My only complaint about the new HPV vaccine:

[kestrel91316]

HPV is an infectious disease.

The VAST majority of women who contract it will likely do so from a MALE partner infected with it.

So WHY THE HELL IS THE VACCINE ONLY FOR WOMEN??????

You cannot protect the herd by only vaccinating half of it.

IMHO, somebody DOESN'T WANT THIS DISEASE WELL AND TRULY CONTROLLED.

:rant:

[Kagemusha]

1. Well it's only like yesterday I heard that the virus

causes cancers of various sorts in men as well.

I'd like to see if the vaccine being only for women is something that can and will change, and whether it should or not (because "should" is something far beyond my competence to decide).

[Midlodemocrat]

2. I think, although I could be wrong, that HPV remains largely

asymptomatic in males. The strains that lead to cervical cancer are being targeted at this point.

The idea is to prevent the HPV in a female from going into full blown cancer.

At least that is my rudimentary understanding.

[Lurking Dem]

It's still under testing for men.

It will be available in a year or two.

[kiahzero]

25. Ssh... don't let facts get in the way of a good flame war. (n/t)

[PLF]

3. don't you worry, they will round up all the boys as well

they are just starting with little girls because they think they can pull at people's heart strings most easily that way.

[kestrel91316]

7. Why are you continuing to perpetuate the MYTH that anyone

has been or will be "rounded up" and forced to receive this vaccine????

That's bald-faced lie.

The designation "mandatory" doesn't mean force will or ever COULD be used. It merely requires insurance to cover it and public health agencies to offer it.

I have no doubt you already know this.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[PLF]

9. it's a figure of speech, but you knew that already

Personally, I think the decision to take this vaccine is a private choice to be made by the family members and their health care provider in private. Instead, anybody who dares question the wisdom of big pharma lobbyists and that crook Rick Perry is placed on a government mandated list. These private decisions are non of your's or Rick Perry's business.

[kestrel91316]

13. Do you or do you not oppose insurance coverage of this?

I know. It's sort of like asking you if you oppose insurance coverage for birth control..............

Go ahead. Answer both questions.

Uh huh. That's what I suspected.

[PLF]

16. your snarky attitude aside, I have no problem with insurance coverage

You are presenting a false choice of its either mandatory or nobody gets it but rich folks. But you know that as well.

You assume much and know little.

[Katherine Brengle]

17. "Mandatory" doesn't mean shit.

It doesn't mean ANYONE has to get the shot for pete's sake.

NO ONE who doesn't want it has to get it.

NO ONE is being persecuted here.

NOT mandatory means insurance will NOT be required to pay, which yes, does mean it becomes a CLASS issue.

:eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Thanks, Katherine, for your continued debunking of bad info

Appreciate it

[PLF]

21. If it wasn't mandatory you wouldn't have to register with Rick Perry to "opt out"

[PLF]

22. My only complaint is that it shouldn't be mandatory and it's none of Rick Perry's business

whether my family chooses to opt out or not.

Why are the pro-big pharme mandate people so dishonest about that?

[PLF]

20. It means you have to register with the government to "opt out"

It's really none of Rick Perry's or Merck's business.

Why are you against just allowing families to make their own decisions?

They could pass a law saying that if a person chooses to have it then it must be covered by insurance. Why the dishonesty from the pro-mandate crowd?

Oh, wait I remember, anybody who questions the wisdom of Merck's high paid lobbyists must hate women and children. According to your compadres anyway.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. I believe that perhaps someday, they will realize how potent

the immune response is when fueled up with the natural substances that have been shown to "remove the rev limiter" so to speak of that immune system.

google medicinal mushrooms.

[mike_c]

5. that's a good point, but I doubt that vacinating males would have much effect...

...unless the vacination was compulsory, since HPV 16 and 18 are largely assymptomatic in males. Women are the affected part of the population, so it makes sense to target them for vacination, IMO. If I were a sexually active female I'd be a whole lot more interested in receiving an HPV vaccine than I am now because, frankly, cervical cancer is not an issue for me.

Another possible approach might be to mandate STD tests whenever ANYONE has lab work done, etc, so that they would be informed about their reservior status even if they were not otherwise affected. If I knew I was likely to infect my partner, that would be another matter altogether.

[Lurking Dem]

6. It will protect men from warts

and they are, I believe, testing in relation to male cancers as well.

[mike_c]

8. that's true, and don't get me wrong...

...I think EVERYONE should be protected against STDs.

[sandnsea]

12. No, anal and penile cancer too

Boys will need to be vaccinated when it's cleared for them, already being vaccinated in Europe and Australia. Boys can get vaccinated here if they ask their doctor and their doctor approves.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm

[mike_c]

14. I agree, but again, the incidence of anal and penile cancer...

...resulting from the HPV types that this vaccine is effective against is really low, compared to the incidence of cervical cancer. Like I said, I'd be much more concerned about HPV infection if I were female.

I think the most effective way to lower the long-term risk of women's infection is to vacinate men because they serve most often as asymptomatic reserviors for HPV (or at least the incidence of life-threatening disease is very much lower in men), so that they will likely always reservoir it unless they are vacinated. But since we are much less likely to suffer any dangerous consequences of infection, men are less likely to recognize the urgency.

Personally, I'm in favor of involuntary reversible sterilization of all boys along with compulsory STD vaccine administration. And an appeal for a family planning license to reverse the vasectomy when they demonstrate that they are thinking with the head on the anterior end of their body. I certainly wish someone had done that to me!

[sandnsea]

15. Or

A mother who says 'don't you bring no babies for me to raise', every time the teen-aged son walks out the door!!

I was just adding info on the HPV, not sure everybody knows everything that's going on. I didn't realize 50-80% of all sexually active adults would be infected with an HPV virus at some point, that's pretty serious. We really need to get a handle on these STD's.

[progdonkey]

10. CDC STD Fact Sheet: HPV and Men

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm

Long story short: men don't really have to worry about HPV, as it's usually at most a nuisance (and even then only if it's a strain that causes warts). The only concern for men is infecting their female partners. Since women are the ones primarily at risk of actually dying from HPV, treatment and prevention should be focused on them.

Also, consider how much more difficult it would be to convince the general male population to get a vaccination that will only really benefit their female partners than to convince women that a vaccination will reduce their risk of cervical cancer drastically? I'd have no problem, since I have no worries about needles and I'll be vaccinated for anything, but there are plenty of guys who would simply refuse, either out of fear of needles, vaccination "worries," or because they're just asses who don't see why they need to take something to prevent them from contracting something that is harmless to them.

[kestrel91316]

23. We vaccinate cats for Feline Leukemia Virus because the

ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIER STATE poses a potentially lethal threat to other cats. It's a very contagious disease.

The same situation exists for HPV. Failing to vaccinate to prevent asymptomatic carriers is INSANE and IRRESPONSIBLE.

We are either serious about controlling this disease or we're not. It apears that somebody wants to make sure that HPV always REMAINS a threat.

[sandnsea]

11. The Gay Cancer Vaccine

Sorry to gay men here, but if the vaccine came out for men first, that's what would have happened. Some people STIll call HIV the gay disease, lots of women don't know they're seriously at risk until they have it. Connecting HPV to cervical cancer, FIRST, will make it less likely to be labeled a gay cancer when they finish the testing for men in the US. It's already given to men in Europe and Australia.

[kestrel91316]

24. Interesting point.

[xchrom]

18. here ya go

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

Labels: CDC, Gardasil, HPV, Pediatrics (journal)


http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html