uncircumcised can cause cervical cancer - Page 2

[Frankly Speaking]

Amy:

I just happened to come accross this while I was looking for more information on cervical cancer and HPV. It appears to contradict what you have said.

"Levels of HPV-fighting antibodies fluctuated substantially in the cervical tissue of the non-pill users, reaching their lowest point around ovulation, the researchers report Tuesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”

http://www.wcn.org/interior.cfm?feat...=3&rev_id=1623





Frank

[merpk]

Frank, come on, we're not talking about circumcision, so everything I say isn't wrong, okay?

But seriously, I'm not talking about HPV, either. My comments were directed specifically at the diagnosis of cervical cancer.
And whatever you've got there, the studies I referred to are: Jewish women had substantially lower rates of cervical cancer when abstention from relations during &immediately following menstruation was a more widespread observance. When following the laws became less common, cervical cancer became more common.

[Sarah]

Amy... I'm curious if the historical fluctuation of the observance of this abstaining during and after menstruation might also coincide with a difference in legalistic attitudes about premarital sex and virginity and marriage...


You have not provided any refrence for your belief that the coincidence of these rules about menstruation and the incidence of cervical cancer are in any way CAUSITIVELY linked... how do we know that it's not any other of the hundereds of rules which could be randomly pegged for the reason why observant Jewish women hav a lower rate of cervical cancer?

State your source- because you have not come any where close to mentioning how sex during menstruation could be the cause of cervical cancer.


And yet the most obvious... my presumption that observant men and women might not be slutting around before marriage is being met by you with mocking big eyes? Because I presumed that every unmarried observant Jew was not clambering to squeeze through legalistic loopholes of only abstaining from adulturous involvment with married people? Of excuse me for giving them the benefit of the doubt!

I still think that presuming that the observant Jews observing at the time the original cervical cancer info was noticed were not engaging in premarital sex and thusly were less likely to have been exposed to HPV and less likely to develop cervical cancer is the most reasonable explanation for any of this.

Instead of mocking my theory... explain to me how your works.

[merpk]

Sarah, one of us does have a mocking attitude here, and it's not me.



My source is from a book called "American Orthodoxy," forgive me for not knowing the author at the moment off the top of my head, read it a long time ago, and found the statistic about Jewish women's cancer rates startling, particularly because I was just starting to observe the laws myself.

And I can't give you any further sources than that. I read about the statistic in a book. Sue me.



I'm not talking about menstruation and cancer rates, only about observance of Taharat haMishpakha and cancer rates.

The statistics include previously married Jewish women, remarried Jewish women, etc.



And your remarks about "jumping through legalistic loopholes" tells me you've got some issues with Jewishly observant people. Well, work 'em out elsewhere, please, and don't jump on me.



I only entered this thread because of a previous post trying to link the known statistic about Jewish women's one-time low cervical cancer rates with circumcision, which is erroneous. I added my view, which makes sense, considering that assimilation through the middle of the 20th century made the laws of T.h'M not so widely practiced, ie., not so many very observant people around. And Jewish women's rates went up.



I wish I knew why you were so intent on attacking this and me.

Then again, no, I don't care. Never mind.

[merpk]

And if I may add, Sarah, there aren't "hundreds of rules" that are even remotely related to the Jewish woman's cervix. So sorry to disappoint you.

Only one: Taharat ha'Mishpakha, which requires no sexual contact during menstruation or for one week immediately following.






Have I said this enough?










Really, I don't know why this is becoming such an ordeal on this thread. I was agreeing with you all, that I couldn't imagine how circumcision could effect cancer rates.

Or maybe I misread, and you were all excited to see a connection?

Either way, never mind. You all just like arguing with me, I think.

[Sarah]

You still haven't explained the reason why you think that sex during a period or in the week following has anything to do with cervical cancer.

[Frankly Speaking]

Amy:

I didn't intend to attack you or really be argumentative. I just happened to find that report of research that was just released this week. I was simply adding more information to the discussion. You said:

“The lower incidence of cervical cancer is more correctly attributed to the observant woman's abstention from sexual relations during her period and for one week afterwards.”

And:

“My information comes purely from the cervical cancer studies I referred to. Among American Jewish women as a whole, who early in the 20th century were much more observant of Jewish laws of family relations (abstaining during and immediately following menstruation), cervical cancer rates were lower than the rest of the population by a wide margin.”

I suspect that the studies you refer to are observational studies and assume a link and this week's study seems to say that is probably not true. This week's study said that there are more antibodies present during menustration and fewer during ovulation. This would make the time that Jewish women refrained from sexual relations the time least likely to acquire HPV. What this really tells us that Jewish women's lower HPV probably had to do with some other influence other than refraining from sex during menses.

There are probably a thousand things that would have to be studied to nail it down to one particular thing. It could be that Jewish women have a genetically higher immunity to HPV and inter-faith marriages have weakened that immunity. I don't know and I don't think anyone knows the real reason. However, it is natural for people to "suppose" and theorize. I think that may be what has happened.





Frank

[Nathan1097]

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/index6.html

There's some about the history behind the cervical/penile cancer myth.

[laralou]

Let's leave out the personal comments and stick to the discussion. If you have a personal issue with another member, take it to PM.

[member234098]

CAtholic Nuns have a very low rate of cervical cancer also.

But they have a high rate of breast cancer.

Take your pick of lifestyle.

[Frankly Speaking]

A couple more links to HPV/cervical cancer research:


43% of college women contract HPV in 36 month period:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...tract/12/6/485


“Females aged 13 to 21 years who attended 2 family planning clinics in the San Francisco bay area; 496 had prevalent HPV infection and 105 were HPV-negative.” (And an additional 54 infections occurred during the study period in the negative girls)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/285/23/2995



I think what these studies and research projects show is that most women will have an HPV infection at some time during their lifetime. Luckily, the vast majority will develop an immunity and there will be no harmful effects.

I think what this and previously posted research shows is that a positive link between circumcision status and HPV/cervical cancer would be difficult, if not impossible to establish. The fact is that the majority of women will have an HPV infection at some time in their life. Most will never realize they ever had the infection. Only a tiny fraction of those infected will go on to develop cervical cancer. Linking that cancer to an intact penis is virtually impossible.




Frank