Date: 2011-12-08 07:47 pm (UTC)
Okay, so it is true that a small percentage of cervical cancer cases cannot be attributed to HPV. There is a drug called Diethylstilbestrol (DES) that is associated with a risk in the daughter of a woman who took it during pregnancy.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CervicalCancer/MoreInformation/CervicalCancerPreventionandEarlyDetection/cervical-cancer-prevention-and-early-detection-cervical-cancer-risk-factors

I'd also like to point out that something increasing your chances of getting a disease is not the same as causing it. People with HIV are also more likely to develop cervical cancer, not because HIV causes cancer but because it weakens the immune system.

The American Cancer Society actually says that "scientists believe that it is necessary to have had HPV for cervical cancer to develop," although they don't list a source.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CervicalCancer/MoreInformation/CervicalCancerPreventionandEarlyDetection/cervical-cancer-prevention-and-early-detection-cervical-cancer-risk-factors

However, even if the other 1% of cancers were caused by something else, the overwhelming majority of positive results will be false positives in people who haven't been exposed to HPV. See the National Cancer Institute's reasoning on why there's such a thing as over-screening.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/Patient/page4

Perhaps I overstated it a bit, but the medical benefits are almost certainly outweighed by the risks in this case.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
No Subject Icon Selected
More info about formatting

February 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526 2728  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags