On Monday 29 July 2002 10:50 pm, you wrote:
> [Hermit] I don't think that the article claimed anything else. They claim
> that statistically significant correlation has been shown (and this is
> confirmatory - we have known about the linkage, although not the extremely
> high risk multiplier, for years). So causation is not asserted in the
In my opinion, it hinted at cause and effect, but I may have misinterpretted
it.
> article, although I consider the low incidence of cervical cancer in people
> not infected by the HPV suggestive. Certainly, if a person has HPV I would
> advocate that they should be having pap smears every three months to
> monitor the situation. Particularly if they have other indicators
I wouldn't. Something like cancer can have a negative impact on the way you
live your life. Sure, you have a high chance of dying, but I would rather
life my life without knowing how long I had to live.
Besides, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow, so why worry about what's going
to happen 10 years down the road? Carpe Diem, baby.
-- === Mark 'Nurgle' Collins http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk Stupid IRC quote of the <variable time period>: <phoenix> insider, you'll have to excuse nurgle, he's the epitamy of evil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT