Just in time for the end of humanity! Or the is that the cure?
Is it wrong that was my first thought too?
First, photosynthetic hamsters and now this. What a great day for Science!
deleted by creator
“a cancer” is not one thing, so you can tell the headline is full of shit already, even within the same organs the cancers are different.
This is about cervical cancer, which we can help avoid by avoiding things known to cause it, like preventing HPV with HPV vaccines. This isn’t eliminating cancer in any way, at best preventing it
Wrong.
Note the headline does not claim a cure to a cancer because it is not, instead it eliminates the vector from which the cancer occurs.
When enough people are vaccinated against HPV, the virus cannot spread. The cancers that are caused by HPV cease to exist.
Eventually, the vaccine will not be required.
He read it as “elimination of cancer” first, read only the headline and then got really upset without reading the article because cancer is not just one thing (true!), and has now noticed, and for some reason edited it to retcon into getting equally mad claiming “a cancer is not just one thing,” which is total nonsense, but superior I guess to just admitting he made a mistake.
HPV causes
99%95% of cases of cervical cancer. The article is mostly talking about outreach to the third world sharing things like HPV vaccines and saving hundreds of thousands of lives. The guy’s just yelling and being wrong. And, of course, some other lemmy.world yelling idiots are upvoting him, because they love yelling and being wrong. Just ignore him.After this and a group of people from lemmy.world who got really mad earlier today about a “paywalled” article I posted that didn’t, in fact, have a paywall, I think I may defederate my systems from lemmy.world. It’s honestly just too dumb an environment to produce useful comments. PugJesus and [email protected] and the cat pictures are the only good things on it at this point, I think.
Edit: It was more than one person who got mad about the “paywall,” I think it was at least 8 people.
Edit: I don’t know where I got 99%, the WHO says 95%.
All this relies on retcon, which makes no sense. Easy to just say it in your corner though. I did read the article, but that doesn’t fit your narrative. You also had to add that i’m “mad” so it spins your way, when it’s others having to attack me direcly instead of making points. Nothing about my comment implies i’m mad except you spinning it that way.
Youre defending people who are saying the article says 94% of these can be avoided, when the article says 94% of cancers occur in those countries.please
Edit: *94% of cancer deaths, wouldn’t wanna “retcon my whole argument”. This is a bad title for a different problem. We haven’t even started with it “being the first time”. Youre trying to convince us other people are mad too, go figure.
95% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer
I thought the WHO said 99%, since numbers are different depending on which you ask, but this says 95%. Screening and treatment, which are also included in the article you’re claiming to have read, will very effectively prevent harm from the other 5%. Thus eliminating it as a public health problem. It’s a great thing, and here you are in the comments INSISTING that other people need to absorb your misunderstandings of the situation and I guess view it NOT as a good thing, or something.
Youre defending people who are saying the article says 94% of these can be avoided, when the article says 94% of cancers occur in those countries.
I don’t even know why I’m in this conversation. These are not mutually incompatible statements. 94% of the problem exists in the third world, and 95% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. I don’t know why you are saying that the first statement somehow DISproves the second. They’re both true. Multiple statements can be true, even if they involve similar percentages.
That is, in fact, such a weird type of misunderstanding for you to be so confident about that I feel comfortable just ending the conversation here. Think, read the sources, learn. Or don’t. I don’t care.
See youre conflating 2 things again, assuming everyone’s mad probably.
All those stats are correct, so how could it possibly be that I would say such lies? I must be wrong, how weird.
You’re forgetting there are other people in this thread, and someone did misquote it in their argument. Talk about retcon, which you spend 0 minutes explaining but made up half your earlier argument.
The numbers aren’t even important. This is not a first time cancer breakthrough, this is a HPV awareness article with a sensationalized title. Nobody was arguing the numbers.
I’m not really upset with you, maybe I shouldn’t come out with such a negative demeanor and make you defensive. On the other hand, you started it, with your first dismissive comment about the whole article. I just wanted to post about public health in the third world and something good going on, and you seem like you’re really hell-bent on proving that there must be someone who’s really wrong here, other than you.
I am done. If it was all a misunderstanding then sure. Like I say, I just mostly don’t care at this point.
Lmao, HPV is not the only way you get cervical cancer. “Elimination of a cancer” is just not true. Maybe one specific type of cervical cancer.
It’s like saying we can cure colon cancer if we just stopped eating at McDonald’s. It’s simply not true.
I didn’t use the word “cure” in my comment.
Edit: Lmao was for the dwight level “Wrong” like youre unidan or something.
a cancer
one specific type of […] cancer
bruh
Within “cervical cancer” theres are many types, in case you didn’t know, bruh.
People who get “lung cancer” can get various forms. The article isn’t taking about eliminating cervical cancer entirely, not even the one caused by HPV.
Which if you hadnt read, the article is arguing these deaths are mostly preventable in poorer countries as HPV has had a long awareness (and effective) campaign already, it’s not even primarily about cancer. The headline sucks.
Then you do understand that this will element all the HPV variants. Which isn’t nothing. 95% of all cervical cancers.
You are trying to sound smart by being a pedantic contrarian.
You broke the code lol.
95% is the low estimate, the WHO says it’s 99%.
Edit: I am wrong, the WHO also says 95%. I don’t know why I thought they said 99%. Regardless, almost everyone says 95% or more.
I do understand that this helps eliminate some of the variants. That’s not what the headline is saying.
Why not make it an article about HPV that would help with cervical cancer instead of a cancer article about HPV? Because clicks. It still wouldn’t eliminate 94, or 99% of cervical cancers, only HPV ones… Eliminate HPV doesn’t sound as good, we can’t even eliminate measles.
It says 94% of cancers occur in those countries. That’s a far cry from what youre implying.
Edit: I wouldn’t call bitching about cancer titles being blown of out proportion “contrarian” either
