Fighting Cervical Cancer

If you live in the United States and have been paying any attention to the Republican debates, you probably know that Rick Perry, the scumbag from Texas, is known for promoting a vaccine to young girls to fight cervical cancer.  He has recommended, then not recommended, (who really knows what he says) that all girls get this vaccine around the age of 11 to prevent them from getting the human papillomavirus which is the main cause of cervical cancer.   Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of death from cancer among women, higher than breast cancer or any other.  Currently, that rate has dropped below that of lung, breast, colon, and skin cancer.  Despite that, we in the United States feel the need to drop that number to zero.  An admirable attempt, do not get me wrong, but at what cost?  I am not going to get into the whole vaccine controversy in this post.  Suffice it to say that I am against all vaccines.  But anyway, I just read an article this morning about an innovative way to detect and remove the precancerous spots that may eventually turn into cancer.  Instead of a pap smear and potential biopsy to remove the spots, you can use household vinegar and carbon dioxide to detect and remove them.  Don't believe me?  Follow this link to the article.  Currently, however, this simply technology is only being used in poorer countries where access to labs and surgical equipment is minimal. 

What is even more amazing about this procedure called VIA/cryo is that it can be completed by a nurse in one visit.  There is no waiting for a PAP smear to come back and no doctors or surgery to deal with.  It has been shown that the vinegar is more effective at detecting the precancerous spots than the PAP smear is (there are more false positives however) and the cryo is 90% effective at removing the spots.  Instead of potential bleeding as a result of a biopsy, the only side effect of the cryo is a mild burning sensation that dissipates in a day or two.  A woman from the article mentioned that the procedure was uncomfortable but bearable without any anesthesia.  So why is that in a technologically advanced society such as the United States, we immediately go to the most high tech method to detect and remove cancerous spots when there is a more affordable and perhaps more effective way of doing so?  Imagine the reduction in cost if this procedure was available in the United States?  Household vinegar and carbon dioxide (available from a Coca-Cola plant).  Granted, there are always critics asking how such a simple procedure could be as effective as a high tech one?  Ask the doctors who developed it at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.  Its amazing to me that as a society we immediately search for the latest high tech solution to our medical woes when often times there is a much more simple solution available.  No wonder the cost of medical insurance, medications and the like are so high.  What is the risk of freezing versus the risk of invasive surgery?  I would say the risk of freezing is much less. 

What about the poor in this country who have no health insurance and need medical treatment for precancerous spots.  (Obviously we are still only talking about women here).  Currently they either have to somehow find the money to get tested and get the procedure done or they suffer and get cancer.  We are introducing this new procedure into foreign countries yet we are forgetting completely about our own.  We need to remember all those in our country who are not that well off.  Especially in these harsh economic times when more and more people are struggling to get by, these innovations that cost a minimal amount of money should be explored and accepted in our own society.  We need to change the way the medical profession thinks and operates in this country.  Instead of continually raising costs and seeking out the newest cure, why not get back to the basics and seek out the simplest way of curing or preventing diseases and other medical ailments?  Obviously I am not a doctor, but to me, I would much rather have a simple, non-invasive procedure than one that I am at a higher risk of having complications from.  In any case, just food for thought, trying to change the way we all think a little bit.  If we can reduce costs and still save lives, why not do it?