Paul has already written these responses to this by Judy Wilyman, and I add my comments on the cancer aspect (which Judy will be pleased to note I am qualified to speak on).
Cancer is a family of diseases, all involving a series of genetic changes that enable cells to grow in an uncontrolled manner, and show other features of cancer, in the human body [1]. Viruses, by nature of their need to hijack normal cell processes to replicate, inject their genes into human cells; this injection can then cause the sorts of genetic changes required to trigger these features.
Modern research now very strongly links subtypes of HPV with cervical cancer [2], even more so than in the dated references Judy provides. While it is highly likely there are other factors associated with the development of cervical cancer [3], especially given that cancer involves a set of stages of development [1], I note the following:
*) Since HPV appears to be the necessary condition [2], immunisation of even some of the strains involved presents a clear line of attack to reduce the risk of developing cervical cancer.
*) It is unlikely that sexual behaviours as such are co-factors, as Judy suggests, rather these are just correlations by virtue of the fact that sexual practices carry different chances of transmitting HPV, the underlying causal factor.
*) Although there may be a low risk of HPV progressing to cancer, and not all of those who get cervical cancer will die, when one compares this with the risks from vaccines, the balance is clearly in favour of using vaccines to prevent what is, for those who do get cervical cancer, a nasty disease.
1. Hanahan & Weinberg, Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation, Cell 2011.
2. Walboomers et al., Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide, The Journal of Pathology 1999.
3. Hildesheim et al., HPV co-factors related to the development of cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica, British Journal of Cancer 2001.
Do you follow the Yale Cultural Cognition Project blog? They have some interesting ways of analysing this problem:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/9/25/tragedy-of-the-science-communications-commons.html
“Culture, Rationality, and Risk Perception: the Tragedy of the Science-Communication Commons
From climate change to the HPV vaccine to gun control, public controversy over the nature of policy-relevant science is today a conspicuous feature of democratic politics in America. A common view attributes this phenomenon to the public’s limited comprehension of science, and to its resulting vulnerability to manipulation by economically motivated purveyors of misinformation. In my talk, I will offer an alternative account. The problem, I will suggest, is not a deficit in rationality but a conflict between what’s rational at the individual and collective levels: ordinary members of the public face strong incentives – social, psychological, and economic – to conform their personal beliefs about societal risk to the positions that predominate within their cultural groups; yet when members of diverse cultural groups all form their perceptions of risk in this fashion, democratic institutions are less likely to converge on scientifically informed policies essential to the welfare of all. I will discuss empirical evidence that supports this analysis–and that suggests potential strategies for securing the collective good associated with a science communication environment free of the conflict between knowing what is known and being who we are.”