Erin Andrews has cervical cancer.

[donttreadonme]

29 minutes ago, SOJA said:

Guys do not show genital signs, however there is a growing trend of HPV induced carcinoma of the throat. Very much worth it for guys to receive the vaccine prior to the age of 26. 

so you can get it from eating the cat?

I'm not trying to make light of this.

[SOJA]

12 minutes ago, donttreadonme said:

so you can get it from eating the cat?

I'm not trying to make light of this.

yes. there has been a spike in HPV related carcinomas of the throat in recent years. 

http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/cancer/hpv-related-throat-cancer-on-the-rise-among-men/

[donttreadonme]

4 minutes ago, SOJA said:

yes. there has been a spike in HPV related carcinomas of the throat in recent years. 

http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/cancer/hpv-related-throat-cancer-on-the-rise-among-men/

Now I have a good excuse to not reciprocate...

[LinvilleGorge]

4 hours ago, manu4t said:

 

This ^^^

I represent and work closely with a lot of insurers and read a ton of "expert" reports and not just peer review but also examining physician reports as well.

I am not saying anything one way or the other about vaccination because I am not a physician, I don't have an opinion on it and I think it is an individual choice but for those quoting reports, etc here is the bottom line: you can pay an expert to say anything, I see it every day. These opinions are bought and sold at will. People are too quick to put stock in whichever one or ones support their world view, ie, they employ inductive reasoning. Not a good way to think when it comes to your health or that of your family.

Bigger picture I hope Erin will be ok.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

The current anti-science trend is alarming at best. These aren't "reports". They're clinical trials setup with strict controls and peer reviewed. Now, have their been rare instances where clinical trials have been falsified? Yep, it has happened. However, by and large they're very well done and they're the best scientific analysis of medical issues that we have.

What else are we supposed to go off of? Completely anecdotal accounts from natural/homeopathic/whatever kooks who want to sale their wares off of scare tactics? Fug that.

[billionairemonk]

6 hours ago, manu4t said:

 

This ^^^

I represent and work closely with a lot of insurers and read a ton of "expert" reports and not just peer review but also examining physician reports as well.

I am not saying anything one way or the other about vaccination because I am not a physician, I don't have an opinion on it and I think it is an individual choice but for those quoting reports, etc here is the bottom line: you can pay an expert to say anything, I see it every day. These opinions are bought and sold at will. People are too quick to put stock in whichever one or ones support their world view, ie, they employ inductive reasoning. Not a good way to think when it comes to your health or that of your family.

Bigger picture I hope Erin will be ok.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

couldn't agree more

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, billionairemonk said:

couldn't agree more

Just curious, those of you of this mindset, where do you get your info? What info do you trust?

[SmokinwithWilly]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The current anti-science trend is alarming at best. These aren't "reports". They're clinical trials setup with strict controls and peer reviewed. Now, have their been rare instances where clinical trials have been falsified? Yep, it has happened. However, by and large they're very well done and they're the best scientific analysis of medical issues that we have.

What else are we supposed to go off of? Completely anecdotal accounts from natural/homeopathic/whatever kooks who want to sale their wares off of scare tactics? Fug that.

I don't think it's anti-science as much as it is anti side effects. We've become a nation now where we hand out prescriptions like they're magic beans and we don't really know what the long term effects might be. I can understand the hesitancy for some when it comes to vaccines that are relatively new. The older ones that have had a decades to be evaluated I'm a little less worried about. 

[billionairemonk]

23 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Just curious, those of you of this mindset, where do you get your info? What info do you trust?

I try to read as much as I can from all sides.  even amongst the rhetoric, there is some truth, but to blindly agree with a side for whatever reason is a disservice to oneself.  I just don't take someone's word for it because they have a degree, credentials, etc.  in short, I trust what has and hasn't worked for me and those with whom I've spoken. also, I do as much as I can to prevent health issues by living, what I consider to be, a healthy lifestyle.  to think that companies that profit from sickness have a sick person's best interest at heart is naive at best.  there is no money in a cure.

[LinvilleGorge]

24 minutes ago, billionairemonk said:

I try to read as much as I can from all sides.  even amongst the rhetoric, there is some truth, but to blindly agree with a side for whatever reason is a disservice to oneself.  I just don't take someone's word for it because they have a degree, credentials, etc.  in short, I trust what has and hasn't worked for me and those with whom I've spoken. also, I do as much as I can to prevent health issues by living, what I consider to be, a healthy lifestyle.  to think that companies that profit from sickness have a sick person's best interest at heart is naive at best.  there is no money in a cure.

Totally agree on looking at both sides, but honestly I don't read anything when it comes to opinions. I don't care. What I want to see is he research, the clinical trials. How did you arrive at that opinion. That's the info that will tell me if this medical professional is worthy of my trust. Without that, it's just baseless opinion. If I ask for that info and all they want to talk about is "in my experience" and other anecdotal information with no backing of substance then that's all I need to know. I'm out the door.

[billionairemonk]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Totally agree on looking at both sides, but honestly I don't read anything when it comes to opinions. I don't care. What I want to see is he research, the clinical trials. How did you arrive at that opinion. That's the info that will tell me if this medical professional is worthy of my trust. Without that, it's just baseless opinion. If I ask for that info and all they want to talk about is "in my experience" and other anecdotal information with no backing of substance then that's all I need to know. I'm out the door.

i hear ya.  it's up to each person to decide what works for them