Originally posted by ggherkin at 16-1-2013 23:58
Still, of all the STDs, it seems to be one of the ones that men come down with the least ...
Again, I'm agreeing with this statement: the strains of HPV that kill women have NO effect on men.
My point is you can look at that from two perspectives ... you can say "Oh, in that case it's OK" because "it's not going to affect me". That would be the selfish perspective.
You can also look at it and say "Oh, here is something that is proven to be highly infectious, which might kill my partner if I ever catch it". That would be the social perspective.
Probably the hardest thing at this time is to get a clear medical opinion about what to do about the risk of HPV. They do all agree women should get regular cervical smears, and they all agree that four strains of HPV in particular cause the majority of cervical cancer cases. Beyond that, this seems to be an emerging area where there are more questions than there are answers, particularly relating to how to avoid catching it, and whether you can avoid catching it in the first place.
Forget condoms, they don't cover enough [Egendorf, Laura. Sexually Transmitted Diseases (At Issue Series). New York: Greenhaven Press, 2007] ...
And even monogamy and chastity appears not to work as a completely reliable defense: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/STDs/Virgin-with-Hpv/show/379795
So at this time the consensus appears to be that everyone - male and female - should assume they will catch it and will pass it on.
Not going to preach as to what you or any individual should do ... given even these few observations it's clear that his past history and his future expectations play a big part in what an informed and responsible man should choose. HPV is an issue without a solution - my aim here is just to raise awareness, in the hope that more people will do more of their own research.
... and on the antibiotics ...
I'm not going to argue with doctors who are doing surgeries: the risks of complications from surgery certainly warrant use of antibiotics even if there is a risk of side-effects. Surgery is dangerous, period. It is only done when there is some compelling threat to life that warrants the risk.
But I will still raise my eyebrows sky-high at the news of anyone self-prescribing antibiotics, and doing so on a systematic and regular basis, which is what it sounded like you might be doing. That is NOT at all the same thing as surgical prophylaxis.
At the end of the day, ANY use of antibiotics carries with it the accelerated risk of evolution of a resistant strain of bugs.
Bugs are routinely "genetically engineered" by sewage treatments plants, to evolve a culture of bugs that can handle a particularly toxic environment. And the way they do this is by exposing an existing culture of bacteria to a low-level of the toxic material, and gradually increasing the concentration over weeks and sometimes months, until they end up with a culture of bacteria that can thrive in the harsh environment.
To do that with beneficial bacteria who help us clean up the mess we make in our environment, is useful.
To do it with harmful bacteria that cause disease is something that ... put it this way ... is enough to provoke me to be uncharacteristically voluble here! |
