Why no mandatory HPV vaccination for little boys?

[crikkett]

So Texas has its panties in a twist over not-quite mandatory HPV shots for little girls, meant only to keep them healthy and safe.

But who do little girls contract the virus from, if not little boys? In all the fray I just don't know why, if public health is the issue, I haven't seen or heard anyone suggest that little boys be vaccinated too.

Now, if it's because the vaccine hasn't been tested on little boys and so wouldn't be safe, then I say that it's not safe enough for little girls yet, either.

Arguments both for and against the mandatory vaccination issue are so patriarchal.

(edited to fix typo).

[sandnsea]

1. More issues are involved

"We do not yet know if the vaccine is effective in boys or men. It is possible that vaccinating males will have health benefits for them by preventing genital warts and rare cancers, such as penile and anal cancer. It is also possible that vaccinating boys/men will have indirect health benefits for girls/women. Studies are now being done to find out if the vaccine works to prevent HPV infection and disease in males. When more information is available, this vaccine may be licensed and recommended for boys/men as well."

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

It is being given to boys in Australia and Europe, which has been posted over and over and over and over and over and...

:argh:

[crikkett]

7. you prove my point.. CDC isn't sure it's safe for boys

and so I say if it's not safe for my boy then it's not safe for my girl.

And good for Australia and Europe. I hope we learn from their experience.

[sandnsea]

9. No, the issue isn't safety

It's whether it works to prevent the virus, and whether that helps prevent cancers specific to men. It's about how the vaccine works in men, not only whether it's safe enough for them. Gads.

[kiahzero]

47. Don't try arguing with loony anti-vaccine people.

They aren't rational, so rational arguments just bounce right off.

[dysfunctional press]

51. that's not a valid line of thought.

there are some medications for men for instance, that are dangerous for women to even handle.

[shance]

30. SO why not wait until all the information is in? Its not as if it is a widespread form of c ancer.

In fact, it is relatively rare among young females. So why the mandatory injection of a cancer into young girls?

Only approximately 9,000 or so in the entire American female population seem to have any signs of this cancer.

Why all the "Merck" concern for young female girls at this age?

Something seems curious, to say the least.

[azurnoir]

2. It isn't manditory for boys yet

Because it was only tested on girls, being that they are the major risk group.

[havocmom]

35. But, girls are the major risk group because they get the virus...

and HOW does THAT happen? ;)

Test the vaccine on males too. If the problem is THE VIRUS that causes some cancers, why not wipe out that problem in the transmission source too?

Or, we could take circumcision a lot further and eliminate a lot of the transmission, but I don't wanna impose standards of safety that might be construed as dangerous or punitive. But, sure, vaccinate females with something not proved 100% safe and effective.

We are talking a vaccine for a VIRUS, not a vaccine for cancer. Where do females catch it from? OP asks a valid question. Why are we treating roughly half the population for A VIRUS that MOST of the population carries?

We wouldn't have done well against polio or small pox with that plan.

[Kutjara]

3. While I'm sure patriarchy is involved...

...there may be another consideration. Since cervical cancer afflicts girls and not boys, it is imperative that girls receive the vaccine. In the interests of getting the vaccine distributed to those who need it most, it makes sense to target girls first. Ultimately, the vaccine should be available to all children, of course.

Also, because boys don't get cervical cancer, many of their parents might not wish their children to be exposed to the real or imagined risks of the vaccine for no perceived "payoff" (the health and wellbeing of someone else's child not being a big concern for them). Again, making sure that all girls are vaccinated will protect them from infection by boys whose parents were assholes.

[shance]

5. It is BY NO MEANS this vaccine is in ANY way imperative.

My father was a surgeon and a physician. I know by both experience and knowledge he would not accept any vaccination without a logical and informational fight.

He didn't believe wholeheartedly in vaccinations, and now I understand why. Because there are vested interests involved, and God forbid, unethical, greed driven, profitable, perhaps ammoral interests involved.

He would never allow a daughter of his to receive such a medication, nor would I.

So why would you allow a foreign body to enter your childs body without fully knowing and having unmitigated proof what was being injected inside your childs body?

[Kutjara]

17. The greed of big pharma is certainly a factor...

...that must be considered in any medical decision. Drugs must be used if they are to be profitable, and drug companies are fanatic in their pursuit of profit. It isn't often that human wellbeing and the profit motive are ethically aligned.

That said, the requirement that we have total knowledge about what is being injected into our children is an impossibility. We don't even know what's in much of the food we eat or the air we breath. When it comes to medication, the methods by which drugs are made and tested rely, in large measure, on trial and error. The theraputic or curative properties of certain molecules are identified; they are made into drugs that are tested on animals and humans for efficacy and toxicity; if they pass these tests and have sufficient theraputic power to justify their side effects (by some largely arbitrary measure established by the FDA et al), they are then productized and sold for administration to the public.

In none of these steps is everything about the molecule known. Certain properties are noted, certain effects observed, but the full range of possible outcomes is never known. There simply isn't the time or the will (commercial or political) to fully test everything, to explore all the possible biochemical processes that may be affected.

As the time betwee cause and effect lengthens, we completely lose the ability to draw a connection. If I took a lifesaving drug when I was a child and then die of heart diseas at 60, my case would probably be lost in the noise of the large number of "normal" heart attack deaths among men my age. The fact that it was the drug that weakened my heart may never be discovered. Of course, the fact that I lived to 60 at all may be due to the drug, but that's different argument.

I don't believe we will ever have full and unmitigated proof of everything the HPV vaccine may do to the human body. As time passes, we will learn more as vaccine recipients grow and age. If we see no rise in the incidence of other diseases over the course of these people's normal lifespan, we can tentatively assume the drug is safe. Of course, we could achive some of this certainty by extending the testing phase for the vaccine by seventy years or so, but a lot of people would have needlessly contracted cancer during that time.

[shance]

4. Many others have had the same questions......why just young girls?

For a cancer that is relatively rare?

What a good question.

[Kagemusha]

6. Because they're not done looking into the vaccination of boys.

Whereas they've already looked into the vaccination of girls and there don't seem to be any significant problems at all. (Well, I haven't heard of ANY at all but far be it from me to claim that's from knowing the exact study details.)

A relatively rare but now completely treatable disease though. Sheesh... I don't get that line of thinking.

[shance]

8. How do you know that is in fact true?

Why would you believe in a profit bearing/agenda driven industry to initiate a mandate for your daughter to receive a mandatory vaccination that could irreversibly alter her health?

How do you know?

I, unlike the pharmaceutical industry, am asking in order to protect your choices before you make a perhaps an inalterable choice that may in fact create a problem instead of preventing it......

How does it benefit you and your child to NOT know what is being injected into your childs body?

[sandnsea]

11. It's been approved all over the fucking world!!!!!

That's how we goddamn know.

[shance]

14. Cut the cussing Mr.Ms eloquent and show some FACTS.

You seem to be an expert.

By all means, strut your stuff and back up your bold talk.

[sandnsea]

16. See post #13

How many days do people have to post fact after fact after fact before science prevails over hysteria?? The facts have been posted, by numerous medical professionals. Yet the people who post these 'insightful' comments against the vaccine NEVER post their credentials.

And again, anger and yes, even cussing, are the SANE responses to these scientific distortions and ignorance.

[Kagemusha]

34. Honestly, it being approved all over the bleeping world is compelling

It's the original reason why I have felt absolutely bewildered by this left-wing opposition to this vaccine. I'd thought the only people opposing it were moral prudes who thought the vaccine encouraged sex. Granted, I've since learned there's well-meaning people who simply doubt the pharma corps about everything and who think the fact that money stands to be made guarantees evil intent. If not for the many "good" countries with good, public health systems that have studied the study and said it's reliable, peer-reviewed work and a proper basis for proceeding, I would not believe it either. But they DID, so I DO. Forgive me if my lack of overwhelming paranoia concerns you.

[sandnsea]

10. How many times does it have to be answered?

5 times a day? 15? 50? If people really want the answer, why don't they use this miraculous invention... the search engine???

[crikkett]

12. now you're just getting upset.

[sandnsea]

13. How many days does this have to go on???

Any sane person would be upset with these ridiculous distortions of science and medicine.

[Henny Penny]

32. Here are just a few links that might give you pause for thought.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1020/polio.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0731/vaccine.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0628/vaccine.html


Trust can be given readily, but once lost its very hard to regain. That applies to science, medicine, religion, politics... life.

[shance]

15. I guess you dont give a shit about what is being injected in these kids.

OBVIOUSLY. God forbid we make sure these kids aren't being exposed to a live cancer WHICH THEY ARE.

But that is of no consequence to you apparently.

[sandnsea]

18. It. Has. Been. Tested.

And approved - all over the world. By medical professionals and research scientists. What are YOUR credentials to create hysteria in unsuspecting young people???

[shance]

19. Show. The. Results.

n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

23. The results are posted

In the CDC link. You're not interested. You just want to keep stirring up this vaccine shit. I can tell you one thing for sure, *I'm* not the one who's going to be responsible for young girls refusing the vaccine and ending up with cancer. That's on YOUR head.

[shance]

24. Please give us the link that provides the accurate information.

That is all that is asked of you.

[sandnsea]

25. The CDC has accurate information

The links posted. If you cared, you'd go read it. It's clear that you don't. Good bye.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crikkett]

29. see reply #1

the link you want is there.

[William769]

33. Where is your proof that it is dangerous?

You want to play with a double edged sword then, so be it.

[northzax]

40. here you go, I will play

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=PubMed&term=gardasil&tool=QuerySuggestion

all peer reviewed studies of Gardasil. Surely, with your medical education, you subscribe to all these publications, right?

now your turn. all I want it one single peer reviewed, perferably double blind, study that shows Gardasil causing damage.

I gave you 20, you only need to give me one. come one, bring your cattle.

[WindRavenX]

48. ah pubmed

Thank god for that place :)

[TZ]

37. what is live cancer btw?

There is a difference between a virus HPV and cancer. The vaccine prevents infection by the HPV virus which in turn gives SOME protection agaisnt cancer. Your post is totally erroneous. At least try to understand the basic science before telling someone they are wrong:eyes:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

44. What is a "live cancer"?

what "live cancer" are they being exposed to, injected with, whatever you mean?

[WindRavenX]

46. they're not being exposed to a live cancer

Yegads, at least get your facts straight.

It's a virus that causes cervical cancer. Like all vaccines, the form of the virus is either stunned or completely dead.

[flyarm]

38. LAST SPRING MY 28 YR OLD SON CALLED ME AND ASKED ME WHAT hpv WAS..

SEEMS HIS GIRLFRIEND .. 26 YRS OLD .. had just been told she had cancer of the cervix...casued by HPV

I normally don't like to post anything about my child..but i think this is too important...to not discuss it..

my son was very upset when he called me asking about hpv.....seems his girlfriend had contracted it sometime when she was in college..and it sat dormant..


I told my son to go to the doctor and get checked..well he went to the doc right away..but there is no real reliable test for males..that is reliable without a doubt.....

and there are no meds for boys...

His girlfriend at age 26 had to have a partial hysterectomy..to prevent the cancer from spreading to other organs..

She now will never have children...

My son went through it all with his girlfriend , but they have broken up now..

but it was very heart breaking for all of us adults to see our kids go through this..

i think now..if this vaccine had been available ..this young lady would not have gone through this ..and she would not now be the victim of cancer...at such a young age..and she would have been able to have children..

but that was not available to her..and she pays the consequences of a relationship she had when in college..

I do not have a daughter..but a son..but with a grown son now ..i can tell you it was very upsetting for us that our son had to go through this, and we were heart broken that his girlfriend had to go through this cancer..

..and i worry about the consequences of what my son has been exposed to with no real way to do anything about it..it will forever be in his body now..

if i had a daughter who could get this vaccine now..before the risks presented themselves..with what i know today..through my son and his girlfriend..without a doubt..i would have my child vaccinated!!

without a doubt!!

fly

[rinsd]

41. Because how many cancers are caused by a virus we have a vaccine for?

Is it okay that only 3000 women die of cervical cancer every year?

"What a good question."

I think you meant what a great talking point as a means to spread alarmist disinfo.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Because little boys won't get...

cervical cancer.

If we're going to protect the women, why would anyone want to depend on them only having sex with men who were vaccinated? As with anything involving undesired aftereffects of sex-- everyone protects themselves.

Is it fair? Of course not, just realistic.

Oh, and this morning I suffered the rantings of someone who is extremely upset with this vaccination scheme. She insisted that HPV was only responsible for a small percentage of cervical cancers and that the vaccination would only help less than half of those. Ahhh.. once again the drug companies and government are conspiring against us.

Couldn't drag out of her where she gets her information from, but she dismissed as bullshit the CDC and a few hundred studies that say different things.

Now, I'm not completely convinced that mandatory innoculations are always a good thing, but unless someone has a real good argument against a vaccination, I can't help but remember those kids with polio that I went to grade school with. How many kids grew up healthy, or just lived at all, thanks to all those vaccinations we got over the years?

[crikkett]

26. I bet my hypothetical $1 that if boys got cancer from HPV

EVERYONE would be vaccinated, end of discussion. I'm really making good use of my straw man here - but it's to point out the sexism in mandatory vaccinations for girls only.

HPV ain't polio. Polio was so dangerous that it warranted making guinea pigs out of the population.

Was it two or three years ago that flu shots were rationed because that years' batch of vaccines spoiled, and the only manufacturer was overseas? We just suffered through a Tamiflu marketing push that was to save us all from a bird flu pandemic until it sent Japanese children into seizures. Furthermore I'm being sold pesticide-ridden GM food all day long without my knowledge and heaven knows what's in my meat. It's not allowed to be labeled.

SOMEBODY's going to make a mint off of this vaccine and it just happens that one of those somebodies is a lobbyist for Merck who just happened to be the Gov's college roommate.

I say my skepticism is deserved.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. But boys don't so they won't, just like...

men don't get mammograms or PAP smears, but do get prostate exams.

So what's sexist about that?

[sandnsea]

43. Actually boys may get penile and anal cancer

from HPV. Those cancers are being studied as is noted in my post above, which is why the vaccine hasn't yet been approved for boys. This has been posted by a variety of people every single day. These people know that, choose to ignore it and send in new posters to recycle their talking points.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. If that turns out to be the case, then the vaccine is...

probably warranted for boys, too.

But, yeah, right now a lot of stuff is in the air and too many people are jumping on bandwagons on both sides with too little decent information. I see a lot of prejudiced opinions.

But, what else is new?

[sandnsea]

49. Well not really

http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/cervical-cancer-vaccine1102

http://www.globalhealth.org/reports/report.php3?id=253

Interview with one of the key researchers, who has been working on papillomaviruses for 25 years. Not really a bandwagon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html

[havocmom]

36. Vaccine is NOT to prevent cancer of girl-parts, but for a VIRUS

that causes some of those cancers... a VIRUS that is also carried AND SHARED by boy-parts. So why not vaccinate EVERYBODY if it works on THE VIRUS?

[gollygee]

39. The problem with the virus is that it causes cervical cancer

for each person, there has to be a risk/value assessment for the vaccine. Any vaccine has the potential of side effects. For girls, that risk is balanced by the reduction in the chance of her getting cervical cancer. For boys, the virus won't cause that much harm so the risk isn't worth it for him individually.

I have no opinion on whether boys should have it as well to protect girls, but it would be to protect girls when he became sexually active and not really for himself.

[xchrom]

28. boys WILL get the vaccine -- as well in australia, europe,

and other countries around the world.

Updates on HPV vaccination outside the U.S.

Those looking for information on the policy discussions and implementation of Gardasil worldwide will be very interested in the latest issue of HPV Today, an international newsletter on all things related to HPV research, policy, and practice.
Among the items in the issue: a short piece by Dr. Luisa Lina Villa, a Brazilian cancer researcher, updating the international regulatory landscape for Gardasil. She notes that more than 40 bodies around the world have approved the vaccine thus far. Australia, New Zealand, Peru, and Mexico are among the few to approve the vaccine for males as well as females. Dr. Villa also describes some of the implementation challenges faced by her native Brazil, among them cost and the absence of an adolescent vaccination infrastructure.
Also in the issue: a very helpful table outlining the different approvals (by age, gender, condition, etc.) that Gardasil has received by various regulatory bodies around the world and a brief report on the results of a survey in Australia exploring whether the vaccine could promote unprotected sex among Australian teens. (The short answer: no)

Labels: Gardasil, HPV, International issues

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)

both come from this link -- http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

more than 40 countries around the world will be giving this vaccine.

[Katherine Brengle]

50. It's being tested on males. It makes complete sense to give priority

to females first on this one.

Red herring.