Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    This doesn't  refute the link between smoking and cervical cancer.
    It  says  that smoking has been implicated, but not proven to be a
    contributing  factor.  I'm  sure further studies will be done, and
    wouldn't  be  terribly  surprised  to  see  smoking proved to be a
    contributing  factor.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see that it
    is not a contributing factor and correlates only because girls who
    smoke tend to have more sexual partners earlier.

--David

    re: .1 (David)
    
    	   Well, I must be forgiven for propagandizing the smoking
    	side, since Koop (and his band of anti-smoking warriors)
    	were so quick to declare that there was a link between
    	second-hand smoke and cervical cancer, when indeed no such
    	link has ever been found.  (Incidentally, that was what I
    	really said was refuted.)
    
    	   While I understand Koop's motives for making such claims
    	(and subsequently doctoring his numbers of "smoking-related
    	deaths"), I think it was a great disservice to the public
    	(particularly the women) to mislead them in that fashion.
    	Such statements fostered a great deal of ill will toward
    	smokers and did nothing to allow the real problems to be
    	understood and addressed.
    
    	   As a point of interest, I would like to take an informal
    	survey.  According to the article, this information concerning
    	HPV and cervical cancer is at least two years old.  Yet before
    	seeing that article I had never heard of HPV.  How many of you
    	(particularly the women) were equally uninformed of the matter?
    	How many had heard about Koop's proclamation concerning second-
    	hand smoke, but had never heard about the HPV link?
    
    	   When I posted the article in Soapbox nobody claimed to have
    	heard about it prior to the posting.  Some even brushed it 
    	aside as insignificant when compared to, say, AIDS despite
    	the number of infected individuals.
    
    	- Greg

    
    Re .1 - girls who smoke tend to have more sexual partner earlier
    
    Where on earth does this come from???
    
    Sam
    

    "`A girl who will chew gum will smoke, and a girl who will smoke
    will drink, and a girl who will drink will -- well, I think we
    all know what that kind of a girl will do.'"
    
    						-- Jean Kerr quoting the
    						head nun of her school in
    						"When I Was Queen of the May"

    Sure, I knew about HPV, genital warts, cervical cancer, etc etc. 
    Learned about it in my Human Sexuality course senior year in college (a
    course that for this reason alone [STD's] I think should be required
    for everyone.)  I remember them having a list of things that were 
    considered potentially dangerous (with respect to HPV) and I think 
    smoking *might* have been one, but I wouldn't have remembered it until
    reminded by this note.
    
    Please do remember...while they might not have *found* a link between
    HPV and smoking, that doesn't mean there isn't one.  I am a little
    upset at the implication that it was proven that there *isn't* link. 
    All the article said was that a link hadn't been proven.
    
    But hey, the link between smoking and lung cancer hasn't been "proven"
    either!
    
    D!

    
    
    RE: .3
    
    >Re .1 - girls who smoke tend to have more sexual partner earlier
    >
    >Where on earth does this come from???
    
    
    "Goody goody two shoes, 
     don't drink, don't smoke...
     What do you do?
     Don't drink, don't smoke...
     What do you do?"
    
    		--Adam Ant
    
    
    Don't you know that only "bad girls" smoke?  8-)
    
    kath

I believe it was in V2 that I mentioned that I had asked my doctor if there was
a test for HPV in males, since it's possible to likely that you can get
(re-)infected by your partner, and HPV is often asymptomatic in males. I was
told that, unfortunately, there is no such test, and that men aren't usually
treated unless there are symptoms, or their partners show up with HPV.

	-- Charles

    
    while there is no test for hpv in males per se, it should be noted
    that veneral warts may be hpv. even then warts in males are often 
    undetectable to the untrained eye.
    

    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V2
    311 - help needed - genital warts
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Re: .6
    
    Crikey - I've been a "bad girl" for two years and didn't know it!! :-)
    
    Sam
    

    re: .5 (D!)
    
>    Please do remember...while they might not have *found* a link between
>    HPV and smoking, that doesn't mean there isn't one.  I am a little
>    upset at the implication that it was proven that there *isn't* link. 
>    All the article said was that a link hadn't been proven.
    
    	   The article also said "cervical cancer is now known to be
    	a sexually transmitted disease," which is itself rather a 
    	flat statement that there is no hard link to smoking.
    
    	   Okay, I understand your objection.  Please understand my
    	objection to Koop's flat statement that not only was cervical
    	cancer linked to smoking, but to second-hand smoke as well
    	(in light of the fact that no such links have been found, let 
    	alone proven).  Smokers have come under a *lot* of pressure
    	because of Koop's statements, which included his annual 
    	"smoking-related death counts" (now known to be absolutely
    	bogus, trumped-up numbers based on unfounded speculations).
    	
    	   You mentioned the on-going search for the link between
    	smoking and lung cancer.  Doesn't it surprise you that after
    	decades of searching they haven't found anything yet?  Might
    	that be because they aren't really looking in the right place?
    	I'm not saying there's no link between smoking and lung cancer
    	(and perhaps several other kinds of cancers), but as the article
    	suggests that link may be less direct than we currently think.
    	Perhaps smoking only acts as the trigger that turns the oncogenes
    	from benign to malignant.  Perhaps the link is even less direct
    	than that.  Yet all the while we seem happy to assume that the
    	link is direct and blame smokers for every case of lung cancer
    	we see (despite the fact that many such cases appear in
    	non-smokers, a serious clue if ever there was one).
    
    	   Just as cervical cancer has now been linked (statistically, if
    	not pathologically) with HPV, might not other cancers have 
    	different 'transmitters' than we now assume?  Wouldn't that
    	explain why after decades of research we still can't prove the 
    	linkages?  I think there is much we miss when we stare too 
    	intently on one small point and overlook the bigger picture.
    
    	- Greg

    I take it you are a smoker, Greg?
    
    
    
    				h

    re: .12 (Nichols)
    
    	   Who, me? 
    
    	   (heh heh heh)
    
    	   Yeah, I guess you could say I'm a smoker.
    
    	- Greg

    so was my mother, until she died of complications from emphysema 
    
    so was I until my doctor told me _i_ had emphysema 11years ago. (had
    smoked a pack + a day for 30 years.
    What my doctor told me then was that even after I stopped smoking that
    it was likely that I would die of something connected to lungs.
    The results of my last series of respiratory function tests indicate
    virtual normalcy. (and I smoke -but don't inhale- a pipe
    At my last checkup my doctor stated that I am now no more likely to die
    of a respiratory function deficiency than anything else.
    
    My mother was 68 when she died, and had been handicapped in substantial
    ways for 10 years. My father is still alive and well at 84, he stopped
    smoking 30 old years ago after smoking for the better part of 40 years.