“Doesn’t tell us a thing about the rate of cancer precursors detected, and that is the critical thing. Screening is merely a means of detection, it is not a preventative nor a guarantee the condition will not develop.”
No, this is incorrect. It detects any abnormal cell growth and is considered a preventive measure. Read the CDC pages and others.
“It also doesn’t address disparities in health care between groups unless you have a well planned programme that takes in all the population likely to be at risk there will always be cases of cervical cancer occurring that could have been prevented. It is quite frequent to find that in some countries some groups at low risk get a lot of screening, while others end up missing out completely, which means while the programme will work to some extent, it’s never going to catch all cases.”
What doesn’t address disparities? I’m saying that to the extent that people are educated about regular screening and follow-up and have the services available to them, it’s extremely effective in preventing cervical cancer. I’m saying that disparities need to be addressed regardless of any vaccines, and the bestplanned screening programs should be implemented. If the best hopes for the vaccine turn out to be realized, it will be a really useful addition to those programs.
My point about the repetition of the “HPV-associated OP cancers will, if trends continue, overtake cervical cancer in the US” is that even if it turns out to be the case it can mislead those USians who’ve come to think of cervical cancer as something extremely widespread, when in fact it’s a rare cancer and becoming more rare due to Pap tests (making the suggestion somewhat ironic as well). The only point of the comparison, as far as I can tell, is to move people toward vaccinating boys to protect them from OP cancer, even though there’s no evidence the vaccine will do that.
The rest of your post is a bit confused in that it doesn’t say anything not covered in my post you’re replying to, but a couple of points:
“One bit of information I found on this using US stats:”
That’s the precursor to the article under discussion here.
“Obviously, there are some valid issues with recommending the current vaccine for throat cancer for everyone including whether it’s cost effective, but it’s clear that HPV is linked to more cancers than one and this should continue to be under consideration as more information arises.”
You’ve said essentially nothing here (and if you think I’ve suggested that HPV isn’t linked to more cancers you’re really not getting what I’m talking about). But entered into the cost-effectiveness equation would have to be the fact that there’s no evidence of its effectiveness for OP cancer.
“Not the least, I think it should be considered by men as an option at least because of the protection from genital warts. Might not stack up tremendously well under the “it’s going to kill you” category (hence why it’s not considered mandatory for males by governments at present) but pretty foul to have and try to treat once they have been contracted.”
It’s not considered mandatory for females, either, except in a couple of places, and keep in mind that we’re not talking about men and women here, but girls and boys. Even under the best of assumptions about duration of effectiveness, there’s a steep decline in effectiveness with age due to exposure to the virus. As I’ve said, assuming long-lasting protection against genital warts, that’s something to consider. They’re a nuisance condition, but a far cry from cancer.
