> Among the 859 unvaccinated women, HPV16/18 prevalence was 6%, 5%, and 6%
and
> However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.
so… real summary is “hpv vaccination correlates with lower infection for vaccine specific HPV strain, but does not impact / potentially worsens overall high-risk HPV infections”
so what exactly is solved here, supposedly?
not to mention, the study does not compare helth outcomes, which is the only meaningful measure.
I believe HPV16/18 were considered the highest risk (in terms of causing cancer), even amongst all the other high risk HPV strains. In the intro, they state that prior to the start of the vaccination campaign 74% of cervical cancer cases in Denmark were HPV16/18, and the other 26% from the non-vaccine HR HPV strains. Following through to the referenced paper, in their study they found 20.5% of overall patients had HR HPV, with 5.4% and 2.4% with HPV16 and/or 18. However, for cancer cases, they found that 40% of cases had HPV16, and 33% had HPV18 (note that multiple simultaneous strains are possible).
There's a lot in the paper to summarize, but I think it makes a reasonable argument that HPV16/18 are especially high risk, and that "simple" replacement of the 5% HPV16/18 with another 5% of any of the other HR HPV strains would be beneficial. The linked paper suggests up to 74% (depending on your assumptions) reduction in cancer with "simple replacement".
As an autist myself, I find these kind of comments quite offensive. It’s much like saying homosexuality is a disorder.
Neurotypical does not imply “normal” it only means prevalent - completely different.
Yes, autism sucks _in the contemporary environment_ - we are perhaps better suited for neanderthal / hunter gatherer environment.
However, implying that I should be “cured” for having no interest in NT dynamics and suffer by many of NT byproducts (e.g. noise) puts you up there with Mengle in my book.
I would advise against it. Hanging your entire personality onto a single nail like it's a hat. Bad practice in general, and it goes double for when the nail you're trying to hang it on is a mental disorder.
If you admit that "autism sucks in the contemporary environment", then, it's pretty clear that there would be people that have it and would want to be rid of it - if only they had that option. Currently, the options they have are "seethe" and "cope" - not a good place to be in. This alone would be enough of reason to look for a cure.
And then there are all the people who lose the "autism lottery" - and end up on assisted living for the rest of their lives. The short straw is really short - you could try an "autism is not a disorder" speech on them, but, not all of them are capable of communicating.
This, too, would be a reason in itself to look for a cure to autism. Unfortunately, what was discovered so far makes an easy solution extremely unlikely.
If we tried to find the truth, we would not be able to agree on _methodology_ to accept what truth _is_.
In essence, we select our truth by carefully picking the methodology which leads us to it.
Some examples, from the top of my head:
- virology / germ theory
- climate change
- em drive