Cures all around, well sort of.

It's been a long time since I blogged, so I don't know if I should do five short posts or one really long post.
I guess to keep up my quota I am going to try for five really very short postings, inside of one really long post.

[b]STD Vaccine may not be safe.[/b]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm

The first it to say that I found out that families can opt out of the forced vaccinations. In Texas although it has not been widely reported families can opt out on religious or moral grounds. This means that your daughter is not required to get the STD shot if she does not want to. This is a good thing, because there are several side effects and some sound more harmful than first anticipated.

[quote]The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls. Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures. "Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures," said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit watchdog organization that was created in the early 1980s to prevent vaccine injuries. [/quote]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be really concerned about giving a 11, 12 year old a vaccine that will only reduce the chances of cervical cancer by 40%. There are 10 strains of the Human Pap that can lead to possible cervical cancer and this kills only 4. Girls and woman will still have to go for a yearly pap test, no matter what they choose to do. Also the shot is given in 3 stages over 6 months, and so far it's only proven to be effective for up to 5 years, at this stage they don't know if it will be effective past that stage.

The other thing is because it's been on the market for some time, they really do not know if there will be any down the line consequences.

[quote] Merck is heavily promoting the vaccine through its salespeople imploring doctors to provide it and running TV ads urging young women to get vaccinated so there will be "One Less" cancer patient. But physicians disagree with public health officials over whether Gardasil is the panacea for cancer. Clayton Young, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck's claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer. "There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer," he said. "They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim." [/quote]

The vaccine may also not really prevent cervical cancer. This has to just be great for those Texas politicians signing the praises of this. I really hope that parents will think twice before subjecting their young prepubescent daughters to these shots.

[b]Reduce HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 50% get circumcised.[/b]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

This is really good to know. You can reduce the risk of catching HIV by like 50% just by getting snipped. That is amazing health new and the world should be hearing about this. Texas politicians should be shouting it from the roof tops, but they are not, know why? There is no money to be made from men and boys getting circumcised the same way there is for pre-pubesent girls, and their drug company friends.

They should now be encouraging parents to have their youngster snipped at birth to give them a 50% chance to reduce on of the deadliest diseases in the world, but I have not heard too much information about this in any circles and I think it's a shame. Men should be getting this information for health reasons for themselves and their families.

[quote]Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.
The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.
AIDS experts immediately hailed the finding. ''This is very exciting news,'' said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at the Harvard Center for Population and Development, who has argued that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is common.
[/quote]

Circumcision works the same all he world over, so whither it's China, India, Africa, America, the world should be getting this important health information and people should be using it to their advantages. Remember if we can slow down the spread of HIV to men, that means less woman with HIV, less children, etc. It's a cycle that can have good effects for lot's of people, but it's something not being loudly and widely acclaimed, because there is no drug company that will make money from these findings.

[quote]Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse.
But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus; it is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods; and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

Circumcision is ''not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention,'' said Dr. Kevin M. De Cock, director of H.I.V./AIDS for the World Health Organization. [/quote]

It's not a cure all, and neither is the STD shot for girls, but this is giving men a 50% reduction in the chances of getting HIV, the STD shot is giving woman and girls a 40% reduction if even that. Cervical cancer does kill about 3700 woman per year, how many people per year die from AIDS? Everywhere I go I see ads for the STD shot or news stories about it, and yet I have seen little information about the HIV reduction in men and again I think this is because there is no drug company that will be making money from this easy and affordable intervention.

[b]Cure for Cancer on the horizon?[/b]

Could well be that a cure for cancer is on the horizon.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

[quote]IT SOUNDS almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their "immortality". The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe. It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.[/quote]

Don't get too hopeful yet, this has only been tested on rats, and humans are a different story. Other things that have worked on rats have not worked on humans, and yet there should have been more in the news about this story. There should have been a Texas politician screaming this out from the roof tops, oh wait there will be no money to be made from his friends in the drug industry so you probably will not hear about this.

This could very well be an exciting future break through, but we really do have to wait and see. However this is a story to keep your eyes on. If you follow the link, it give a link to the Calgary website, that is doing the research and they are keeping everyone updated.