Grandma was right !!!! it is DIRTY and YOU WILL get disease from it !!!!

[Guru Zeb]

At least read an article before posting glib nonsense m8 .......... not all tissue types are at risk obviously some cancers only iffect certain types of tissue thats why men carry the HPV on the penis but don't suffer from it there.

Show you didn't look well into the matter yourself, HPV can affect any type of issue depending on the strain

no offence but get lost m8

I'm putting myself on your level dude.

Kinda like

1) scientist says 'boo wee, sucking dick gives cancer' 2) people go running in circles 'oh noes, we're gonna die'

As for now, the studies mentionned a 'possible correlation'. Now answer my question, if that correlation exists for real ... why has increase gotten noticeable only in the last 30 years, even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?

A couple of millenia should've been enough to push sexually transmitted HPV related cancer as main source of mortally for mankind.

You haven't been on 'my level' throughout this entire thread ........... apparently because i used a jokey title and admittedly used a slightly dodgy initial link you thought the topic completely bogus. I however know its not as i stated due to it featuring on BBC radio and TV news and the BBC producing a documentary.
I provided several HIGHLY credible sources ........ but because apparently your ego cannot handle you being mistaken, you persist in yapping away like a small dog.

The research is credible and factual your initial reaction was and is wrong ....... get over it.

As i've said i wish it wasn't true too ....... but it is ..............find credible evidence to suggest its not.

[Fool010]

Nice for you, I'll let you swin around in your bubble of catastrophism since you consistently refuse to address the obvious flaw in logic, hiding behing 'scientific evidence'.

Once again, if there's such a high risk ... why does it take place only in the last 30 years even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?
You're seriously suggesting that though the source and the vector of transmission have been existing for a long time, they've been innocuous for the most time and only got dangerous lately ?

REALLY ?

Vague studies 'suggesting' 'possible correlation', is not what I call solid scientific evidence, despite what you're claiming.

[AceHigh]

Fearmongering.

Fact number one: Sex has never been safer at any point of the history, than it is now.
Fact number two: Never before in our history have we had both preventive measures and treatments available for public.

Let's inspect this quote:

In the United States, researchers have found a 225 percent increase in oral cancer from 1974 to 2007, predominantly in white males, reported Dr. Maura Gillison of Ohio State University, who has been researching HPV and cancer for 15 years

My question is, how many people were diagnosed that well in 1974? Could it be that only half of the infected ones were ever diagnosed in 1974? Hell, how many are even diagnosed today? This is so basic, that you don't need to be a researcher to know it. Indeed they knew about simple explanations for the 225% increase, but chose to ignore them because they are obviously driven by their own agenda.

Their research wouldn't pass any real scientific method to be stated as a "fact", so I decided that I will make my own bullshit research based on deductive logic, intellectual guessing and statements taken out of thin air driven by my own agenda. So here it goes:

Professor AceHigh that may or may not have any real degree, did a research on blowjobs that occur now and 40 years ago, and doctor AceHigh found an astonishing result that sex done in 60-ies during the hippie rise and 70-ies, when the hippies were still fucking, couldn't in any way be safer or less numerous, than the amount of sex people are having now under the pressure of government sponsored abstinence programs. The senior doctorate of bullshit AceHigh thus concludes that sucking your boyfriend's cock while knowing that all his STD results came negative is much safer than sucking dick of some "flower child" you don't know as a celebration of the end of Vietnam war in 1975.

[Fool010]

Professor AceHigh that may or may not have any real degree

I always thought you majored with magna cum laude from Bogus Acedemy ... I am wrong ?  

PS : in case of doubt ... yes, it is second degree

PS again : afterthought, if sexually transmitted HPV is such a dangerous vector of cancer does

(click to show/hide)

Tit fucking and giving a pearl necklace

cause melanoma and breast cancer ?  

Life is a sickness with a 100% mortality rate

[Guru Zeb]

Nice for you, I'll let you swin around in your bubble of catastrophism since you consistently refuse to address the obvious flaw in logic, hiding behing 'scientific evidence'.

Once again, if there's such a high risk ... why does it take place only in the last 30 years even though both HPV and oral sex are as old as mankind ?

At no point have I stated any 'risk rate' ( unless you want to include the obvious jokes )

Vague studies 'suggesting' 'possible correlation', is not what I call solid scientific evidence, despite what you're claiming.

Vague studies that get picked up by new scientist and by THE most credible global news agency on the planet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is, how many people were diagnosed that well in 1974? Could it be that only half of the infected ones were ever diagnosed in 1974? Hell, how many are even diagnosed today? This is so basic, that you don't need to be a researcher to know it. Indeed they knew about simple explanations for the 225% increase, but chose to ignore them because they are obviously driven by their own agenda.

This seems a fair and cogent observation ...... but wouldn't that just indicate that the issue has been a hidden problem.

Their research wouldn't pass any real scientific method to be stated as a "fact", so I decided that I will make my own bullshit research based on deductive logic, intellectual guessing and statements taken out of thin air driven by my own agenda. So here it goes:

Hmmmm do you know something about the research group or the funding of the research to back this up ....... at least the idea that the research is 'Agenda' driven ??



EDIT newy:...

[Fool010]

At no point have I stated any 'risk rate' ( unless you want to include the obvious jokes )

Yet you're more than willing to ring the high risk bell, coherence in there ?

[AceHigh]

This seems a fair and cogent observation ...... but wouldn't that just indicate that the issue has been a hidden problem.

You can't take out numbers for comparisons when you have such factors as "hidden problem", "demographics", "inconsistent research method over time" etc...

In order for such a research to be accurate, they would have to rent an isolated island with two camps with each holding at least 5000 people that have identical living conditions and identical medical history, and then keep them ther for 50 years with one camp giving each other blowjobs and the other one not.

As you see the basic problem with such an experiment is that it is inhumane. Therefore many researches that have something to do with social habits are very vague and besed more on deductive logic than any real observation and evidence. Psychology is especially infamous in this area (To clarify: Psychology is not accepted as "science" by the scientific community).

Basically I don't trust a research that has been very inconsistent in it's observation. A lot has changed in medical science since 1974, and people are way better diagnosed today, than they were before.

Just to prove my point: Do you think there are severely more people with ADHD today, than in 1974, or do you think diagnose method is much more effective?

Hmmmm do you know something about the research group or the funding of the research to back this up ....... at least the idea that the research is 'Agenda' driven ??

I would need the actual journal to find out who is funding them and eventually finding out about the organisation.... not hard, but very time consuming, so I will just use deductive reasoning that they are agenda driven because they overlooked very important factors. If you don't accept my reasoning, I will not blame you, because after all I question this research for the very same reason.

[newy]

Guru Zeb, learn to MODIFY your comments to avoid doubleposts and a locked thread!

[Guru Zeb]

At no point have I stated any 'risk rate' ( unless you want to include the obvious jokes )

Yet you're more than willing to ring the high risk bell, coherence in there ?

If you can't see that all the 'grandma' stuff is soooo obvious a joke then you really are a fool.

Am still waiting for ANY credible source that seriously debunks this research ....... i've put forward several that seem to support it ....... so far you've put up nothing but rhetoric and freshman sarcasm.

[Soryon]

I heard about this while listening to NPR (National Public Radio) a few weeks ago during a segment about health. I don't remember the source but they were talking to some doctor about it.
All the fun things in life are bad for your health =p

EDIT- Found a link- http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/01/133968901/virus-passed-during-oral-sex-tops-tobacco-as-throat-cancer-cause

[Fool010]

United States HPV causes 64 percent of oropharynxl cancers. In the rest of the world, tobacco remains the leading cause of oral cancer

Isn't that more a tribute to the effectiveness of anti-tabagism campaigns rather than an increase in dangerosity of sexually transmitted HPV based cancer ?

Smoking is a lot less popular than it used to be even, even 30 years ago. It's kinda normal that other sources may have an increase role in oral cancer. It's not a matter of one alternative source getting more dangerous, it's more something about the main cause getting marginal.

Just to make sure, I don't diss the possibilty of a risk in this matter. I just don't agree with the fact it's presented as an evolution for the worse. With that kind of midnset, you should refrain from driving a car because you put your life at risk.

Once you fear death too much you lose the courage to live. Besides, when you see how society treats it's old people ... do you really want to live longer ?

Just to cite the infamous Ishihara -you know, the one from the censorship bill on manga- : women who no longer are able to procreate put an unneeded burden on society

I sometimes think illness is a lot more unprejudiced than anything human.

[Tiffanys]

"Dr. Maura Gillison of Ohio State University. . . Some of Gillison's research is funded by Merck, the pharmaceutical company that makes Gardasil."

I'd say that's a damn near text book example of a research that would benefit financially by promoting a particular view.

Seeing as to how they were funded by the company that makes the vaccine, it's likely such funding could have swayed the information presented or the way the study was conducted in order to align with their agenda. Obviously we can't deny the fact that the research could be heavily biased. However...

Maura Gillison
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, USA

Maura Gillison is a head and neck medical oncologist and molecular epidemiologist recruited at Johns Hopkins. Dr Gillison has made significant research contributions to the fields of tumour virology, cancer biology, and epidemiology, and was the first to make the association between HPV and oral cancer. In 2009, Dr Gillison presented data at ASCO 2009 showing that HPV is the most important predictor of clinical response to tumour therapy status and prognosis for patients with head and neck cancers. As a result of these data, the National Cancer Institute has recommended that all clinical trials involving head and neck cancer be stratified by tumour HPV status. Dr Gillison has published extensively in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of The National Cancer Institute, and the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr Gillison is NCI R01 and R21 funded and holds the newly created Jeg Coughlin Chair for Cancer Research in the OSUCCC.

Judging from her credentials, and her being cited in other people's work as well, I'd say it seems like she's an expert in her field. So, there may very well be some merit to her findings.

I certainly don't intend to change my sex habits whatever the case though.

[xyx]

it's not my problem if she gets it ^^

[Fool010]

it's not my problem if she gets it ^^

Seems it's not the thing you've got to worry about the most, reading your comment. Reminds me of HIV positives going bareback, saying it's not my problem if they get it.

Back on to topic, I'd like to point out that none of the so-called scientific evidence has yet produced anything conclusive.

[Soryon]

it's not my problem if she gets it ^^

It will be your problem when she stops
Unless you have a back up /shrug.

[TwEeD]

After uncarefull drunk instant consideration I say:

Fuck it, it's worth getting cancer over :p

[Tiffanys]

it's not my problem if she gets it ^^

Except men are the ones mainly getting it.... lol

[undetz]

After uncarefull drunk instant consideration I say:

Fuck it, it's worth getting cancer over :p

After uncareful drunk instant consideration I say:

Fuck yeah!

[AceHigh]

it's not my problem if she gets it ^^

Except men are the ones mainly getting it.... lol

Wait, that means I have to stop pleasuring my girl with my tongue? 
Oh well, nobody lives forever.

[Fool010]

Wait, that means I have to stop pleasuring my girl with my tongue?  

Stop it right now or you'll get HPV and your cigarettes will develop cancer when you smoke them