I was waiting for FDA approval and had already told my 15-year old boy to be prepared to get the shot. His only comment was - God, Mom, I won't need it for a while...just hope the approval is there for when he needs it.
Not cost effective? To whom? Boys get HPV readily enough. And I believe there is no test available for men to find the presence of HPV. Either they got warts or they haven't, and if it's not a wart strain, it goes undiagnosed. HPV can cause penile cancer. For those of us who have young sons, the "meh, it's not worth the bother" argument just isn't a very good one. Could you imagine having to have your genitals entirely removed because of a preventable cancer the FDA wouldn't let you prevent? 75% vaccination for young women may be an optimistic number, and it still would leave 25% vulnerable to HPV. That's plenty of wiggle room for HPV to keep going strong if men can't get the shot. Maybe it's not cost effective for insurance companies. Maybe public health clinics wouldn't reap any rewards for vaccinating boys. But shutting down their option to get it, even if it costs them/their parents money, that's just unconscionable to me. FDA, don't piss on the wheels of progress like that.
@MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治: Also this is really ignoring the gay/bisexual male population. If no men are getting the vaccine, and some of them are having sex with both that 25% of unvaccinated women and members of the unvaccinated male population, we're going to have a gay men with warts in bad places epidemic.
@Bunsen Honeydew: Very true. The gardasil commercials always annoyed me for portraying it as a "vaccine against cervical cancer". I mean, it's pretty plain that you can't vaccinate against cancer. And since HPV isn't exactly benign in men either, it's a horrible disservice not to make it available to everyone. Oh, and also women over the age of 26. COME ON, MEDICAL INDUSTRY.
I think the blurb misstates the conclusions of the study. From the last paragraph:
Kim said the findings do not suggest that the FDA should not approve the vaccine in boys, but that it might not be cost-effective to recommend routine vaccination in boys.
There's a distinction being made between approving the vaccine on one hand and recommending how it's administered. The study only suggests that recommending routine vaccination isn't cost effective, but says nothing about whether or not the FDA should approve it.
You know what, if I had to walk around for three separate weeks feeling like The Rock punched me in the upper arm for the sake of sexual health, I feel strongly that young men should have the same privilege.
Besides, does the FDA care about cost effective? Aren't they just supposed to tell us if drugs are safe for their recommended use or not?
wtfox?! promoted this comment
Lizard in the Wires now with even MORE metal in the face! was starred
Lizard in the Wires now with even MORE metal in the face! was unstarred
@Lolita Hazed: Men and boys are carriers for HPV, which they can then infect their female partners with. So it makes sense vaccinate them as well if a large segment of the female population hasn't already had the vaccine.
@Lolita Hazed: The first line of the article says that it prevents the virus HPV, not cervical cancer itself. I think the vaccine might prevent men from contracting HPV, therefore preventing them from passing it on to future partners, which could prevent an unvaccinated girl from getting HPV and later subsequent cervical cancer.
@ReanimatedHorse: It bothers me for that reason, as well as the fact that not all girls are getting this vaccine due to parental concern (fearing it will be seen as a green light for promiscuity). Also, not vaccinating men is the basically putting blinders on to the gay community. Men still can get genital warts from this virus... why should gay men have to deal with that? I know warts are not fatal, but it's like they are only concerned with the straight male population.
@Lolita Hazed: HPV can also cause throat penile and anal cancer. However, these are much rarer cancers than cervical cancer so they started with cervical cancer.
@Artemis47: If 75% of women are vaccinated, assuming they can make 85% of men vaccinate, for example, I don't think that'd have a big effect.
I'd need some numbers to be sure of this, but it makes sense to me. I mean, if we can assume that's impossible to vaccinate every woman, but 75% can be vaccinated for, say 100 million dollars, and vaccinating every man will decrease the infection rate in, say 5%, and double the cost, woulnd't it make sense to spend that 100 million dollars in something else where it can have more significant effects? Because that's what they say, not "We won't spend it because it's not important" only "We won't spend it because it can be put to better use"
You're sister should be ok. I was a little freaked but the procedures are pretty easy to get through (colposcopy and LEEP). Then you have to get your cells screened every 6 months or so. What confuses me is that if I only got an hpv test and not a pap I probably would have developed cancer. In most articles I read they say if you test negative hpv you can go in for a pap every other year! That would have been bad advice for me.
I don't support this vaccine. Of course I support women's health, but not women's health as defined by corporate giants shamelessly banking on mothers' concerns for their daughters' reproductive health, buying pats on the back from the FDA.
This vaccine has serious, serious side effects. Wired Magazine had an article about its dangers and fatalities last year.
You can search Judicialwatch.org for more information. Or keep an eye out on: [www.nvic.org]
(DISCLAIMER: I do not work for any of these companies)
@Crazie Janie: And other consequences of HPV. I cannot stand this uninformed flippancy about something that has utterly ruined my life. And on Jezebel, of all places.
@Clarissima: I don't support the vaccine for a few resons including the ones you listed. The main reason that I don't support it is because my friends who are in their twenties now refuse to get yearly pelivic exams because they think they are "protected". It seems as if their years of sex ed flew out the window and they forgot that there are plenty of other STDs you should get tested for when you have unprotected sex with someone you don't know very well.
@Eriu: I don't think HPV is a joke. I don't think any aspect of women's health is a joke. Neither is turning women's bodies into a testing ground. Vaccines aren't magical solutions dispensed in a one size fits all approach. Different bodies react differently and I'm constantly APPALLED by what I view as lack of throroughness by the FDA.
@Clarissima: Of course it has serious side effects, it's a vaccine. Every vaccine has the potential for an individual to develop serious side effects. I'm sure the small pox vaccine has serious side effects too, but that isn't a good reason to not take it.
@Clarissima: Could've fooled me. It would be helpful if you could separate your problems with corporate heathcare and the FDA from the very real benefits of this vaccine in particular. And every valid source I've read tears the rumors of "deaths" and paralysis, etc. caused by Gardisil to pieces.
10/11/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
(And for no reason, the commenting system here is giving me stupid ellipses and I can't remove them.)
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
And I'm not pro any vaccine beyond the basic "we only keep this disease under control through vaccines" vaccines.
10/09/09
He needs to be protected from the cancers HPV can cause in men!
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
Kim said the findings do not suggest that the FDA should not approve the vaccine in boys, but that it might not be cost-effective to recommend routine vaccination in boys.
There's a distinction being made between approving the vaccine on one hand and recommending how it's administered. The study only suggests that recommending routine vaccination isn't cost effective, but says nothing about whether or not the FDA should approve it.
10/09/09
Besides, does the FDA care about cost effective? Aren't they just supposed to tell us if drugs are safe for their recommended use or not?
10/09/09
How did I not know this?!?
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
@Lizard in the Wires is on Rails: and HPV is a cause of cervical cancer
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
If both sexes are equally involved in the spread of HPV, why not have both be equally involved in prevention?
I myself had a dangerous reaction to Gardasil and would like to see alternatives like this.
10/09/09
10/09/09
Sigh. I hate the phrase "cost-effective".
10/09/09
10/10/09
I'd need some numbers to be sure of this, but it makes sense to me. I mean, if we can assume that's impossible to vaccinate every woman, but 75% can be vaccinated for, say 100 million dollars, and vaccinating every man will decrease the infection rate in, say 5%, and double the cost, woulnd't it make sense to spend that 100 million dollars in something else where it can have more significant effects? Because that's what they say, not "We won't spend it because it's not important" only "We won't spend it because it can be put to better use"
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
This vaccine has serious, serious side effects. Wired Magazine had an article about its dangers and fatalities last year.
You can search Judicialwatch.org for more information. Or keep an eye out on:
[www.nvic.org]
(DISCLAIMER: I do not work for any of these companies)
10/07/09
10/07/09
Not to mention, Wired Magazine is a fucking joke.
10/07/09
10/07/09
Healthcare is not a joke to me.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Also, I second tigress' comment.
10/07/09
10/07/09
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09