h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm most surprised that in an entry dealing with cervical cancer you would make no mention whatsoever of the fact that there is now a vaccine available which will protect against cervical cancer. You will find one of the many stories on the vaccine at the following link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110301966.html

The entry does not deal with cervical cancer, but the smear test itself. I may write an entry on cervical cancer itself at a later date. Also as far as I'm aware the vaccine is not currently routinely available in the UK.

>The entry does not deal with cervical cancer<



Were it not for cervical cancer, would there be any need for the smear test?

>as far as I'm aware the vaccine is not currently routinely available in the UK.<



Are these entries to be read only by residents of the UK?

No its not to be read by brits only, but the title does say that its about how smear tests are done in the UK and as far as i'm aware the vacine is not avaliable in the UK and therefore not unfortunately an option for UK citizens.

If you want to do an entry on the vacine or how smear tests are done in your home nation you are welcome.

>as far as I'm aware the vaccine is not currently routinely available in the UK.<

Well, I, along with others, also thought that an Entry on the Cervical Smear Test should at least mention the anti-cancer vaccine

This is what I put into Post 40 of the PR thread (i.e. the vaccine will be available by the end of 2006 and is VERY controversial:


'There's a new vaccine that works against some cervical cancers, I think it's worth mentioning here.'



If you do mention this, the vaccine is called Cervarix and is being manufactured by the British company, GlaxoSmithKline. It was submitted to the European Medicines Agency for licensing in March 2006 and, if licensed, could be on sale by the end of the year - at around the same time as a rival vaccine from the American company, Merck.
GSK claim that Cervarix is more efficacious, and would prevent 10% more cancers than the Merxk product. This is 'coz it works faster, produces a stronger immune reaction and lasts longer.
Experts say it couldf virtually eliminate the disease - which kills about 1000 and affects 3000 women in Britain each year.

There is controversy over this vaccine because HPVs, being sexually transmitted, would need to be given to girls as youn as 10 years old to prevent infection. (For this reason, I on't think vaccines have a place in your Entry, which is about the process of the smear test and, therefore, possibly the treatment afterwards.)

Somebody mentioned the strains of HPV involved; HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, if you wanted to put in the figures. Two other types are responsible for genital warts. Both Cervarix and the Merck product (Gardasil) work against strains 16 and 18. The early data suggests that Cervarix also works against Strains 31, 45 and 52, which would account for up to 80% of cervical cancer cases.

n.b. HPV is considered to be the most commonly sexually transmitted disease in the world.

you also say in the post you just quoted that you don't feel vaccines have a place in this entry

I'm sorry but I thought everything had been fully discussed in PR and I'd left all reviewers happy with it, if thats not the case then I'm afraid theres not a lot I can do about it now.

'you also say in the post you just quoted that you don't feel vaccines have a place in this entry'

Yes, I know. What I meant was that there could really be a separate Entry on vaccines, but I think they should've been mentioned as a one liner perhaps in a footnote; e.g.

It is anticipated that a vaccine against cervical cancer will be available in the UK towards the end of 2006.

ok , but as I said theres really nothing I can do about it now.

Hi all.

A bit of information about the "vaccine".

The vaccine is not available to women who have become sexually active as, chances are, they already have the virus, especially if they've had multiple partners and not used any kind of safety precautions.

This means that the vaccine will only be offered to children during the first couple of years in high school.

The pap test has nothing to do with the vaccine so therefore, I feel it inappropriate to talk about the vaccine.

Yes, I do agree that perhaps some kind of article regarding the vaccine would be a good idea, but as this entry is regarding the pap test and not cancer, I feel it inappropriate.

Finally, the vaccine is not yet available.

While it's sometimes great to be totally comprehensive whenever we write on a subject, that's not always possible. You can't cover everything. Some entries are huge; some are more specific or they are an introduction to a subject.

Try and think of conversation threads as the live tendrils of the main body! The posts here on the vaccine provide an excellent supplementary reading experience to the entry itself.

Think of that, rather that what the author has left out. Provide the information yourself, either here in the posts under the entry, or if necessary, in a separate entry.

The author was writing about the test itself. Technically, there's no obligation to write about the vaccine, whereas there would be an obligation to write about what actually happens in a test. And this was clearly done. However, as a reader reading these posts I've now learned a little about the vaccine and that's enhanced my reading experience.

Threads are living, breathing footnotes that nourish the entry.

Exactly. Which was my reason for post 1 above. I also agree with the comments made by Big Al in post 6. Given the potential health implications of an anti-vaccine, it's my opinion that *some* mention of it should have been made in the original entry, even if only as a footnote. Then it's not left up to the luck of the draw as to whether some reader of the entry will fill in the missing bit. This is not just some inconsequential bit of trivia, after all; it could save lives.

Vicki: >Finally, the vaccine is not yet available. <

I'm sorry to be a stickler for detail, but this statement, as it stands, is simply not correct. If you will read the link in post 1 above you will see that the vaccine *is* available, in some parts of the world, and possibly in the part of the world where someone might be reading the entry. Call me old fashioned if you will, but providing accurate information, insofar as possible, still strikes me as being worthwhile, especially in matters possibly having life or death consequences.

JCN

I was referring to this country, not abroad.

>I was referring to this country, not abroad.<

Ah, yes! But you see, dear lady, through the miracle of modern technology "this country" where I happen to be reading the entry is the US of A, where the vaccine just happens to be available! I understand that this website is sponsored by the BBC, but people all over the world are being nosey and reading it anyway. I haven't noticed any admonitions saying "Not to be read by non-Brits." If this restriction is indeed the intent, then they need to be more up front about it. If not, then it's good to be aware, at least, of the possible needs and interests of a wider audience.

Fair enough JCN, but perhaps you could reconsider how you put things please? You're sounding rather abrupt and I don't like it.

In that case, I sincerely beg your pardon. I do not mean to be rude. I admit to being perhaps a bit overzealous in my pursuit of reportorial accuracy. And if it's any consolation, I have no illusions regarding my own infallibility. My goal in this particular conversation is to ensure that no one needlessly dies from cervical cancer. A good goal, I hope you'll agree, but perhaps tactlessly done.

Some of us are so focused in our pursuits that sometimes we can get carried away. I know I have unintentionally upset people by the "tone" that comes across online and it's difficult to convey our actual meaning.

It happens, but thank you for your words. They have put me at ease

I do understand your concern regarding the vaccine btw. Eventually there is a chance that the cancer could disappear due to usage of the vaccine, but in the short term, paps are the only way to try and combat this particular cancer.

I, myself, have had to go for a repeat smear and my sister ended up having tissue lasered because of an abnormal result.