I had a read about the first person to receive this vaccine - Janusz Racz who was discovered to have lung cancer by chance after a colonoscopy (not sure how that happened - I wouldn’t have thought the probe went that far up!)
Anyway, he was given 4-5 months to live.
It doesn’t look like he was a smoker as he was a mountain climber and avid marathon runner.
Let’s hope he can do that again.
And yet in some places they make their public health campaigns using “get the anti-cervical cancer vaccine” i.e. the anti-HPV vaccine. It’s technically incorrect but probably more effective?
I fear than some addicts will assume it is a vaccine that, once they’ve had one (possibly counterfeit) they will be immune.
Why?
This vaccine prevents infections, but it isn’t a treatment.
If you’ve already been exposed to a particular strain of HPV, the vaccine can’t heal the infection.
Exactly.
They probably won’t want it anyway as it is an mRMA vaccine which would make it much more deadly than lung cancer!
It’s a vaccine against the virus that is known to cause cervical cancer so it’s not really that inaccurate although hpv does cause other cancers as well.
Vaccines get the body’s own immune system to fight a disease.
Cancer vaccines get the body’s own immune system to fight the cancer (also a disease).
This is unlike other cancer treats such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy where the therapy itself is killing the cancer cells.
Personally I think they chose well with the term Cancer Vaccine.
Agree. Also, in the end does it really matter whether they call it a vaccine or treatment? All that matters is if it works, the rest is utterly irrelevant