Utterly Meaningless

Okay, this raises the question that keeps rattlin’ in my brain: Why aren’t we offering the vaccine to our boys? Is it just the cost? Because it seems to me that most cases of hpv are transmitted between heterosexual couples, which means there’s a guy in there somewhere. So where’s his $500 shot(s)?

It has not yet been approved for boys. AFAIK Merck is still gathering the data prior to submission. I’d bet physicians could go off-label with it, but no insurance company would cover it. And who’d want to pay to be the guinea pig anyway.

Daryl, the HPV vaccine was stories #1, #2 and #3 in the e-mail I got from ChristianityToday this morning. #2 was a “we told you so” about HPV causing cancer and their irritation that, before the vaccine, they were poo-poo’ed about the danger of HPV.

So why weren’t they approved at the same time? Is it normal for vaccines or other drugs (not withstanding things like birth control) to be approved separately for males and females? I guess my question and suspicion is: is this a cultural/social issue and not medical to vaccinate only girls? As in “you girls with your girl parts need to protect yourselves, while the boys will do what they will.” I understand the risk is greater for women. That is, I’m not aware of any fatal or debilitating consequence of HPV in men, other than general ickiness. And it certainly hasn’t been an issue in the public debate. Just wondering.

So why weren’t they approved at the same time?

Men don’t get cervical cancer.

I thought the vaccine was for HPV, not cervical cancer. (Admitting my possible ignorance, not trying to be smart.) My thinking is that although men can’t get cervical cancer, they can contract and spread HPV which does cause cervical cancer. So in a sense, they are the little Typhoid Martins. So wouldn’t it behoove us to vaccinate the carriers? Anyway, that’s the thought process.

Sure. But look at it from a marketing perspective: Who’s more likely to buy? The vax is effective against the 4 strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers. It’s a selective HPV vax.

#2 was a “we told you so” about HPV causing cancer and their irritation that, before the vaccine, they were poo-poo’ed about the danger of HPV.
***
Possibly because they were pro-abstinence and chose to scare people by pointing to the widespread nature of HPV without equally emphasizing the tiny number of women who actually get cervical cancer? I don’t know Christianity Today (shocked? 🙂 ) but that’s how I have seen it presented.

Nance

I don’t understand that logic. The risk isn’t enough to give women the information so they can make an educated decision about the risks of sex, but it is enough to mandate that every girl-child in the state be vaccinated?

Logic? There’s a concept! 🙂
Are we discussing any particular resolution or proposition? I can’t make much sense out of anything said anywhere surrounding Gardasil, not even as “facts” much less real debate and discussion.

Could it be we literally don’t know what we’re talking about, and having some sort of question on the table might help?