Comments on: Now your penis won't cause cancer!

Now your penis won't cause cancer!

schroedinger — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:46:22 -0800

FDA approves HPV vaccine. It prevents infection from 70% of the cancer-causing strains of human papillomavirus, an STD that will affect nearly 80% of the population at some point in their lives. The vaccine has been approved for use in women ages 9 to 26. Controversy surrounding the vaccine (discussed earlier) has thankfully not stopped its progress. That just leaves a few questions: How long will it last? Who's paying for it? What are the side-effects? Oh, screw all that, where do I get in line?

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:49:16 -0800

Bitching about rushing it through after negative side affects discovered coming soon to a site near you.

By: Mr. Six

Mr. Six — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:53:33 -0800

There is an interesting thread in AskMe right now on this very subject.

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:54:51 -0800

Personally, between "pain, swelling, itching, and redness at the injection site and fever" and cancer, I'll take redness and itching please.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:06:15 -0800

wow, gay marriage amendment, estate tax repeal, and now this. What a week. What gets me is that we're fighting a headwind of Stupidity in this country, as opposed to progressing like we could.

By: dougunderscorenelso

dougunderscorenelso — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:25:58 -0800

Dear science: Thank you. HTuttle, why do you think this was rushed? Seeing that you take the super-conservative side of every argument (but refuse to actually engage in argument), I'm not surprised to see you blasting a drug that could save thousands of lives.....but I'm still interested in a little background research, here. Considering how many cancer cures and vaccines have been shelves due to concerns or trial safety issues, to suppose that this one is 'rushed' without evidence is pretty irresponsible. Anyhow. On the other hand, this issue is continually painted as a right-left debate, but for the most part, the right wing seems to be in favor (if Free Republic's example is any indicator). Does anyone know of any major right-wing sources that have come out against curing cancer in this case?

By: Malor

Malor — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:33:30 -0800

It just infuriates me that anyone could oppose this. How could you possibly be more misogynistic? I saw a comment over on Ars Technica, to the effect that 'if HPV caused testicular cancer, the vaccine would already be on the market.' I should probably write a letter to the FDA thanking them for not caving to the religious groups on this one. Those 'people', and I use the term loosely, because I think they barely qualify as human, basically want to sentence women to die in screaming agony for having sex. I'm sure Jesus would be completely in favor of that idea. Yeah.

By: SirOmega

SirOmega — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:56:59 -0800

Does anyone know of any major right-wing sources that have come out against curing cancer in this case? Its not that they come out against curing cancer, they come out and say that this encourages women to have sex without consequence (whatever, so few women know enough about HPV to be afraid of it). Its sort of like the gay marriage thing - its not about whether or not marriage is one man and one women (which is how it is framed on the surface), its that being gay is fundamentally wrong and sinful so they should be striped as of as many rights as possible as a roundabout way to discourage the behavior.

By: Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson

Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:14:32 -0800

By: taosbat

taosbat — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:43:34 -0800

Now your penis won't cause cancer! That really cheered me up, thanks.

By: nakedcodemonkey

nakedcodemonkey — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:49:02 -0800

Since the vaccine is only approved for women -- and currently only very young women -- "now your penis won't cause cancer" is a bit premature. But yeah, good news. Hopefully within a couple generations, the risk of contracting cervical cancer will become as remote as mumps or polio.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:55:08 -0800

"Eventually, boys—who are equally responsible for spreading HPV—will need to get the vaccine, too, though they suffer rarely from penile and anal cancers caused by it."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:57:42 -0800

Bitching on MeFi will begin immediately.

By: wumpus

wumpus — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:26:10 -0800

HPV, huh? i remember that. sigh

By: talitha_kumi

talitha_kumi — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:29:45 -0800

It would appear, though, that only virgins shall be vaccinated. Those women who are already sexually active are ineligible because most such women probably already have it. Still, I'm glad that somebody thought of the children! Why? Surely the vaccine is of benefit to anyone who doesn't already have the virus? Surely the presence of the virus can be tested for? The BCG innoculation in the UK that they do on adolescents involves a pinprick test the day before to test whether the recipient already has immunity to whatever the BCG is innoculating against, and those who turn out to be already immune don't get the BCG innoculation. Why can't they do something similar with the HPV vaccine?

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:07:02 -0800

Finally, we will see an end to the people bitching about how the FDA wasn't going to approve it because of the religious nutballs. Jeez, people, they're planning to administer this thing nearly universally. Give them some time to make sure it's safe! I think they'll end up giving this to men too, to prevent genital warts. It's notable in that it's the only STD with a pretty good chance to bypass condoms. I know it's not commonly lethal in men, but it sounds pretty seriously unpleasant.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:10:07 -0800

It would appear, though, that only virgins shall be vaccinated. There's nothing in the linked article about that. How on earth should that be enforced - hymen examinations? Those women who are already sexually active are ineligible because most such women probably already have it. Neither is there anything about being 'eligible' based on sexual experience. The only reason the vaccine won't be given to women over 26 is that clinical trials for that age group are not yet complete. The reason for that is, I suspect, that it's harder to find test subjects that have not been infected with one of the two virus strains.

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:28:37 -0800

Surely the presence of the virus can be tested for? If you show no physical signs of the virus, no, you're not gonna find it.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:18:37 -0800

It is given in three separate shots over a six-month period. Merck says it has priced Gardasil at $120 a shot. Well, it's good for me that I'm in a monogamous sexual relationship and have always had normal pap smears because I can't afford that shit! (Reason #9,824 why I need health insurance yesterday if not sooner.)

By: schroedinger

schroedinger — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:42:24 -0800

Since the vaccine is only approved for women -- and currently only very young women -- "now your penis won't cause cancer" is a bit premature. nakedcodemonkey, I'm referring to something a male friend of mine was worried about, namely the likelihood of him unknowingly carrying a cancer-causing strain of HPV and transmitting it to the ladies he is fond of.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:55:15 -0800

More information on the vaccine from the NYT. Federal vaccine experts are widely expected to recommend that all 11- to 12-year-old girls get the vaccine, but its reach could be limited by its high price and religious objections to its use. So, 11-12 year old girls (who I hope to Dog are virgins) who are the children of middle class liberal parents with health insurance are going to get the vaccine. That's not nearly as exciting as preventing cervical cancer entirely, but I guess it's a start.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:59:20 -0800

It will be interesting to see which health care providers opt to cover this vaccine and which do not.

By: agregoli

agregoli — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:28:17 -0800

This is fantastic. I won't hold out hope for Plan B, however.

By: nakedcodemonkey

nakedcodemonkey — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:10:30 -0800

nakedcodemonkey, I'm referring to something a male friend of mine was worried about, namely the likelihood of him unknowingly carrying a cancer-causing strain of HPV and transmitting it to the ladies he is fond of. Yes, I was referring to the fact that he'll still be a transmittor. He won't be vaccinated, and likely most of his partners won't be vaccinated either.

By: tristeza

tristeza — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:20:55 -0800

Well, it's good for me that I'm in a monogamous sexual relationship and have always had normal pap smears because I can't afford that shit! That doesn't mean you're not or have never been infected with HPV - normal Paps mean that they have never detected the abnormal cells or cell dysplasia that could indicate cervical cancer, NOT that you don't have HPV. Paps are not tests for HPV.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:35:21 -0800

(tristeza: I'm well aware, I just meant I don't yet have cancer.)

By: Marnie

Marnie — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:20:51 -0800

So what are we old lady hets supposed to do to not get teh VD? Only have sex with men who usually date women 26 and under? Because I can do that. But for the record it's just more age discrimination.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:22:57 -0800

The problem is that HPV is, by any definition of the term, a pandemic with the vast majority of sexually active adults carrying a latent infection. A vaccine is not going to help those adults who already are infected, so the focus is on teens and young adults who have not become infected.

By: ryana

ryana — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:47:51 -0800

Good to see that we're worrying about the important things like not talking about sex instead of trivialities like PREVENTING CANCER.

By: dougunderscorenelso

dougunderscorenelso — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:23:08 -0800

SirOmega, I totally understood what you were saying; that the debate was sex-related and not cure-related. My point stands: Who are these people who are against it? I've found a very, very low number.....as despicable as the right is, they don't seem to be nearly as against this as we keep saying. Straw-man-esque.

By: zouhair

zouhair — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:42:54 -0800

Hey calm down it's just a trial and tje laboratory already stted the price for one shot : $120 bastards

By: Isabeau Sahen

Isabeau Sahen — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:46:49 -0800

Thank heavens it made it through.

By: QIbHom

QIbHom — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:24:32 -0800

I'm sure the same insurance policies that don't cover birth control won't cover this.

By: spira

spira — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:14:17 -0800

My impression is that most of the religious right did not oppose the approval of the vaccine. What they oppose is making this vaccine "required" in the way most other childhood disease vaccines are. And I'm not sure it's worth fighting that battle, because we already have enough trouble getting every child vaccinized for diseases that are much more easily spread. That is not to say that we shouldn't try and get the use of this vaccine to be widespread as possible, but I do think we don't necessarily have to take the extra step and put it in the same class of vaccines as smallpox, etc. and more or less force people to take it.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:34:16 -0800

The issue is that women who already have certain strains of HPV could be at an increased risk of cancer if given the vaccine. So with the information and testing we currently have, the vaccine needs to be given to women who are definitely not infected. The only way to ensure that we are vaccinating women before they are infected is to vaccinate them before they ever have sexual intercourse. The best way of ensuring that is to vaccinate very young women, 9-14 years old. Vaccinating girls that young requires their parents' support. That's where religious objections ("My daughter's not having sex!") may trump health concerns, especially since parents with those sorts of objections often have children who experiment with sex earlier, and with fewer precautions, than kids who have had more education about sex while young. But once the girls start having sex, the chances of the vaccine working seem to go down.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:23:32 -0800

occhiblu: The issue is that women who already have certain strains of HPV could be at an increased risk of cancer if given the vaccine. So with the information and testing we currently have, the vaccine needs to be given to women who are definitely not infected. From the article, emphasis mine: There's no downside to vaccinating women who are infected with the cancer-causing HPV types, he says. "The real question is: Are they wasting their money?" Stop spreading FUD, you idiot.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:38:48 -0800

I'm sorry that the information I had read seems to be wrong, spazzm, but I see absolutely no reason for personal attacks. WTF?

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:52:33 -0800

Also, there certainly has been discussion about potential negative effects of the vaccine on women already infected: "There is compelling evidence that the vaccine lacks therapeutic efficacy among women who have had prior exposure to HPV and have not cleared previous infection," according to FDA's briefing documents for the meeting. According to FDA, some analyses suggest Gardasil may enhance cervical disease among a subgroup of patients with persistent infection of vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline. Adverse effects for patients already infected with HPV could encourage vaccination at a younger age, before women are likely to be infected.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:01:58 -0800

And from MSNBC and the AP: The vaccine may not protect people already infected and may increase their risk of the kind of lesions that can lead to cervical cancer, the FDA has said.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:03:43 -0800

In other words, you may want to use more than an article from USA Today as back-up before you start tossing around accusations of idiocy.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:20:53 -0800

From the FDA article occhiblu linked: Additional efficacy analyses requested by CBER and based on another study (015) did not raise any concern for an increase of cervical disease due to HPV; 42 cases of CIN 2/3 or worse were associated with the use of Gardasil compared to 48 among those treated with placebo. In other words: The apparent rise in cervical disease (not cancer) for persons already infected is was so worrying that they performed another test, which showed that there was no thing to worry about and the previous apparent risk was due to "baseline deomgraphic imbalances". Also, not the last part of the msnbc quote you provided: "... the FDA has said. Has said. They are no longer saying it. I'm sorry if me calling you an idiot offended you, but if the shoe fits...

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:24:26 -0800

spazzm, my point is that there has been discussion so it's not like I was making shit up, my info was out of date as opposed to maliciously wrong, a simple correction would have sufficed, and I don't know what your fucking problem is.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:21:52 -0800

From my perspective it looked like you were making shit up and deliberately spreading FUD about a highly beneficial vaccine. Which lead me to question your motivations for doing so. There are people out there that oppose this vaccine for reasons that are, quite simply, idiotic. I assumed that you were one of them. If I was mistaken, please accept my apologies.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:29:40 -0800

Yes, well, my first post was an explanation of why kids should get vaccinated, and why the religious right might make that difficult. In any event, apology accepted.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:15:37 -0800

Does anyone know of any major right-wing sources that have come out against curing cancer in this case? - dougunderscorenelso It's NOT a cure for cancer. It can **prevent** certain cancers, but not cure them.