PBS].

why is this in the bitches forum?

 

This is funny in a not politically correct way....

[flora]

yeah it should be in the bitches 'n' hoes forum

[tripsis]

Is it just men or can women get mouth cancer too if they go down on other girls? probably a stupid question... but...

Men can give it to women too. In fact, one of my friends was telling me last night that they are beginning to give, or considering giving, young boys the vaccine too, as there has been evidence of women getting mouth/throat cancer from fellatio.

[Torsten]

they are beginning to give, or considering giving, young boys the vaccine too, as there has been evidence of women getting mouth/throat cancer from fellatio.

 

I wasn't going to bring this up as it is quite controversial. Taking the risk of vaccination to prevent yourself from dying from cervical cancer is one thing, but to take that risk in order to protect random shags from cervical cancer is going to be quite a controversial topic.

[tripsis]

I think the concept of "random shags" is a pretty insulting and short-sighted one. If a woman were to get the cervical cancer vaccine, by default, it would give the men she sleeps with a higher rate of protection from oral cancer as a result of it (assuming the vaccine was effective). If a man were to then get a HPV vaccine in order to protect the women he sleeps with from contracting HPV, this is surely a good thing. To have no concern for the people you are fucking is pretty selfish. Even if it were a one night stand, would you not care if you happened to give that person a life-threatening disease? This also extends to homosexual men. If fellatio can lead to throat/mouth cancer, then men are at risk from contracting it from other men too. Then there's the question of open relationships. Obviously, having more than one partner comes with its risks, and minimising those risks for all involved is important.

[Torsten]

tripsis, I was presenting it from the way most people will see it and how it will play out in the media, not the way I see it. I personally don't think that the risk of this vaccine is substantial and hence I think the risk benefit ratio is acceptable even if the benefit is a little obscure. But do you really think most men will think that way?

My guess is that we will probbaly see more research into the effects HPV has on men before this sort of thing is pushed.

[tripsis]

Ah right, sorry. Was still waking up when I posted that. I later figured I had probably misinterpreted your response, but thought I might as well wait until I saw your reply. I agree that most people will probably not care to get a vaccine if it does not directly benefit themselves, but a with a little thought, it's obvious that the fewer people that have HPV, the less the risk is to others and ourselves in general.

Why do you think more research will need to be done on what effects HPV has on men? It has already been linked with mouth cancer. Surely that is enough to justify giving the vaccine to men as well?

[Torsten]

It has already been linked with mouth cancer. Surely that is enough to justify giving the vaccine to men as well?

 

ask synchro ;)

seriously, it's not the science community that needs to be convinced, but the rest.