On February 2, Rick Perry, “the deeply religious Republican governor of Texas”, mandated that all 6th grade girls be vaccinated for the sexually transmitted HPV (unless parents opt their child out in writing). HPV is responsible for over 90% of all cervical cancers. In 2005, Merk introduced a vaccine that prevents the two HPV strains responsible for 73% of all cervical cancers. If all girls are vaccinated, we can eliminate 73% of all cervical cancers.
Perry broke with many on the religious right; as The Economist reports, many perceive the vaccination as a license for pre-marital intercourse.
“The governor’s action seems to signify that God’s moral law regarding sex outside of marriage can be transgressed without consequence.” Those words came this week from Rick Scarborough of Vision America, a Christian lobbying group. The US Pastor Council and various Republican politicians have piled in too.”
Apparently, enforcing “God’s law” overrides the radical right’s desire to protect women from painful cancer – especially since Scarborough and fellow critics don’t have cervixes.
What was Governor Perry’s motive? The Economist speculates that, amidst other conjecture:
…he had the courage to make a politically difficult but sound policy decision. As he said this week: “If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer,” he asked, “would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?”
Using your brain instead of dogma to make policy? Bravo. Perry could have the markings of a “maverick Republican” and it warms my cynical little heart. (Alright, I won’t hold my breath.)
Might it not be prudent for Massachusetts to follow suit?
So he was using his brain when he decided to make their product mandatory for every girl in Texas, our nation’s second largest state in population.
<
p>
We might want to wait until NIH or the American Association of Pediatricians or some such other group passes judgment.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recomend the HPV vaccination on their 2007 innunization schedule.
<
p>
Also, the CDC says “The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended routine vaccination for girls 11-12 years of age. The ACIP recommendation also allows for vaccination of girls beginning at nine years old as well as vaccination of girls and women 13-26 years old.”
<
p>
I don’t see a downside to Perry’s move, even if Merk stands to make huge financial gains.
the increased cash Merck gets from this will help spawn the next cancer vaccine!
<
p>
If there’s a company I want to see getting buxxx, it’s companies like this.
The fundies seem to think that this vaccine will encourage sex. Yeah, getting shots really makes me horney.
<
p>
The reason the vaccine is recommended for 6th graders isn’t to promote sex among 12 year olds. It is because it is only effective if given BEFORE the girl or woman is already infected with HPV. We all know how frequently people of both sexes abstain from sex until marriage. /eyeroll/ Public health is an issue best delt with in the realm of reality, not religious fear-mongering fantasy.
Scary stuff. I don’t remember HPV being discussed in my sex ed class.
have ill effects on men?
But this is an important enough topic that i’ll do your homework for you. The answer is yes.
…killing your girlfriend or future wife with cervical cancer?
<
p>
I appologize for the sarcasm, it’s not directed at you, but this is one of the numerous reasons that “abstinence only” sex education is tantamount to child abuse. “Abstinence only” creates the false impression that if one leads a chaste life, there is no threat of STDs and hence no need for real information on STDs – despite the fact that “abstinence only” communities have the same if not HIGHER rates of infection. It is never discussed that if a woman’s first sexual partner has had (or does have) other partners, she may have to pay the price with cervical cancer.
<
p>
As I stated above, many HPV vaccine critics don’t have cervixes; I wonder if HPV were found to be the primary cause testicular/prostate cancer, how would that affect Scarborough and friends’ position on this issue?
…abstinence from penile-vaginal sex. Not from other forms of sex–oral, anal, etc. And it is probably quite possible to transmit the HPV by those other forms of sex. Maybe even just by kissing.
<
p>
And that’s one reason why the “abstinence only” communities have probably higher rates of infection.
<
p>
Several years ago, I was doing some research over the Internet regarding sex habits of people in various countries (I forget what the actual question was), but I was struck with one fact that I learned on several sites. The Netherlands, although it is widely regarded as having a very free-wheeling sexual lifestyle, and although it has a relatively low age of consent, actually has a higher median age of first sexual intercourse than many other countries, including prudish countries such as the UK and the US. The reason attributed to that is that the Dutch are more willing to discuss sexual issues openly with their children–there is little if any of this “abstinence only” silliness there. But the fact appears to be that the Dutch children actually do abstain at a much higher rate than children in the US and the UK, despite the “abstinence only” rants in the US.
<
p>
“Abstinence only” kills people. It encourages people to marry at too young an age–which is one reason why the divorce rate in Texas is much higher than it is in Massachusetts. It appears to result in higher levels of teenage pregnancy. Bottom line: it’s dumb.
How about the fact that no prophylaxis can prevent against it? Condoms won’t prevent you from getting or transmitting it.
Serious question. Why would use of condoms not block transmission of HPV, while usage of condoms is considered to be relatively effective in blocking transmission of HIV?
<
p>
Just wondering. I know nothing about the relative sizes of the two viruses, or the issues regarding condom use.
some are just hanging out in the general area… so skin to skin contact spreads the little boogers.
You’re right about the size. HIV is actually a pretty large virus; HPV is less than half the diameter of HIV. This may or may not have anything to do with the efficacy of condoms in this matter.
At least not in this case. as stomv points out, you can get it from skin to skin contact, not just from fluid transmission.
It’s understandable why there is a movement to “require” this vaccine in some places. This is a vaccine that can actually prevent cancer — that’s a big deal. My concern is the newness of the vaccine; it was just approved by the FDA a few months ago. No vaccine is completely effective and there can be adverse effects to even the safest vaccine. I’m always leery when politicians lead the charge to make a medical treatment mandatory (I think the last time that happened was the Bush Administration’s plan to have health care providers vaccinated against smallpox — a plan promoted most strongly by Dick Cheney. It was a complete failure.). The CDC is not suggesting that young women be required to have the vaccine, although it is recommending it (strongly: the committee that recommended it was unanimous).
<
p>
I think a good first step to promote this new vaccine should be reducing any barriers to accessing the shot. For example, I have heard that some doctors are balking at following the recommendation because health insurers are not reimbursing for the full cost of the vaccine. Surely that would be an area where the Feds could help. How about a public information campaign to educate young women and their parents about the benefits of the vaccine?
<
p>
I think those would be good interim steps. Let’s look at the safety/side effects data — and data on the vaccine’s effectiveness — a few years out and then we should re-visit the mandatory question.
…and I don’t know the history of the development, testing and approval of this vaccine. But I’ll remind you of something from my childhood. The Salk and Sabin polio vaccines. When I was a child, the Sabin polio vaccine (I was too young for the Salk) was administered to children in at least public school (remember the sugar cube?) unless the parents opted out. The Sabin vaccine has virtually wiped out polio, a disease that had crippled my uncle and numerous other people.
<
p>
I’m not a particular fan of mass immunization or forced public health measures, but oftentimes they can be highly effective. And, if you want to live in a community, the community actually does have the right to defend itself against diseases that may be introduced. The only issue is where to draw the line.
… but you make a good point also that I had forgotten. I believe Massachusetts has an opt out provision for most of its mandatory vaccines. I’ll have to do a little research on that.
administer it at public schools, offer it at a price of $0.00, allow parents to opt their children out.
<
p>
Question: is the total cost of administering the shot (for all recipients) less than the total cost of the cancer it protects its recipients from (all recipients).
<
p>
Obviously, if the girl never would have gotten cancer, the shot is a “waste”, albeit a calculated risk. Conversely, if the girl is going to get cancer, this shot is surely cheaper. My question is a big picture one — which total cost is higher?
<
p>
It it’s clear that its cheaper to administer the HPV “sugar cube,” why not directly tax the insurance companies for the cost of acquisition and administering the drug? After all, the insurance companies will save money in the long run, so its in their best interest to (financially) support this program now. Public infrastructure is the most efficient way to administer the shots, but somebody’s got to pay for those shots. Why not the insurance companies?
And the answer is always that prevention is much more cost effective than treatment. The shot(s) cost about $400 for a series of 4. It would seem to me that that somebody hasto subsidize the cost — the insurance industry will never do it. And, if they were mandated to do it they’d find the money somewhere by cutting back on coverage for something else, or going up on copays, etc. The bottom line is that if the federal govenment is going to recommend this shot, they have to promote it in a way that doesn’t make it a loser for providers to provide. I have a better idea, how about pressuring Merck to lower the price? They’ve spent millions lobbying for State Legislatures to mandate the vaccine. Now that they’ve pulled the plug on that effort, how about subsidizing the vaccine for the public?