
Effectiveness of Photodynamic Therapy in Elimination of HPV in Mexican Women [pdf] - new_guy
https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6319/73863883d6bd8895505fcc8581dfc0e0/maldonadoalvarado2017.pdf
======
dannykwells
Has anyone read the study? Severe side effects in almost every patient, and a
50% cure rate of CIN. Existing treatments for CIN have side effects in about
1% of patients and with a 90% cure rate:

[https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15678-cervica...](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15678-cervical-
intraepithelial-neoplasia-cin/management-and-treatment)

Moreover, as the above makes clear, curing HPV is not necessary (especially
with such an invasive technique) - only 1% of low grade CIN (which itself is a
subset of all HPV) progress to cervical cancer.

~~~
bicubic
> Moreover, as the above makes clear, curing HPV is not necessary

There's a body of evidence that HPV might be a factor of Alzheimer's and other
neurodegenerative conditions. If that turns out to be true, curing HPV will be
very much necessary.

[https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(18)30421-5](https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273\(18\)30421-5)

~~~
atomical
That article doesn't reference HPV.

~~~
bicubic
My bad. HHV != HPV. I have been misreading the OP article.

I'd delete the above if it was within time limit.

------
Pharmakon
Amazing results using a proven therapy, wretched article. Here’s the actual
study: [https://twin.sci-
hub.tw/6319/73863883d6bd8895505fcc8581dfc0e...](https://twin.sci-
hub.tw/6319/73863883d6bd8895505fcc8581dfc0e0/maldonadoalvarado2017.pdf)

Abstract: _This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of photodynamic
therapy (PDT), using δ‐aminolevulinic acid (5‐ALA), in the elimination of
premalignant cervical lesions in Mexican patients with human papillomavirus
(HPV) infection and /or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Thirty women
diagnosed with CIN I and/or positive for HPV participated in the study.
Topical 6% 5‐ALA in gel form was applied to the uterine cervix; after 4 h, the
lesion area was irradiated with a light dose of 200 J cm−2 at 635 nm. This
procedure was performed three times at 48‐h intervals. Clinical follow‐up was
performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after the initial PDT administration, by
colposcopy, cervical cytology, histopathological analysis, polymerase chain
reaction, and hybrid capture. Of HPV‐infected patients without evidence of CIN
I, 80% cleared the infection, while HPV associated with CIN I was eliminated
in 83% of patients (P < 0.05). At 12 months, CIN I had regressed in 57% of
patients, although this response was not statistically significant. PDT using
6% 5‐ALA is concluded to be effective in eliminating HPV infection associated
or not with CIN I._

~~~
FabHK
> wretched article.

Indeed. This doesn't make any sense:

> she was able to eradicate HPV in [...] 57.2% in women who had lesions but
> don't have HPV.

~~~
sctb
OK, in that case we've updated the link from
[https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/english/mexican-scientist-
cur...](https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/english/mexican-scientist-cures-human-
papilloma-virus). If someone can suggest a better article we could use that.

------
painful
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic_therapy)

------
entwife
No control group. Very small treatment group. Low power study. Possibly of
interest to researchers for discussion, no value to clinician or general
public.

Nice that they reported side effects of treatment including pain.

------
loeg
> The results of her investigation show that she was able to eradicate HPV in
> … 57.2% in women who had lesions but don't have HPV.

How do you eradicate HPV in a population that does not have HPV?

~~~
kaikai
Presumably they eradicated the lesions, which were potentially precancerous.

------
yonatron
This sounds like nonsense. Unlikely and highly improbable. I sincerely hope im
wrong...

------
mlacks
This is good to see. I don't usually see a lot in the press about Mexico
accept for the cartel-related news. Hard to believe I forget that Mexico is
more or less a normal country, not some dystopian war zone.

~~~
Insanity
Maybe you should head over there to see for yourself what it's like.

This summer, I'll be heading to Mexico (Monterrey) and San Antonio again, and
I'm looking forward to Monterrey a lot more than San Antonio.

Mexico, apart from certain regions (like almost everywhere) is pretty great.

~~~
Waterluvian
I agree with the sentiment but the "(like almost everywhere)" part frustrates
me.

Where are the armed guards at gas stations in Canada? Where are the mass
graves in Sweden? Where's the bribery-is-business-as-usual in England?

Don't pretend like everywhere has these kinds of problems. It really undercuts
the valid point you have that there's a lot of great places in Mexico and it's
generally populated by good people.

~~~
modzu
how is op saying "almost anywhere" has the _same_ issues? canada and sweden
have issues too. talk to many aboriginals?

~~~
loeg
The countries of the American continents have a _ton_ of historical baggage
with regards to treatment of first nations / indigenous / aboriginal / native
american people and plenty of current baggage. And I don't doubt Sweden does
too. However, the _current_ status is not in remotely the same league as the
violence, corruption, and warfare raging throughout Mexico. This is
quantifiably worse.

~~~
modzu
i didnt say anything about mexico. im replying to someone who says there arent
parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico. well this is ignorant. look up
missing and murdered aboriginal women. does that count as violence to you?
because aboriginal women make up like 1% of the canadian population, but
something like 25% of murdered women. of course in broad strokes canada and
mexico are very different (canada is wealthy, has no cartel, etc) but that
doesnt mean there arent little bits of bad there and doesnt mean there arent
bits of good in mexico (remember this reply traces to a parent comment
praising a notewrothy academic study coming out of a country generally only
mentioned in mainstream news for its problems). thats all.

~~~
loeg
Taking a step back, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from.

My read of Waterluvian's comment is that:

1\. "Problems" (e.g., violence) quantifiably differ in magnitude between
Mexico and other places. And,

2\. Those differences matter. That is, the dismissal in the form of "well,
everywhere has problems" is disingenuous.

To illustrate that, he provided three specific salient examples (armed guards
at gas stations, mass graves, and rampant corruption).

My read of your response to that comment was that you dismissed the idea that
armed guards, mass graces, and rampant corruption are a level beyond the
violence in e.g., Canada and Sweden, because "what about aboriginals?" By
dismissing Waterluvian's comment, you made a statement normalizing Mexico's
level of violence.

So I tried to clarify that the difference in level of violence matters, and,
here we are.

> i didnt say anything about mexico.

Sure you did. Denying "A != B" says something about A.

> im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden
> comparable to mexico.

That's not what the comment you responded to said. Violence and corruption is
quantifiably _endemic_ to Mexico. Small populations in Canada and Sweden see
outsized violence, but on the whole, those countries experience _less
violence_.

To put some real numbers on it, there were 611 homicides in Canada in 2016,
across a population of 36.26 million. That's 1.68 per 100,000 people. The
homicide rate in Canada peaked at 3.03 per 100,000 in 1975.

In contrast, the homicide rate in the US peaked at 10.1 per 100k in 1974 and
now hovers around 4.5 per 100k.

Mexico's homicide rate in 2016 was 19.3 per 100k. And "as of 2014, Mexico has
the 16th highest rate of homicides committed against women in the world."[0]

If you're trying to illustrate that Canada is just as violent as Mexico, you
picked a poor example.

[0]:
[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandC...](http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandCMDPDH_forthesession_Mexico_CEDAW52.pdf)

~~~
modzu
no, no, i am not making such a strong claim -- i absolutely agree in the
differences you cited b/w canada and mexico. although im hesitant to
generalize so much about a region; taken to the extreme, your argument is
something like, "mexico is bad, canada is good" \-- if instead youre only
saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita homicide, well that is
trivially true so not subject to debate.

what im trying to get at is that we discuss the violence (valid a concern as
it is) to the detriment of appreciating the rest -- that, generally, most
mexican citizens are fairly typical cf. a canadian or swede in terms of their
own morals and desires of life, but when we see an advancement such as the
subject of this thread it is approached with an intrinsic skepticism.

does that make some kinda sense? its hard to say more on a mobile device :p

~~~
loeg
Yeah, that makes sense; I think we're more or less on the same page now.
(Less: I am not making the claim that Mexico is bad, Canada is good, or that
ordinary Mexicans are all that different from ordinary Canadians. Or that
science journalism from Mexico should be approached with any more skepticism
than science journalism from the rest of the world.)

> if instead youre only saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita
> homicide, well that is trivially true so not subject to debate.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :-). Per capita homicide, corruption,
arming of the regular police; on all of these metrics Mexico stands out
compared to affluent NATO countries. I thought that was kind of what this
comment thread was debating; I misunderstood. Mea culpa. It can be hard to
communicate clearly on the internet, especially on mobile. I appreciate you
taking the time to help me understand your thoughts.

~~~
modzu
likewise, thanks!

