Parents, think of the young men...Follow

If there's a correlation between BCP and HPV it probably is that women on the pill are less likely to use barrier methods of birth control/STD prevention.

Probably even less so in young women since they've been told for 8 years that condoms don't prevent disease.

Yay us.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Do you mean one causing the other? Cause on that, you're correct (and the article I linked mentions it). HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, so the pill does not protect against it.

HPV is what causes cervical cancer. Cases of that form of cancer in someone without HPV are virtually unknown. So anyone with HPV has a chance of getting cervical cancer, regardless of what else they do. However, if they take the pill after already being infected with HPV, their chance of getting cervical cancer increases dramatically. It's not about exposure to HPV, since all the women in that part of the study had HPV. Those with HPV who did not use the pill were less likely to get cervical cancer. Period.

The statistics being seen cannot be explained away as an increased infection rate of HPV from the use of a pill instead of a condom.




Except that the chance of cervical cancer increases over time using the pill and then decreases if the pill is not used anymore, even among women with HPV.

The fact that use of the pill increases the chances of developing cervical cancer has well been known.

False.

I'd like to share that while the risk of cervical cancer being raised by birth control pills is still very controversial and considered uncertain at best, that the fact that birth control pills lower ovarian cancer by a *ton* and endometrial cancer is well established!

Also:


Fun: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/349/15/1443

Nexa

Again, Christ. Gbaji, it's not that you're 'wrong', but you just make such sweeping generalizations that it's impossible to say you're 'right'. Ya ken?

That last set of links was not intended to prove the original point, but to counter Smash's silly assertion that no one has known about a correlation between the use of the pill and an increased risk of cervical cancer.



Maybe. I don't know. From what I've seen, it's the opposite. 8 to 10 years ago, when studies were showing a connection between the pill and cervical cancer rates, many medical sites were downplaying it (and example being that fourth link which suggests as many do that the increased rate is just because they have a higher chance of contracting HPV).


The newer studies are showing that this just isn't the case. I haven't found a usable link to the actual study, but here's another reference to it


Specifically:




First line: Women who had taken the pill were no more likely to have contracted HPV. So the whole "They have a higher chance of getting infected in the first place" argument is clearly moot, at least with respect to this set of data.


This study specifically focused on women with HPV and compared rates of otherwise identical cases, with the only significant difference being that one group took the pill and one group didn't. When you find a 3-4 times increase in rates of cancer in a study like this, it's hard to argue against a causal relationship. We can speculate that maybe there were some other factors involved, but that's an pretty large statistical gap to cross.

The Internet may or may not cause cancer in alleged lab rats. Unless it doesn't.

An old friend's mom died of this last week. My mom was her nurse at the hospital and she went out fighting. She didn't even look the way I remember her 10 years ago. I hate knowing that so many have this and don't know it. Here's to hoping the new vaccine gets to everyone who needs it.

No, I specifically meant a coincidental relationship, not a causal one. Barrier birth control would help prevent both pregnancy and STDs like HPV.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm just not convinced. /shrug

Did you guys just not read what I quoted? ....

What part of "that's not it" aren't you getting?


As usual, I ask you to think this through.

What's really more likely? That the 15 people smarter than you and more educated on the subject matter *all* missed the obvious and got it wrong, or that you didn't understand.

Pause for thought. Given the frequency that this occurs and the disparity in intellects involved, one would think you might have learned some sort of restraint in this regard.

It's not just that though. What gbaji is arguing is that the point found in one study that the combination of hormones present in birth control pills make it more difficult for a woman to overcome her HPV infection once she has it. Yes, gbaji, I get it. It's still a ******* controversial finding that not everyone agrees with. STILL, the biggest problem with being on birth control pills when it comes to HPV and cervical cancer is that a person on the pill is less likely to use a barrier method. I KNOW that's not what you're talking about, but if you're going to make an argument against the pill, THAT would be the BETTER argument to make...since it's OBVIOUSLY true.

Nexa

should be a clear indicator that many of you simply fail to bother reading

Sure, that's what it is. The smart well read people, some with degrees literally in the language, fail to understand your prose.

If only we'd pause an carefully consider your arguments, we'd all agree.

In some ways, I envy your capacity for self delusion.

Proofs right up there Smash.

Proof of what?

What are you even arguing here, do you have any idea? That a study from five years ago implied HPV causes cancer at a higher rate in women who have higher levels of estrogen?

Great. It proves as much as a study showing women who wear red shirts get AIDS more.

There are 10000 variables in play that differentiate the demographic groups that use oral contraception and those that don't. When there's a double blind controlled study of women who have HPV give me a call.

I'm too lazy to link the other 40 studies that don't support the findings in diverse populations.

That's the point here, genius. Correlation still doesn't equal causation. You'll get there eventually in 30 or 40 years to basic Scientific Method.