HPV vaccine approved by the FDA, but it’s never that simple.
It makes my head explode to think that there are people out there who are more interested in HPV as a “preventative to premarital sex” than in a vaccine to prevent the cancer it can cause.
To say it is outrageous is an understatement. Why do we consider this an acceptable statement of logic? “Don’t remove the physical danger of an act most people will do anyway. Instead, use it to reinforce my own moral agenda.” Without HPV, AIDS, and other STDs, the only thing to stand between a person and their desire to have sex is pregnancy and (sometimes) loyalty and their own moral decisions!
It is one more way that people have declared the right to make decisions for other people who clearly can’t make decisions for themselves. Significant others bring home HPV all the time. You don’t have to be sexually promiscuous to get it. Just take a good hard look at the statistics on cheating partners, and tell me it isn’t best for everyone involved. Trust me on this one, I should know.
Here are the details of the vaccine:
The vaccine, Gardasil, blocks infection by two types of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which account for about 70% of cervical cancer cases. Gardasil also blocks infection by two other HPV types that cause about 90% of genital warts cases. Spread by skin-to-skin contact, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the USA. More than 90% of cases clear up on their own, but persistent infection with certain HPV types causes virtually all cervical cancers.
” … the disease is still the second-most-common malignancy and a leading cancer killer of women worldwide.”
Saying one shouldn’t have access to a (PARTIAL) HPV vaccine is like saying that we shouldn’t have filters on cigarettes because they encourage people to smoke. Those filters are there A) to protect established smokers and B) (incidentally) to protect nonsmokers who did not choose this particular risk for themselves. Just like HPV.
Of course I would get vaccinated (if they end up allowing open vaccination), even if I was married. I care about anyone I choose as my partner, I care about being a responsible citizen, and I care about myself.
80% of women by age 50, buddy. Think about it.
Actually, it isn’t even necessary for a partner to cheat to bring HPV into the relationship. As it stands, current screening practices amongst most OB/GYN’s don’t find HPV infection until it has already caused cervical dysplasia. This can happen even years after initial infection, which can complicate one’s current relationship due to suspicion of infidelity. If you’ve been infected for years already but can’t prove it, some partners are not likely to believe that you haven’t been unfaithful. Honestly, recent research has indicated that nearly all sexually active adults carry at least one strain of the virus, making it virtually impossible to determine when and where infection occurred, especially since it can be transmitted by skin to skin contact without penetration.
As an aside, for once, I wish the medical establishment would truly make women’s health a priority, rather than a corollary concern.
/rant.
Actually, it isn’t even necessary for a partner to cheat to bring HPV into the relationship. As it stands, current screening practices amongst most OB/GYN’s don’t find HPV infection until it has already caused cervical dysplasia. This can happen even years after initial infection, which can complicate one’s current relationship due to suspicion of infidelity. If you’ve been infected for years already but can’t prove it, some partners are not likely to believe that you haven’t been unfaithful. Honestly, recent research has indicated that nearly all sexually active adults carry at least one strain of the virus, making it virtually impossible to determine when and where infection occurred, especially since it can be transmitted by skin to skin contact without penetration.
As an aside, for once, I wish the medical establishment would truly make women’s health a priority, rather than a corollary concern.
/rant.
Something amazing once again soiled by the fact that women’s bodies are a political battleground rather than something to be protected. I’m so bloody sick of this moral agenda I could absolutely scream.
I have HPV and I know what it’s done to my life and my body and wouldn’t wish it on anyone, for the emotional turmoil alone. I can’t believe anyone would be so backwards to believe that not preventing a disease to use the disease as a punishment is a good idea.
*tight hug* Indeed.
*tight hug* Indeed.
Something amazing once again soiled by the fact that women’s bodies are a political battleground rather than something to be protected. I’m so bloody sick of this moral agenda I could absolutely scream.
I have HPV and I know what it’s done to my life and my body and wouldn’t wish it on anyone, for the emotional turmoil alone. I can’t believe anyone would be so backwards to believe that not preventing a disease to use the disease as a punishment is a good idea.
Yes, because OBVIOUSLY HPV is the ONLY thing preventing all those millions of teenage girls from having sex.
What amazes me is that this is proof that even the religious right doesn’t believe their own teachings. If abstinence worked as well as they said, and if everyone they taugh followed their teachings, they’d have nothing to worry about.
Oh wait, I forgot. Obviously everyone follows them. They’re just trying to tell everyone else what they can and can’t do. Can’t we please tell them they can’t talk, ever again? Fuckwits.
Yes, because OBVIOUSLY HPV is the ONLY thing preventing all those millions of teenage girls from having sex.
What amazes me is that this is proof that even the religious right doesn’t believe their own teachings. If abstinence worked as well as they said, and if everyone they taugh followed their teachings, they’d have nothing to worry about.
Oh wait, I forgot. Obviously everyone follows them. They’re just trying to tell everyone else what they can and can’t do. Can’t we please tell them they can’t talk, ever again? Fuckwits.
This isn’t exactly common knowledge, but last December I was diagnosed with cervical cancer. I had a cone biopsy and other procedures after an abnormal pap smear. I was very lucky – carcinoma in situ. Essentially, localized cancer that had not spread, and the treatment I received took care of it. I’m now cancer free.
I’m one of those few whose cervical cancer was NOT related to HPV. Of course, given this history I now have to be even more careful about my gynecology exams, etc. If this vaccine is something that will prevent other women from going through the procedures I did, I don’t see why anyone with a brain or a heart would be against that.
Even if HPV were caused by rampant promiscuous behavior, it still shouldn’t matter. Even the most hardened prostitute deserves good medical care. Does someone’s promiscuity suddenly make her a second class citizen who doesn’t “deserve” to have her health needs cared for? I’m sure by the standards of some of the more intolerant religious groups of the world, the pestilence of HPV and cervical cancer are merely the wages of sin.
I think they are merely the results of living.
This isn’t exactly common knowledge, but last December I was diagnosed with cervical cancer. I had a cone biopsy and other procedures after an abnormal pap smear. I was very lucky – carcinoma in situ. Essentially, localized cancer that had not spread, and the treatment I received took care of it. I’m now cancer free.
I’m one of those few whose cervical cancer was NOT related to HPV. Of course, given this history I now have to be even more careful about my gynecology exams, etc. If this vaccine is something that will prevent other women from going through the procedures I did, I don’t see why anyone with a brain or a heart would be against that.
Even if HPV were caused by rampant promiscuous behavior, it still shouldn’t matter. Even the most hardened prostitute deserves good medical care. Does someone’s promiscuity suddenly make her a second class citizen who doesn’t “deserve” to have her health needs cared for? I’m sure by the standards of some of the more intolerant religious groups of the world, the pestilence of HPV and cervical cancer are merely the wages of sin.
I think they are merely the results of living.
I thought I had something to say, but I have too much steam coming out my ears about legislating morality and such right now.
:) clearly, I relate. I think it is good that the HPV Working Group consists of the ACIP, FDA, NIH, NIP, DSTD, DCPC, NCID and some consultants (no I’m not entirely sure who all those acronyms are). So while the ACIP may have one member in 15 be a fundie that doesn’t care for sinners, the entire working group, at least, more than outweighs him.
Presuming, of course, the other groups don’t have similar blokes.
:) clearly, I relate. I think it is good that the HPV Working Group consists of the ACIP, FDA, NIH, NIP, DSTD, DCPC, NCID and some consultants (no I’m not entirely sure who all those acronyms are). So while the ACIP may have one member in 15 be a fundie that doesn’t care for sinners, the entire working group, at least, more than outweighs him.
Presuming, of course, the other groups don’t have similar blokes.
I thought I had something to say, but I have too much steam coming out my ears about legislating morality and such right now.
Thankfully not all religious people are bent on establishing their own moral agenda at the expense of the health of others. Sadly, it’s very en vogue right now to find a religious wackjob who disagrees with the mot basic common sense and tout it as the opinion of the religious. I seriously doubt that his opinion is the majority opinion of the “religious right”.
I believe you meant this comment to go to Incyr, since I did not mention the religious right in my post.
I don’t believe religious equates with “right-wing”, and I know many deeply religious people who do not believe that their understanding of the world must be pressed upon others against their will.
Unfortunately, such people are quiet compared to the righteous vipers who consider it their job to separate the sinners from the good on this earth, instead of caring for all humans, sinner and saint alike.
I just meant the comment in general, no attack or parry intended.
And I agree whole-heartedly; I have been known to say often that it’s a crying shame that the religious people (especially Christians) who speak the loudest and get the most attention are the irrational, illogical, and sometimes downright idiotic fringe. They give the rest of us a very bad name.
Hear, hear.
I surely agree. The problem is, of course, that the only way to change that is to speak up.
I surely agree. The problem is, of course, that the only way to change that is to speak up.
Hear, hear.
I just meant the comment in general, no attack or parry intended.
And I agree whole-heartedly; I have been known to say often that it’s a crying shame that the religious people (especially Christians) who speak the loudest and get the most attention are the irrational, illogical, and sometimes downright idiotic fringe. They give the rest of us a very bad name.
*Hug* Thank you.
*big hug* You should come to the movies with me and some peoples tonight!
That way I don’t have to pine for my Portable Ninja. :)
*big hug* You should come to the movies with me and some peoples tonight!
That way I don’t have to pine for my Portable Ninja. :)
*Hug* Thank you.
I believe you meant this comment to go to Incyr, since I did not mention the religious right in my post.
I don’t believe religious equates with “right-wing”, and I know many deeply religious people who do not believe that their understanding of the world must be pressed upon others against their will.
Unfortunately, such people are quiet compared to the righteous vipers who consider it their job to separate the sinners from the good on this earth, instead of caring for all humans, sinner and saint alike.
Thankfully not all religious people are bent on establishing their own moral agenda at the expense of the health of others. Sadly, it’s very en vogue right now to find a religious wackjob who disagrees with the mot basic common sense and tout it as the opinion of the religious. I seriously doubt that his opinion is the majority opinion of the “religious right”.
I’m reading through the document looking for some personal concerns regarding safety of the vaccine.
First, let me state that if the vaccine was proven safe beyond doubt, I’d sign up in a heartbeat.
While looking for info, I came across this info which proves to me that the AMA isn’t concerned with our health as much as it’s tied to the whether or not insurance will fill their pockets.
Speed to implement vaccine use if ACIP/AAP recommended routine use: 51% would begin within six months of the recommendation; 28%, 6-12 months; 7%, 1-2 years; 1%, 2 years. Another 14% were unsure.
Reasons to wait 6 months: 1) insurance coverage: 90%; ensure no vaccine side effects: 81%; adequate vaccine supplies: 65%; see if other providers use the vaccine: 36%; see if parents accept the vaccine: 20%.
Barriers to giving rotavirus vaccine: 1) failure of some insurance companies to cover vaccination: definitely, 51%; somewhat of a barrier, 28%; 2) lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination: definitely a barrier, 42%; somewhat a barrier, 32%; 3) parents’ reluctance due to RotaShield withdrawal: definitely a barrier, 30%; somewhat a barrier, 42%.
The previous info was from questions put to the participating doctors.
Preliminary results. The response rate at the time of the interim analysis was 66%. Respondents and nonrespondents were similar in terms of region, practice setting or location; 55% were male, 45% female; 65% of respondents had >50% of their patients who were insured; 78% percent participated in the VFC program.
The previous info was from questions put to the participating doctors.
Preliminary results. The response rate at the time of the interim analysis was 66%. Respondents and nonrespondents were similar in terms of region, practice setting or location; 55% were male, 45% female; 65% of respondents had >50% of their patients who were insured; 78% percent participated in the VFC program.
I don’t consider that to be unusual or unexpected.
What is the very FIRST question I ask my doctor when I see them? How much of this will my insurance cover, and how much will I have to pay?
I take issue with the first concern being “How do we get paid” and not “How safe is this”
Because, if it’s not safe, we all know insurance will foot that bill.
I do believe the general safety of the vaccine must have been assumed to ask that question. While it did mention side effects as a possible answer, ultimately (assuming the vaccine isn’t likely to be fatal), the first question a practicing doctor is going to have about prescribing it is “Will my patients take the drug?”
In other words, it is useless to sign a prescription for a drug that your patient will not fill because they cannot afford the prescription.
I do believe the general safety of the vaccine must have been assumed to ask that question. While it did mention side effects as a possible answer, ultimately (assuming the vaccine isn’t likely to be fatal), the first question a practicing doctor is going to have about prescribing it is “Will my patients take the drug?”
In other words, it is useless to sign a prescription for a drug that your patient will not fill because they cannot afford the prescription.
I take issue with the first concern being “How do we get paid” and not “How safe is this”
Because, if it’s not safe, we all know insurance will foot that bill.
I don’t consider that to be unusual or unexpected.
What is the very FIRST question I ask my doctor when I see them? How much of this will my insurance cover, and how much will I have to pay?
I’m reading through the document looking for some personal concerns regarding safety of the vaccine.
First, let me state that if the vaccine was proven safe beyond doubt, I’d sign up in a heartbeat.
While looking for info, I came across this info which proves to me that the AMA isn’t concerned with our health as much as it’s tied to the whether or not insurance will fill their pockets.
Speed to implement vaccine use if ACIP/AAP recommended routine use: 51% would begin within six months of the recommendation; 28%, 6-12 months; 7%, 1-2 years; 1%, 2 years. Another 14% were unsure.
Reasons to wait 6 months: 1) insurance coverage: 90%; ensure no vaccine side effects: 81%; adequate vaccine supplies: 65%; see if other providers use the vaccine: 36%; see if parents accept the vaccine: 20%.
Barriers to giving rotavirus vaccine: 1) failure of some insurance companies to cover vaccination: definitely, 51%; somewhat of a barrier, 28%; 2) lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination: definitely a barrier, 42%; somewhat a barrier, 32%; 3) parents’ reluctance due to RotaShield withdrawal: definitely a barrier, 30%; somewhat a barrier, 42%.
When I was 19, I had an irregular pap smear, and was diagnosed with condiloma, or a cervical wart, which had to be removed by freezing it off. From that point I had to be checked every 6 months with another pap smear to insure it didn’t return, as they considered it pre-cancerous.
The weird part? I hadn’t even been KISSED yet, much less had sex. Point being, it’s not even sexually transmitted 100% of the time. So treating it like it’s some sort of moral retribution for premarital sex is laughable for so many reasons, that being one of them.
Bah.
When I was 19, I had an irregular pap smear, and was diagnosed with condiloma, or a cervical wart, which had to be removed by freezing it off. From that point I had to be checked every 6 months with another pap smear to insure it didn’t return, as they considered it pre-cancerous.
The weird part? I hadn’t even been KISSED yet, much less had sex. Point being, it’s not even sexually transmitted 100% of the time. So treating it like it’s some sort of moral retribution for premarital sex is laughable for so many reasons, that being one of them.
Bah.
I cannot even put into words how infuriating this debate has been for me. This isn’t some giant debate over whether or not to teach kids abstinence, provide contraception, or whatever. (Which still infuriate me, but not on such a base scientific level. More on a “WTF YOU LOONEYS?!” level.)
We’re talking about cancer. Not just “pre-screening” and “effective treatment” – We’re talking Almost Entirely Effective PREVENTION of cancer. This is the golden dream-team of treatments – the Holy Grail of Medical Science. Prior to this point, we’ve been fighting against a battle we didn’t understand, couldn’t prevent, and struggled with treating. This HPV Vaccine is quite possibly, one of the biggest breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer, simply by knowing what the main cause of the cancer is, and by preventing it from taking effect.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?!?! It’s okay for medical science to improve the penile function so old people can get it on and spread STDs in their retirement community (see recent new studies on old people booty. Uck.), but for the love of all that is holy, we simply cannot TOUCH the youth! We can’t save them from suffering from a cancer! Oh no! Even if we had an effective, preventative treatment for them, we’ll withhold it based on moral grounds because they might be induced to “have more sex.”
Whatever. Get your kids away from the TV, get them reading, get them involved in after-school activities and be involved in their lives. Maybe if they weren’t so bored they wouldn’t resort to doing the only thing that seems racy, exciting, and new. It’s no excuse for attempting to deny treatment and prevention to millions of women.
And now I shall get off my soap-box.
Meh :P
No kidding. When I was in high school, for example, one of the favored arguments of the pro-lifers was, “What if you abort the kid who will grow up and find a cure for cancer?”
WE HAVE BETTER THAN A CURE. WE HAVE PREVENTION.
Not to mention the even more repulsive implied complement to that idea — that if a woman gets HPV, she must have deserved it.
At least, a provention for some – there being 20-some varieties, they have a long way to go for -that- one.
The point I’m sure you were making is that we had nothing. Until this was produced, there was absolutely no way that we were aware of to prevent cancer (other than not sticking your head in an asbestos bag).
I agree that it does make an implication that those who acquire HPV (and let’s remember it doesn’t discriminate, even if women are much more likely to become cancerous) are deserving of it. Mmmm, tasty wages of sin.
At least, a provention for some – there being 20-some varieties, they have a long way to go for -that- one.
The point I’m sure you were making is that we had nothing. Until this was produced, there was absolutely no way that we were aware of to prevent cancer (other than not sticking your head in an asbestos bag).
I agree that it does make an implication that those who acquire HPV (and let’s remember it doesn’t discriminate, even if women are much more likely to become cancerous) are deserving of it. Mmmm, tasty wages of sin.
No kidding. When I was in high school, for example, one of the favored arguments of the pro-lifers was, “What if you abort the kid who will grow up and find a cure for cancer?”
WE HAVE BETTER THAN A CURE. WE HAVE PREVENTION.
Not to mention the even more repulsive implied complement to that idea — that if a woman gets HPV, she must have deserved it.
Whatever. Get your kids away from the TV, get them reading, get them involved in after-school activities and be involved in their lives. Maybe if they weren’t so bored they wouldn’t resort to doing the only thing that seems racy, exciting, and new. It’s no excuse for attempting to deny treatment and prevention to millions of women.
And men, too. I was reading in the meeting notes for the ACIP that HPV can cause cancers of the male genitals, anus, neck, and HEAD. Yummy!
Also, since most transmission of HPV is heterosexual (since most sex is heterosexual), that makes men a transmission vector. Wouldn’t it be just lovely to find out (hypothetically speaking) that it was my fault my wife got cervical cancer and died? The best trait of the Merck vaccine (as opposed to the other one they’re testing) is that it’s designed to be used by both genders.
Also, of course, it reduces the chances of dealing with the humiliation and emotional/social trauma of warts, which can be hellish and life-altering by itself.
Whatever. Get your kids away from the TV, get them reading, get them involved in after-school activities and be involved in their lives. Maybe if they weren’t so bored they wouldn’t resort to doing the only thing that seems racy, exciting, and new. It’s no excuse for attempting to deny treatment and prevention to millions of women.
And men, too. I was reading in the meeting notes for the ACIP that HPV can cause cancers of the male genitals, anus, neck, and HEAD. Yummy!
Also, since most transmission of HPV is heterosexual (since most sex is heterosexual), that makes men a transmission vector. Wouldn’t it be just lovely to find out (hypothetically speaking) that it was my fault my wife got cervical cancer and died? The best trait of the Merck vaccine (as opposed to the other one they’re testing) is that it’s designed to be used by both genders.
Also, of course, it reduces the chances of dealing with the humiliation and emotional/social trauma of warts, which can be hellish and life-altering by itself.
I cannot even put into words how infuriating this debate has been for me. This isn’t some giant debate over whether or not to teach kids abstinence, provide contraception, or whatever. (Which still infuriate me, but not on such a base scientific level. More on a “WTF YOU LOONEYS?!” level.)
We’re talking about cancer. Not just “pre-screening” and “effective treatment” – We’re talking Almost Entirely Effective PREVENTION of cancer. This is the golden dream-team of treatments – the Holy Grail of Medical Science. Prior to this point, we’ve been fighting against a battle we didn’t understand, couldn’t prevent, and struggled with treating. This HPV Vaccine is quite possibly, one of the biggest breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer, simply by knowing what the main cause of the cancer is, and by preventing it from taking effect.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?!?! It’s okay for medical science to improve the penile function so old people can get it on and spread STDs in their retirement community (see recent new studies on old people booty. Uck.), but for the love of all that is holy, we simply cannot TOUCH the youth! We can’t save them from suffering from a cancer! Oh no! Even if we had an effective, preventative treatment for them, we’ll withhold it based on moral grounds because they might be induced to “have more sex.”
Whatever. Get your kids away from the TV, get them reading, get them involved in after-school activities and be involved in their lives. Maybe if they weren’t so bored they wouldn’t resort to doing the only thing that seems racy, exciting, and new. It’s no excuse for attempting to deny treatment and prevention to millions of women.
And now I shall get off my soap-box.
Meh :P
I have been shrieking, “WHY ARE WE IN A POLITICAL/CULTURAL PLACE WHERE THEY CAN *ADMIT* THAT THIS IS THEIR AGENDA!?!??!” for quite some time now.
I mean, I understand that they’re going to have that “reasoning.” But I dunno, I don’t think 5 years ago they would have been able to come out and SAY that that was their reason for opposing it. They would have had to have a pretext.
As much as I disagree with his sentiments (and believe me I do), it’s all part and parcel of the freedoms we enjoy. He’s not exactly the first to openly use his own beliefs (or lack thereof) as the motivation for idiotic rationalizations.
I’m not talking about *political* freedom. :-) I’m talking about cultural freedom.
We all have legal protection to speak our mind, certainly. But there are some things people representing large organizations can’t say and still be taken seriously, and ergo won’t say lest they be booed off the cultural stage, or — perhaps worse for them — ignored entirely with a general eye-rolling.
Which is why, for example, if you’re a member of a snobby education organization, and you don’t want your kids going to school with black kids, you don’t make public statements to that effect — it’s something you can’t say. So you come up with a pretext — cost of bussing or whatever. You can’t say it. Of course, you have Constitutionally-protected freedom to say it if you want, but if you make a public statement and admit that that’s your real reason, your organization’s credibility is going to be blown.
Five years ago, I’m fairly certain that these groups would not have been able to make public statements to the effect that they oppose the vaccine because HPV is a deterrent to pre-marital sex without looking as dumb and outre as the aforementioned hypothetical parents group.
I’m a little disturbed that our culture has gotten to the point where they feel they can say it.
Ah, thanks for that. I misunderstood.
But getting back to the soap-box let me enforce my morality on everyone ideas, didn’t religious organizations back in the day openly oppose condoms and/or condom distribution simply because it would increase premarital sex?
I don’t mean to arguing with you at every turn. I think I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning…
Heh, ‘sokay! Makes the morning less dull.
I suppose you’re right. It just seems more absurd now because they’re trying to prevent the FDA from approving something, and the FDA’s approval is supposed to be based on drug safety. Whereas depending on the mechanisms of condom distribution, you can argue all sorts of things depending on the organization distributing them, not all of them scientific (cost, etc.).
Heh, ‘sokay! Makes the morning less dull.
I suppose you’re right. It just seems more absurd now because they’re trying to prevent the FDA from approving something, and the FDA’s approval is supposed to be based on drug safety. Whereas depending on the mechanisms of condom distribution, you can argue all sorts of things depending on the organization distributing them, not all of them scientific (cost, etc.).
I think the big difference here is that (taking condom use, particularly), the catholic church is not in any sort of decision-making role within the manufacture and distribution of condoms.
True, but this Bridget Maher is merely part of a Christian lobby group. I don’t think she has any decision-making role within the manufacture and distribution of this vaccine. I don’t mean to dismiss her as insignificant, because we all know how influential lobby groups can get, but in all fairness the Catholic Church wasn’t the only group agains condoms. I’m sure you had similar Christian lobbyists in the 80’s trying to ban condoms (or at least free/widespread distribution) because it would encourage premarital (or extra-marital) sex.
I’m just saying I think fringe nutjobs like this will always try to swing the opinions of the masses or the government to conform to their morality. Doesn’t seem to be anything new to me. I just wish more rational Christians who realize that the point of Christianity is NOT to make people clean up their lives would either A) speak a bit louder on issues like this or B) get more attention.
Read this post by my friend about the ACIP and their role in determining when vaccines are used, as well as about Dr. Reginald Finger of Focus on the Family, who is a panelist for the ACIP.
She raises a good point, but like I said I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning so let me argue a bit more.
Maher is specifically talking about premarital sex and although her comments are taken out of context, I would tend to think that she’s speaking from a moral standpoint and wants to enforce her own moral standpoint.
But let’s take a look at what Dr. Finger actually says in his quote: “We would have to look at that closely….with any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.”
This guy is on a board that advises how vaccines are used and distributed. Again, his comments are completely out of context, but one interpretation of this quote is that he is talking about a disinhibition factor from a sociological and medical standpoint. Morally opposed to premarital sex or not, it’s pretty clear that if the general populace is less inhibited to have sex at random with whomever they want, most STDs will be on the rise. If a possible side effect of mass producing this vaccination and pushing it to the masses is that people become more promiscuous (I’m talking about quantity of sexual partners here, not retaining virginity until marriage), that is certainly something to be considered when deciding upon the recommended distribution of a vaccine. And notice that’s all he says: that it will be something to “pay attention to”. He’s certainly a religious person and part of a religious organization, but does that mean we must assume his motivation is automatically to enforce his morality?
This is why I hate the fact that idiot Christians are given so much media time and rational, logical Christians get so little. Our opinions tend to get automatically lumped together as “the religious opinion” when in reality, we do have opinions that may merely align with as opposed to be coming out of, our religious beliefs/organizations.
She raises a good point, but like I said I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning so let me argue a bit more.
Maher is specifically talking about premarital sex and although her comments are taken out of context, I would tend to think that she’s speaking from a moral standpoint and wants to enforce her own moral standpoint.
But let’s take a look at what Dr. Finger actually says in his quote: “We would have to look at that closely….with any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.”
This guy is on a board that advises how vaccines are used and distributed. Again, his comments are completely out of context, but one interpretation of this quote is that he is talking about a disinhibition factor from a sociological and medical standpoint. Morally opposed to premarital sex or not, it’s pretty clear that if the general populace is less inhibited to have sex at random with whomever they want, most STDs will be on the rise. If a possible side effect of mass producing this vaccination and pushing it to the masses is that people become more promiscuous (I’m talking about quantity of sexual partners here, not retaining virginity until marriage), that is certainly something to be considered when deciding upon the recommended distribution of a vaccine. And notice that’s all he says: that it will be something to “pay attention to”. He’s certainly a religious person and part of a religious organization, but does that mean we must assume his motivation is automatically to enforce his morality?
This is why I hate the fact that idiot Christians are given so much media time and rational, logical Christians get so little. Our opinions tend to get automatically lumped together as “the religious opinion” when in reality, we do have opinions that may merely align with as opposed to be coming out of, our religious beliefs/organizations.
She raises a good point, but like I said I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning so let me argue a bit more.
Maher is specifically talking about premarital sex and although her comments are taken out of context, I would tend to think that she’s speaking from a moral standpoint and wants to enforce her own moral standpoint.
But let’s take a look at what Dr. Finger actually says in his quote: “We would have to look at that closely….with any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.”
This guy is on a board that advises how vaccines are used and distributed. Again, his comments are completely out of context, but one interpretation of this quote is that he is talking about a disinhibition factor from a sociological and medical standpoint. Morally opposed to premarital sex or not, it’s pretty clear that if the general populace is less inhibited to have sex at random with whomever they want, most STDs will be on the rise. If a possible side effect of mass producing this vaccination and pushing it to the masses is that people become more promiscuous (I’m talking about quantity of sexual partners here, not retaining virginity until marriage), that is certainly something to be considered when deciding upon the recommended distribution of a vaccine. And notice that’s all he says: that it will be something to “pay attention to”. He’s certainly a religious person and part of a religious organization, but does that mean we must assume his motivation is automatically to enforce his morality?
This is why I hate the fact that idiot Christians are given so much media time and rational, logical Christians get so little. Our opinions tend to get automatically lumped together as “the religious opinion” when in reality, we do have opinions that may merely align with as opposed to be coming out of, our religious beliefs/organizations.
The problem I have with this reasoning is that this particular vaccine, for one, does not completely prevent HPV. In fact, of the 20-something straings out there, it only prevents 4, and they have -very- clearly shown that it will not prevent any of the other strains.
That means that the risk is still present, that HPV or chlamydia or HIV is still there, and that this vaccine can’t be considere a “get out of sex free” drug.
Considering that HIV is the number one head honcho STD and that HPV isn’t talked about (certainly deeply disproportionate to its numbers), I cannot see how this vaccine would do anything to increase sexual activity. Rather, I think it would increase the profile of HPV, which I think is vital, considering that the vast majority of women in the world will get HPV of some variety before they turn 50.
The problem I have with this reasoning is that this particular vaccine, for one, does not completely prevent HPV. In fact, of the 20-something straings out there, it only prevents 4, and they have -very- clearly shown that it will not prevent any of the other strains.
That means that the risk is still present, that HPV or chlamydia or HIV is still there, and that this vaccine can’t be considere a “get out of sex free” drug.
Considering that HIV is the number one head honcho STD and that HPV isn’t talked about (certainly deeply disproportionate to its numbers), I cannot see how this vaccine would do anything to increase sexual activity. Rather, I think it would increase the profile of HPV, which I think is vital, considering that the vast majority of women in the world will get HPV of some variety before they turn 50.
She raises a good point, but like I said I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning so let me argue a bit more.
Maher is specifically talking about premarital sex and although her comments are taken out of context, I would tend to think that she’s speaking from a moral standpoint and wants to enforce her own moral standpoint.
But let’s take a look at what Dr. Finger actually says in his quote: “We would have to look at that closely….with any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.”
This guy is on a board that advises how vaccines are used and distributed. Again, his comments are completely out of context, but one interpretation of this quote is that he is talking about a disinhibition factor from a sociological and medical standpoint. Morally opposed to premarital sex or not, it’s pretty clear that if the general populace is less inhibited to have sex at random with whomever they want, most STDs will be on the rise. If a possible side effect of mass producing this vaccination and pushing it to the masses is that people become more promiscuous (I’m talking about quantity of sexual partners here, not retaining virginity until marriage), that is certainly something to be considered when deciding upon the recommended distribution of a vaccine. And notice that’s all he says: that it will be something to “pay attention to”. He’s certainly a religious person and part of a religious organization, but does that mean we must assume his motivation is automatically to enforce his morality?
This is why I hate the fact that idiot Christians are given so much media time and rational, logical Christians get so little. Our opinions tend to get automatically lumped together as “the religious opinion” when in reality, we do have opinions that may merely align with as opposed to be coming out of, our religious beliefs/organizations.
Read this post by my friend about the ACIP and their role in determining when vaccines are used, as well as about Dr. Reginald Finger of Focus on the Family, who is a panelist for the ACIP.
True, but this Bridget Maher is merely part of a Christian lobby group. I don’t think she has any decision-making role within the manufacture and distribution of this vaccine. I don’t mean to dismiss her as insignificant, because we all know how influential lobby groups can get, but in all fairness the Catholic Church wasn’t the only group agains condoms. I’m sure you had similar Christian lobbyists in the 80’s trying to ban condoms (or at least free/widespread distribution) because it would encourage premarital (or extra-marital) sex.
I’m just saying I think fringe nutjobs like this will always try to swing the opinions of the masses or the government to conform to their morality. Doesn’t seem to be anything new to me. I just wish more rational Christians who realize that the point of Christianity is NOT to make people clean up their lives would either A) speak a bit louder on issues like this or B) get more attention.
I think the big difference here is that (taking condom use, particularly), the catholic church is not in any sort of decision-making role within the manufacture and distribution of condoms.
Ah, thanks for that. I misunderstood.
But getting back to the soap-box let me enforce my morality on everyone ideas, didn’t religious organizations back in the day openly oppose condoms and/or condom distribution simply because it would increase premarital sex?
I don’t mean to arguing with you at every turn. I think I caught the Devil’s Advocate bug this morning…
I’m not talking about *political* freedom. :-) I’m talking about cultural freedom.
We all have legal protection to speak our mind, certainly. But there are some things people representing large organizations can’t say and still be taken seriously, and ergo won’t say lest they be booed off the cultural stage, or — perhaps worse for them — ignored entirely with a general eye-rolling.
Which is why, for example, if you’re a member of a snobby education organization, and you don’t want your kids going to school with black kids, you don’t make public statements to that effect — it’s something you can’t say. So you come up with a pretext — cost of bussing or whatever. You can’t say it. Of course, you have Constitutionally-protected freedom to say it if you want, but if you make a public statement and admit that that’s your real reason, your organization’s credibility is going to be blown.
Five years ago, I’m fairly certain that these groups would not have been able to make public statements to the effect that they oppose the vaccine because HPV is a deterrent to pre-marital sex without looking as dumb and outre as the aforementioned hypothetical parents group.
I’m a little disturbed that our culture has gotten to the point where they feel they can say it.
As much as I disagree with his sentiments (and believe me I do), it’s all part and parcel of the freedoms we enjoy. He’s not exactly the first to openly use his own beliefs (or lack thereof) as the motivation for idiotic rationalizations.
I don’t know if it’s in the last 5 years or the last ten, but this seems to be true. Statements that are blatantly illogical, fallacious, and kneejerk, even from medical doctors and other intellectual professionals, are taken at face value.
I don’t get it.
I don’t know if it’s in the last 5 years or the last ten, but this seems to be true. Statements that are blatantly illogical, fallacious, and kneejerk, even from medical doctors and other intellectual professionals, are taken at face value.
I don’t get it.
I have been shrieking, “WHY ARE WE IN A POLITICAL/CULTURAL PLACE WHERE THEY CAN *ADMIT* THAT THIS IS THEIR AGENDA!?!??!” for quite some time now.
I mean, I understand that they’re going to have that “reasoning.” But I dunno, I don’t think 5 years ago they would have been able to come out and SAY that that was their reason for opposing it. They would have had to have a pretext.
I’m glad I’m not the only one upset about the ensuing political drama over this. It’s totally ridiculous.
HPV is an epidemic and we need to get it under control. As with any vaccine, Gardasil will eliminate HPV almost completely within a few generations. It’s a great achievement for humankind.
I’m glad I’m not the only one upset about the ensuing political drama over this. It’s totally ridiculous.
HPV is an epidemic and we need to get it under control. As with any vaccine, Gardasil will eliminate HPV almost completely within a few generations. It’s a great achievement for humankind.
Of course what to remember most about this is that it’s another way to keep women down. I don’t mean to be paranoid or crazy femi-grrl, but if it were to prevent prostate cancer in men, it’d be handed out like candy.
God for-fucking-bid a woman is in control of her sexuality. It’s a scary thing.
Sorry this stuff pisses me off in 12 million different ways. I’m going back to my blue bubble of San Francisco and my bluest bubble of the Castro. :P
Actually, according to the analysis of HPV located in the latest meeting notes of the ACIP, it does cause cancer in men – cancer of the penis, anus, neck and head. I suspect if I’d read further, I’d have found that it has a much lower probability of becoming cancer.
Nonetheless, you can find those meeting notes here.
Is that a new finding? Historically the belief has always been that HPV infection does not place a man at a higher risk for health problems, including cancer.
Google results are sort of shaky, but the Canadian Health Department (somehow I trust them more than the US one?) says: “Most types of HPV are benign, which means they do not cause cancer. Approximately 13 types have been linked to cancer. Types of cancer linked to HPV include cancer of the anus, penis, vulva and cervix. New research is finding that HPV may be linked also with some forms of respiratory and esophageal cancer, and melanoma.”
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/std-mts/hpv_e.html
< Insert more consipiracy theory here >
Found a nice explantation on the Planned Parenthood site, sounds even more rare for it to cause non-cervical cancer. I still stand behind my “have to make sure women can only make fear-based calls about whether they should have sex or not” – anyway, better info:
“Certain types of genital HPV are also now considered to be a cause of most cancers of the vagina, vulva, anus, and penis. Although each of these cancers occurs less frequently than does cervical cancer, taken together they equal nearly half the number of cases of cervical cancer in the U.S. (Eng & Butler, 1997). The average age for diagnosis of these cancers is significantly later than for cervical cancer. The median age of diagnosis for vaginal cancer is 67 years and 70 years for vulvar cancer. Anal cancer is typically diagnosed at 66 years of age for women and 63 years for men, and the average age of diagnosis for cancer of the penis is 66 years (Kiviat, et al., 1999). As is the case with cervical cancer, HPV 16 and HPV 18 are most often associated with vaginal, vulvar, anal, and penile cancers (Eng & Butler, 1997). An association has also been made between HPV and oral, head, and neck cancers, although further research needs to be conducted to establish a causal relationship (Mork, et al., 2001; Schwartz, et al., 1998). Men are three times more likely than women to develop head and neck cancers (HPV Treatment and Prevention Resource, 2001).” – http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sti/fact-HPV-virus.xml#1097079762994::4252225120670447241
Is that a new finding? Historically the belief has always been that HPV infection does not place a man at a higher risk for health problems, including cancer.
Google results are sort of shaky, but the Canadian Health Department (somehow I trust them more than the US one?) says: “Most types of HPV are benign, which means they do not cause cancer. Approximately 13 types have been linked to cancer. Types of cancer linked to HPV include cancer of the anus, penis, vulva and cervix. New research is finding that HPV may be linked also with some forms of respiratory and esophageal cancer, and melanoma.”
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/std-mts/hpv_e.html
< Insert more consipiracy theory here >
Found a nice explantation on the Planned Parenthood site, sounds even more rare for it to cause non-cervical cancer. I still stand behind my “have to make sure women can only make fear-based calls about whether they should have sex or not” – anyway, better info:
“Certain types of genital HPV are also now considered to be a cause of most cancers of the vagina, vulva, anus, and penis. Although each of these cancers occurs less frequently than does cervical cancer, taken together they equal nearly half the number of cases of cervical cancer in the U.S. (Eng & Butler, 1997). The average age for diagnosis of these cancers is significantly later than for cervical cancer. The median age of diagnosis for vaginal cancer is 67 years and 70 years for vulvar cancer. Anal cancer is typically diagnosed at 66 years of age for women and 63 years for men, and the average age of diagnosis for cancer of the penis is 66 years (Kiviat, et al., 1999). As is the case with cervical cancer, HPV 16 and HPV 18 are most often associated with vaginal, vulvar, anal, and penile cancers (Eng & Butler, 1997). An association has also been made between HPV and oral, head, and neck cancers, although further research needs to be conducted to establish a causal relationship (Mork, et al., 2001; Schwartz, et al., 1998). Men are three times more likely than women to develop head and neck cancers (HPV Treatment and Prevention Resource, 2001).” – http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sti/fact-HPV-virus.xml#1097079762994::4252225120670447241
Actually, according to the analysis of HPV located in the latest meeting notes of the ACIP, it does cause cancer in men – cancer of the penis, anus, neck and head. I suspect if I’d read further, I’d have found that it has a much lower probability of becoming cancer.
Nonetheless, you can find those meeting notes here.
Of course what to remember most about this is that it’s another way to keep women down. I don’t mean to be paranoid or crazy femi-grrl, but if it were to prevent prostate cancer in men, it’d be handed out like candy.
God for-fucking-bid a woman is in control of her sexuality. It’s a scary thing.
Sorry this stuff pisses me off in 12 million different ways. I’m going back to my blue bubble of San Francisco and my bluest bubble of the Castro. :P
Dunno why I just read this now, but I totally agree. I may be a right-wing Christian conservative, but I am not one of those who think imposing my beliefs on sexuality on others is more important than the health of millions (or important at all, actually).
It is one more way that people have declared the right to make decisions for other people who clearly can’t make decisions for themselves.
Heh, that logic is actually the reason I’m a conservative. :o)
Whoa, it seems I *did* comment on this already….
I am losing my mind, it seems.
Heh :)