Savage Love Everything Gives You Cancer
posted by on May 15 at 15:27 PM
My new column is up on the Stranger’s website. I address the news that having oral sex with more than five partners increases a person’s odds of developing throat cancer by 250%.
If you and your girlfriend have had more than five oral-sex partners in your lives, PBA, you are both 250 percent more likely to develop throat cancer than some sad asshole who’s never had oral sex.“Researchers believe,” reports New Scientist, “[that] oral sex may transmit human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus implicated in the majority of cervical cancers,” and the virus lodges in the throat, where it can cause cancer. Study subjects infected with HPV were 32 times more likely to develop throat cancer; folks who tested positive for one highly aggressive strain of the virus, HPV-16, were 58 times more likely to develop throat cancer. Smoking, previously believed to be the culprit behind most throat cancers, only triples a person’s risk. (A new slogan for the tobacco industry: “Smoke cigs, not pole.”)
A “Savage Love” reader crunched the numbers and sent this comforting email…
While there were many interesting ideas and findings in the recent Oral Sex/Cervical Cancer study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the claims made by some is entirely out of proportion to reality. Some have claimed that the increase in risk due to throat cancer from oral sex in individuals is remarkably higher than those who do not engage in oral sex. Looking at the numbers, however, shows that this is simply not the case.Tonsil and throat cancers affect about two in every 100,000 adults in the US, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (vol. 356, p. 1944), by way of New Scientist, “while [p]eople who have had more than five oral-sex partners in their lifetime are 250% more likely to have throat cancer than those who do not have oral sex.”
Or, in other words, from 2 in 100,000 (1:50,000) (the norm) to 5 in 100,000 (1:20,000; as 250% more than 2:100,000 is 5:100,000). While this might seem like a substantial increase, keep the following information in mind: the ACTUAL percentage (not the relative percentage) is .002% in the normal case, and .005% in the other, the difference being .003 percentage points. In other words, if a man or woman has had more than five (5) oral-sex partners, then he/she is only 3 thousandths of a percent more likely to get throat cancer than someone else who abstains from oral sex.
While the data involving oral cancer from HPV is interesting and demands more study, this does not radically affect the average person who engages in oral sex. No one should be put off from oral sex due to these numbers, as cunnilingus and fellatio do NOT significantly increase one’s risk of throat cancer.
Rock-Hard Numbers
the next thing that needs to be determined is the study's validity.
for that a person need to know statistics, the number of people surveyed in each group, and how the sample was obtained.
this determines the likelihood that the study results are an accurate reflection of life in general.
This information should also be available in the study itself, which a person should really review before he reports things like 250% more likely to get cancer in a nationally syndicated column;)
No more Chris Crocker?
I just saw an AP article that links multivitamins to prostate cancer. These fuckers will run anything, won't they?
I take a single whole-food vitamin everyday, and started years ago after I went into a health food store asking about multivitamins. I threw out the name of a mainstream brand, Centrum, and the lady replied, "LOL, no sir, we only sell vitamins."
She went on to explain that not only were common multivitamins, not just Centrum but just about any multivitamin sold at-large in supermarkets, lacking in some necessary nutrients but they also contained a variety of chemicals and impurities of dubious content. Basically, you weren't just taking a glorified placebo, you were taking something with chemicals whose effect on your body wasn't really known.
Who is to say these various ingredients weren't getting into your system, mutating your body's cells and facilitating cancer growth themselves?
Irresponsible journalism and irresponsible jumping to conclusions with the media, once again, by medical researchers.
Wait a minute, who is that guy at #2 who just posted with my name?
what a stupid study....if this were true, then 99.9% of gay men would be dead....
the conclusion made by the researchers had nothing to do with the type of sex people were having (though they the study did examine how the number of partners was linked) nor even with other established risk factors, including alcohol and tobacco.
so again, in a study that was really about how HPV infection is linked to throat cancers, just like it is linked to cervical cancers, we end up with pages of headlines about how having good sex can kill you.
here is what the people who conducted the study say:
"Conclusions: Oral HPV infection is strongly associated with oropharyngeal cancer among subjects with or without the established risk factors of tobacco and alcohol use."
p.s. and the study seems to suggest that a lot of people having vaginal intercourse, don't have oral sex. straight people, you are just depressing some times.
actually, there are 2 ways to look at the numbers - differences in absolute risk (as the reader did: .005 - .002 = .003) and differences in relative risk (as the study's authors did: .005 /.002 = 2.5, or 250%). each value has a different interpretation.
the difference in absolute risk (also referred to as "attributable risk") means that .003% of the population will get oral cancer from HPV; i.e once you subtract out the background "noise" of 0.002%, the remaining 0.003% can be attributed to HPV.
the difference in relative risk means people who engage in oral sex are 2.5X more likely to get oral cancer than people who do not engage in oral sex.
NEWS FLASH! Cancer causes CANCER!
I think your reader is mistaken. A .005% likelihood for those who engage in oral sex is still a 250% greater risk than the .002% likelihood for those who don't engage in oral sex. Subracting .002% from .005% to get .003% does not acurately reflect the ratio of probability between the two groups. Your reader somehow uses the "250% more likely" data to arrive at their ".003% more likely" position. That doesn't compute.
This approach, however, is also problematic in that it assumes that the .002% of adult Americans who have oral cancer are a control group who don't engage in oral sex. This isn't true. That figure represents all oral cancer sufferers in the US, both oral sex-engaging and non oral sex-engaging. Certainly if oral sex increases your likelihood of contracting oral cancer, than a good portion (the majority, in fact) of those .002% of Americans with oral cancer do indeed have oral sex. It should be at a 5:2 ratio.
And all this, of course, doesn't even take into consideration the affect of smoking on oral cancer rates.
Thanks for crunching those numbers. I always hate not having the base data to figure things out from.
And I have to say, getting your information on multivitamins from a health food store is not necessarily a good idea, given the stuff they sell. I'd rather take a commercial vitamin than a "herbal supplement" that may or may not contain what it says it does. You'd be amazed with what they can get away with.
Cancer, schmancer. Who cares? These days, too much of anything causes some sort of cancer. If I'm gonna be freaked out about all the possible ways I could get cancer, I might as well stay locked indoors away from the world and all you germ-infested people!
I had HPV for 2 years. It has since cleared my system. And yeah, I know, it could come back or I can get a new strain from some other poor schmo who has no way of being tested. But I'm not going to stop having sex, oral, vaginal or (when I'm drunk enough) anal. So I guess I'll take the risk of throat cancer being an outcome even though I don't smoke. At least if I die I can say "I sucked some great dicks. And I did some great sucking."
I mean, better to have sucked and become cancerous than to have never sucked at all....right?
Barbie was right: math makes your brain hurt real bad.
10. Well, it's not like I didn't follow up the conversation with research on whole food multivitamins. I understand the salesperson vs customer relationship as well as anyone. Also, given she had 5635274527 brand of products on her shelves, it seemed uncanny that she would single whole food vitamins out, and not necessarily an expensive brand of them either.
Something tells me this would make Jerry Falwell happy.
Remember, only Red Bushies want us to live in Fear, but we proud Americans are made of sterner stuff than that!
Personally, I'm more worried about the crushing debt from Wars of choice ...
Oh snap! That's why you should always read the study before you spout fear mongering statistics. Don't you chide right wing blowhards for doing this exact thing?
And no need to call people who have yet to partake in a lil' oral lovin' sad assholes.
Thanks for the mea culpa though.
The larger point--there's a vaccine for HPV and people should get it--is still valid. Using faulty statistical evidence to support that point is sucky, admittedly, but it wasn't as if Dan did so knowingly.
a few others have already pointed out the distinction between absolute and relative risk. it would be more accurate to say, you're at significantly higher (2.5x) risk of having throat cancer if you've had 5+ partner oral, but it's still a very small risk.
and, i haven't read the paper, but it's almost certain they've only shown association. people who have multiple partners may be more likely to engage in other behaviors that are also associated with increased risks of various types of diseases.
I was amused to see Chris Crocker's name in this thread. Of all threads. lol. I actually seen a clip of his on E!; I believe the show was The Soup. They were showing the years most watched internet clips.
Other than that, I don't know what's going on with him. I visit his Myspace page quite frequently. He recently posted one of his best videos to date, In my opinion-- entitled 'Gay people..' where he lashes out on the gay community for discriminating against other gays due to mannerisms, etc.
He is quite the captain these days for the gay kids.
So here's my question...and hopefully Dan will answer; what are we supposed to do now? Are condoms our only option if we want to give a 'safe' blow job? And another question, since I've just started seeing a new guy, and have only been with two others (both long relationships)...what's the protocol these days for discussing this stuff? What do I do if I don't want to swallow until I really know him better? Yes, I'm serious. We need Dan to publish a primer.
to not me:
Gyno's offices can do you for both the HPV test and the vaccine (if you're 26 or under), although you may be screwed if you don't have insurance. Also, my gyn nurse recommended you take an ibuprofen before you get the vaccine - it'll keep the swelling & muscle aches down.
I dunno where to get the boy tested - his gp or a clinic maybe? And I'm not sure condoms for oral will protect fully against HPV. It may shed from the skin around the area, although I'm not fully informed on that. I second the call for a primer!
There's no cure.
There's no answer.
Yeah, Chris Crocker's new video was very thought-provoking.
Yeah.. I would much rather see Chris Crocker videos.
...everything gives you cancer.
Dont touch that dial
Dont try to smile
Just take this pill
Its in your file
(Well, "or take this shot", as the case may be. But i ain't got throat cancer yet, and i'm like 2500% more likely to get it by now if the results are accretive...)
Actually, the study methodology is a little different than that. They took 100 random cancer patients and 200 random non-cancer patients and compared the prevalence of polesmokers/rugmunchers in both groups.
The following things were more correlated with cancer than oral sex:
Having HPV (duh!)
Not brushing your teeth.
Having relatives with cancer.
Drinking >4 drinks per day.
Bottom line: Stop worrying.
@ 21
there is NO test for HPV for males. This is why it is such a problem. It's highly contaigious AND cannot be tested for on males. So if a male has it, he can easily spread it without knowing unless he has a visible symptom (which, unless he has the form that causes genital warts, is rare).
So my advice, ALWAYS use flavored condoms for oral. ALWAYS use condoms for sex. Protect yourself no matter how much you love the guy or trust the guy is being honest.
Faux Show:
Of COURSE there is an HPV test men! It's the same damn test for everyone. What is actually happening is what your post shows, people don't get that men can get and carry HPV or that it has risks for them.
The problem has been that HPV is mostly associated with cervical cancer and risks to the precious fertility of straight women. This has caused the issue to be slanted as a concern only for women, who we all know do not actually matter.
There is an attempt now to point out that straight women are not getting HPV from each other, so men must have it/carry it and that possibly it can have more impact on people that we're admitting.
Frankly, the answer is always the same -- grow the fuck up, take come responsibility and wear a condom/don't fuck anything that won't wear a condom. It doesn't matter who you are or who you fuck, wear a condom with anyone who has fucked someone else. Until of course, it has been a good six months since they fucked someone else and since you fucked someone else, and you've actually been tested, not just sat around waiting until six months went by.
#9 paulus - The point is that "250% greater risk" is not particularly meaningful. Yes, it is mathematically accurate, but as the saying goes, twice nothing is still nothing.
In this case, two and a half times a tiny number is still a tiny number. It's not nothing, but it is very small. Let's assume 5 per 100 000 because it makes the math easier, even though we know it is actually lower than that. That risk is 1 per 20 000.
So the question at hand is not how many times greater the risk is, but exactly what are you willing to do to help reduce a risk that is already only 1 in 20 000?
And if you find that 1 in 20 000 risk to be a concern, do you even dare to drive a car? Or walk on a street where cars are in use?
On my tombstone I want it to read, “At least he had a good tongue.”
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).