uhhh

[SwedishFish]

is nothing fun anymore???

Oral Sex Shown to Be Linked to Mouth Cancer
Wed Feb 25, 2:54 PM ET


LONDON (Reuters) - Although the risk is small and it is more likely to result from heavy drinking and smoking, scientists have uncovered evidence that oral sex can cause mouth cancer.

Researchers had suspected that a sexually transmitted infection that is linked to cervical cancer could also be associated with tumors in the mouth.


Now a study by researchers working for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France seems to have confirmed it.


"Oral sex can lead to oral tumors," New Scientist magazine said Wednesday, referring to the latest research.


The scientists studied more than 1,600 patients from Europe, Canada, Australia, Cuba and the Sudan with oral cancer and more than 1,700 healthy people.


They found that patients with oral cancer containing a strain of the human papilloma virus (HPV) known as HPV16 were three times more likely to report having had oral sex than those without the virus strain.


"The researchers think both cunnilingus and fellatio can infect people's mouths," the magazine added.


Raphael Viscidi, a virologist who worked on the research, believes the findings substantiate the link between HPV and oral cancer.


"This is a major study in terms of size," he said. "I think this will convince people."


High consumptions of alcohol and cigarettes are estimated to cause 75-90 percent of all cases of oral cancer. The combination of tobacco smoke and alcohol are thought to produce high levels of cancer causing agents.


Scientists are currently working on vaccines to prevent cervical cancer, which is more common, but they might also be effective against oral cancer.


"It is thought the vaccines would prevent oral infections as well," the magazine added.

 

[sargentlard]

"This is a major study in terms of size," he said. "I think this will convince people."

HA!!!! highly unlikely.

It is advised to use a condom during oral sex but that information is hardly stressed. Most people don't even consider oral sex as real sexual intercourse (Bill Clinton ). I know people who have had oral sex and call themselves virgins.

 

[SwedishFish]

perhaps it will convince people to use protection when they didn't think they had to before

 

[sargentlard]

Well the concern here is most likely teens and they do not even use protection when conventional sex is involved or are very hesitent to so I doubt oral sex would any different because at that age the lack of fear or mortality and supposed knowledge of all takes precedence over pragmatic decisions.

 

[SwedishFish]

20-somethings are probably the most at risk group since teenagers are fresh out of health class and more likely to be scared into being safe. they're also new to sex, so being careful like a new driver comes to mind. should sex-ed extend beyond the classroom and enter into public service announcements?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

This is incredibly bad science and whoever did the statistical reduction should be charged with malpractice!

Write on the blackboard a hundred times: "Correlation does not imply causation."

Perhaps people who engage in oral sex are simply more adventurous than those who don't -- bigger risk takers. They may be less likely to have done a careful job of choosing their sex partners than people who limit themselves to more conservative forms of sexual activity. Their higher incidence of contagion may simply be due to their choice of partners, not their choice of activity.

I can't believe the number of SciForums readers who read this and took it at face value before someone finally came along who could spot the glaring error in the methodology!

Give this report an "F". Don't ever again trust anything you read in the publication that reported it.

Sexually transmitted diseases of the mouth can, after all, be transmitted by kissing.

 

[SwedishFish]

"Don't ever again trust anything you read in the publication that reported it."

new scientist?

 

[sargentlard]

I can't believe the number of SciForums readers who read this and took it at face value before someone finally came along who could spot the glaring error in the methodology!

This was horribly obvious but I went off tangent and argued that even those who read this headline without researching would still likely not care. I have found that unless vanity's head is on the line people do not tend to care so much about the rest that is effecting them, hell even vanity takes back seat to comfort....just look at 65% national obesity rate of the U.S.A. It effects us all in higher medicare bills, higher insurance premiums, lost work hours, I believed it all totals up to an extra billion that the tax payers have to shell out.

whoops, going off tangent again, sorry Swedishfish.

20-somethings are probably the most at risk group since teenagers are fresh out of health class and more likely to be scared into being safe. they're also new to sex, so being careful like a new driver comes to mind. should sex-ed extend beyond the classroom and enter into public service announcements?

It used to be quite prevalent in after school programming, in commercial forms as 30 second ad spots and after school specials. I remember FOX channel use to air many under the Generation X label. I do not see them anymore but the real problem with teenage preganacies lies in poor, urban areas, with minorites (Atleast in NY). It is obvious the sex education isn't helping and if sex ed is ever brought up as an issue at PTA it is kept as a hush-hush topic not open for any form of expansion or improvement.

To be honest I really don't know what would work.

 

[Vortexx]

Just make sure you are getting and not giving the blowjob and you will be fine!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Just make sure you are getting and not giving the blowjob and you will be fine!

That's only partially true, and even less so if you the receiver are female. (Erica Jong the feminist writer calls oral sex in either direction a B.J., who am I to argue.) A man could probably evade HIV this way, although his other partners would have some angry questions about his risk analysis parameters if he were staking all of their lives on that "probably." However, the less deadly but nonetheless show-stopping Herpes viruses can be transmitted by oral-genital contact unless you examine each other with clinical precision before you begin. As for the old non-virus types of STDs like syphilis and gonorrhea... they're still around and they're just as contagious as ever.

 

[gendanken]

Perhaps people who engage in oral sex are simply more adventurous than those who don't -- bigger risk takers

This is incredibly bad science and whoever did the statistical reduction should be charged with malpractice!

Write on the blackboard a hundred times: "Correlation does not imply causation

Make that a cool billion: "Correlaton does not imply causation. Day follows night- does night cause day? If yes, then I'm a bloody moron."

Reminds me of the Kennedy curse.

So! If you're a Kennedy you're doomed to choke on NyQuil and die in your sleep one night?

Its the curse of Camelot.....OOOHhh....AHhhh.........

Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the family is a high profile, high risk one privileged to do things most can't afford to- they ski, they fly, they travel, they light a whole country on fire with their politics.

THEY"RE EVERWHERE. And most of them are stupid. And its as natural to them as going to church every Sunday is for every family out there as boring as most are.


But no- its the spell cast by Camelot that's got them dropping like flies. Whatever.

 

[Persol]

I think gendanken just summed it up.