Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HPV Vaccine Recommended For Boys

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the pushed-by-big-pharma-and-not-a-cure-all dept.

Medicine 569

necro81 writes "An advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will soon issue new recommendations that pre-adolescent boys be vaccinated against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The disease is sexually transmitted, endemic in the sexually active, can cause genital warts in both men and women, and is the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills hundreds of thousands of women globally each year. The three-dose vaccination has been available for several years and is already recommended for pre-adolescent girls. Vaccinating boys should further reduce transmission."

cancel ×

569 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How is this News for Nerds? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833286)

Sorry, too easy.

Re:How is this News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833510)

I was told to not bother with a hep vaccination by my doctor before I went off to college. He was right!

Our health insurance will go up to help fund it. (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833558)

Sorry, too easy.

Re:How is this News for Nerds? (3, Funny)

mehemiah (971799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833712)

from the article: "More than one in five boys and girls have had vaginal sex by the age of 15, surveys show." by 15! holy ....! im 23, where was I when this was happening? oh right, im a nerd :-( Its funny, when the doctor asks me if I'm sexually active sometimes I give a sad sigh when I answer "No", Now I just snicker the same answer. *forever alone face*

Re:How is this News for Nerds? (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833776)

Umm, medicine, specifically epidemiology? Y'know, not every geek is exclusively interested in computing, electronics and astronomy.

Recently there was a story on /. about an actress suing a company for revealing her age, on a website.

How's about this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833294)

Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm? This strikes me as buying a dogs to deal with the cats that you brought in to deal with the mice...

Re:How's about this... (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833336)

Because it doesn't work anymore.

Re:How's about this... (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833378)

Really? What changed?

Re:How's about this... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833440)

Societal morals, media and the status of children. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are consequences such as increased levels of sexual activity at an early age.

Re:How's about this... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833496)

Nothing, it never worked. Some percentage of teenagers were always sexually active. Actually, teen pregnancy is much lower than it was in the past and people are marrying later.

Re:How's about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833578)

Nothing it never worked. Worse tested with the same success/failure criteria as modern contraception[*] it comes out flat worse than any other widely accepted method of contraception or STD prevention.

[*] For it to be a fair test you must include people who fail to use properly as among the failure rate. For contraception this includes those who buy but do not uses as well as those who do not use properly. For abstinence you include all those people who make pledges or other othes of chastity *not* only those who keep their pledge, the fact that people break them is part of the risk of reeling on them after all.

Re:How's about this... (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833828)

Really? What changed?

Nothing - it never worked. We're just more public about the repercussions now.

Re:How's about this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833444)

It never worked in the first place.
Do you really think teenage kids are having more sex recently than in previous decades, or any other period in history.

The answer to that is no. We're just able to talk about it now. And study it. And make rational decisions like using a vaccine to increase heard immunity to improve the quality of life of the entire population.

There would be no controversy if this disease affected something besides your naughty bits and was spread by anything but penis-insertion.

Grow up.

If you're not going to learn the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833494)

between the words "herd" and "heard", please be wrong instead of right. Good causes do not deserve your idiocy.

Re:How's about this... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833584)

Do you really think teenage kids are having more sex recently than in previous decades, or any other period in history.

YES.

I know as I was growing up, I had a LOT more sex than my parents did...and have talked to them about this now that I'm very much an adult.

I've spoken with younger people today, and parents..and even "I" get a bit shocked to hear what kids are doing today, and how much younger they start than we do.

Younger people are MUCH more loose when it comes to sex....I almost wish I could go back a few years in age but be around in this day in time...'cause you don't really even have to try that hard with women today. Young women today are MUCH more open to a casual 'hookup'....

Girls didn't dress nearly as provocatively and have as much overt sexual behavior as they have today....

Re:How's about this... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833612)

They are just more willing to talk about it.

Re:How's about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833650)

He was comparing kids these days to himself. He doesn't need to be "willing to talk about it" to get a valid comparison.

Re:How's about this... (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833788)

Your parents were prudes?I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but as has often been stated, the plural of anecdote is not data. I happen to know, both because I was born when my mom way 17 years old, and because the term TMI has no apparently meaning to my parents; that both my parents were sexually active as teenagers. Maybe my parents were sluts? Possible, but my data point is no more useful than yours. Historical analysis shows that while it wasn't talked about or studied, teenage rates of promiscuity probably haven't changed much since the Roman Empire (probably since before then, but the Romans were the first real great record keepers of western history). It's all based on statistical analysis and isn't an exact science, but most studies seem to indicate that (shockingly) teenagers have always been raging little balls of hormones with questionable self control.

Re:How's about this... (2)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833604)

Yes, they are having more sex at a younger age, don't kid yourself that is what TV programming got us.

Re:How's about this... (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833394)

The whole reason why HPV is so wide spread in the first place is because discouraging sexual activity doesn't actually prohibit or actually lessen it, it just makes people more ignorant to it. The only thing that actually works to curb sexual activity is education and the only thing that curbs the spread of disease is to prepare your children to be cautious and safe. You are suggesting ignoring the mice that are already there instead of buying the cats or even the traps to deal with them in the first place.

Social conservatives amaze me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833566)

You get the idea some of them really would like to be there in 20 years dancing around saying "ha ha you got cancer because you couldn't keep your pants on when you were a teenager. Guess you should have listened to my imaginary friend, huh?"

Re:Social conservatives amaze me... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833620)

Hmm...well, the warts are bad that's true (natures "speed bumps").

But hey, it doesn't kill men.....I dunno if we should mandate it on men. Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

Geez, it was so much easier growing up prior to the early 80's. YOu could fuck anything that walked and all you had to worry about was pregnancy, or having to get a shot to clear up the 'clap' or something similar.

Nowdays...you fuck...you die??

Re:How's about this... (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833642)

Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm? This strikes me as buying a dogs to deal with the cats that you brought in to deal with the mice...

Why?

Why not get rid of computers to prevent the spread of computer viruses?
Why not get rid of cars so we never have a flat tyre?
Why not kill everyone so they never get a cold?

I agree discouraging certain activities from pre-teens and teens is best- but these kids will grow up to be adults- and let adults have fun in an adult way!

Sure they should protect themselves properly- but I bet the vast majority won't at least once because of the heat of the moment... and from what I recall HPV cannot be prevented by the latex sleave anyway- so it's useless for the virus in question.

If your religion or morals state you shouldn't until marriage- that is your choice.

Most people do not consider it immoral these days - just as most christians don't consider it imoral to have christmas trees or clothes with blended fibres anymore. Times change and I'll be damned if anyone shoves their religion down my throat or that of my kids.

You are welcome to stay a virgin if that is your perogative and morale compass... but it isn't mine- and I refuse to live by someone elses religious dogma.

Re:How's about this... (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833700)

Your virgin daughter can still get HPV on her wedding night, and die of cervical cancer.

Re:How's about this... (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833812)

Back in *my* day, we all had chastity belts and if anyone had sex we burned them as a consort of Lucifer. And you know what, we were happier and WE LIKED IT!

Re:How's about this... (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833874)

How would that help? Ignoring the fact that the evolutionary drive to have sex is way stronger than your discouraging 'tut tut', it'd just delay the day when they got HPV infected and started spreading cancer causing viruses.

Good (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833304)

This is no surprise, but I am glad it's been approved. Once again science making the world safer.

Science isn't about asking "why?", it's about asking "why not?". Cave Johnson, I'm done here.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833386)

Why not... create monkeys with five asses? When science asks "why not?" trouble usually results.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833482)

whoosh

Re:Good (0)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833436)

Once again science making the world safer.

Yeah.. Big pharma is all about 'science'.

Re:Good (1)

Zebraheaded (1229302) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833634)

Would you prefer pharmaceutical companies (you realize the phrase 'Big Pharma' instantly saps your credibility) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develope and commercialize non-profitable drugs so they all go out of busines and no pharmaceuticals are available at all?

or

They can spend the money only on what is profitable because our nation of "I'm right, not my doctor" self-diagnosing idiots, and "If you don't fix me even though Im not telling you all my symptoms, or I'll sue the pants off you" assholes make it necessary for FDA approval to cost so much that treatments that only "sort of work", have severe possible side effects, or aren't patentable never get released because really: who is going to take a $200million/8 year loss simply for the good of mankind? If you want that to happen, better start pumping WAY more funding into government funded research.

Re:Good (1)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833706)

Big Pharma yes, but perhaps the more likely reason being, policy makers trying to garner favour with their mindless vote-banks.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833580)

I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do.

Vaccinating carriers... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833310)

What a sensible idea.(Incidentally, males aren't strictly carriers; but penile cancer is much less common than cervical for some reason)

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (5, Informative)

fwice (841569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833368)

It's not just penile cancer. Also, depending on how transferred, HPV can cause rectal and oral (throat) cancers.

I also ready today (here [nytimes.com] ) that HPV may lead to future heart trouble.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833588)

Shouldn't be a surprise that nonvirgins are more likely to have heart trouble than virgins ;).

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833710)

That's because relationships with the opposite sex has a tendency to put stress on your heart.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833804)

That's because relationships with the opposite sex has a tendency to put stress on your heart.

This

Though I would imagine a relationship with a same sex partner would likely be equally stressful as well.

Guess it depends if you want heart failure to be brought on by stress or loneliness, but you're damned either way.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833410)

I am not a doctor. My guess is that urine keeps the penis cleaner than the cervix. Are there any doctors who can comment on my guess?

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833574)

I am not a doctor. My guess is that urine keeps the penis cleaner than the cervix. Are there any doctors who can comment on my guess?

I will avoid making snarky comments about your elimination habits (although it is rather tempting).....

The Standard Model of cervical cancer (I made the term up, we don't call it that) goes like this:

The cervix [wikimedia.org] has two different types of epithelial (skin) cells. The area where these two types intersect (called the 'transitional zone) is a region of high cell turnover - cells are dying and being replaced, lots of chemical and genetic activity. This makes it an ideal place for the HPV virus to switch cell growth from normal to abnormal. So even though you can get HPV infections in other parts of the cervix / vagina / anus / penis it is the activity in the transitional zone that cause problems.

Males don't have a cervix (no, don't go there, this is a quality, family oriented web site), no transition zone. LESS (not zero) cancers.

Most HPV induced cancers in males are found in the anal regions where again, cell division and turnover are relatively high. HPV associated cancers in the mouth and throat are rarer still, but they do happen.

The major thrust (so to speak) for immunizing males is that they are typically 50% of the sexually active couple (more or less) and decreasing the amount of viral load will lead to a decrease in infections which will lead to a decrease in HPV associated disease.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833734)

I appreciate that response. That is very informative. Can you say whether the cell turnover on the cervix is definitely greater than the cell turnover in the male urethra?

Also, you didn't say so explicitly, but you used the word "we", which implies that you are a doctor. You can convert your post from +5 Interesting to +5 Informative if you can say that you are actually a doctor.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833532)

HPV can cause plenty of unpleasant things for males, too. My gut feeling is that it causes a lot of problems for boys/men that aren't quite as obvious as cervical cancer. I seriously doubt we're just carriers.

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833738)

What a sensible idea.(Incidentally, males aren't strictly carriers; but penile cancer is much less common than cervical for some reason)

You had me at penile cancer

Re:Vaccinating carriers... (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833784)

Yeah, who would have ever thought something like herd immunity [wikipedia.org] would be sensible...

pushed-by-big-pharma-and-not-a-cure-all dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833316)

I would rather that they make the discoveries and sell vaccines than the alternative.

Yes, they should make some money as a reward for their good research (and luck).

transmission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833320)

This seems more like a recommendation to reduce the drama than to reduce transmission.

Throat cancer. (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833322)

Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?

Re:Throat cancer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833374)

Wasn't there a story on /. a while back how this vaccine also protects from throat cancer in males?

Insert joke about male selfish lovers

Cue conservative wailing (0)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833344)

in 3....2....1....

Re:Cue conservative wailing (1)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833432)

They're not giving that vaccine to *my* sweet, innocent, raging hormonal teenage boy!

Re:Cue conservative wailing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833450)

Sorry, it seems a liberal beat them to it with the countdown....

Get rid of the celebrities... (5, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833360)

If we had celebrities coming out and saying "I think the vaccine could have more side effects than the disease..."

We'd still have polio...

measles...
mumps..
Rubella...
Tuberculosis
Whooping Cough...

and a bunch of other nasty diseases flying around like the common cold. I think many parents (atleast around here in Northern California, think you need 200 years of concrete data, or Oprah to claim a vaccine is needed).

Re:Get rid of the celebrities... (5, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833704)

And thanks in part to the anti-vaccination folks, some of those are making a bit of a comeback. Whooping cough and measles are the ones our pediatrician mentioned.

Re:Get rid of the celebrities... (2)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833768)

The problem isn't the celebrities, it's a public more willing to listen to celebrities than scientists about an issue that's almost entirely scientific. We have an endemic fear culture that embraces worry over knowledge. People only listen to the celebrities because they're spreading a message that the public is primed to receive. We have to eliminate the culture that embraces this message of ignorance and fear, and anti-intellectualism. The celebrities are merely a symptom of our broken culture.

Re:Get rid of the celebrities... (3)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833780)

Dude, where have you been TB is still here and is scarier than ever because most cases are now resilient to all but a cocktail of the most infrequently used antibiotics with the most severe side effects.

Re:Get rid of the celebrities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833786)

Whooping Cough...

Last I was in the U.S. it seems you did still have Whooping Cough. At least, there was an ad on TV promoting some adult pertussis vaccin thing.

Although the only thing I seem to remember from that is the actress. Whooping cough or not, she's hot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvcWMcfKmhc [youtube.com] (Yes, it's the Spanish version - doesn't matter, just makes her caliente).

Re:Get rid of the celebrities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833878)

I don't think we can get rid of celebrities, but I still hold onto the hope that we can get rid of Scientology.

Merc lobbying pays off (0)

sasparillascott (1267058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833372)

Lobbying by Merc has paid off again - shares should be up on this.

Re:Merc lobbying pays off (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833624)

It's not a matter of lobbying, vaccinating only girls doesn't have the same benefits that vaccinating everybody does. The main question was whether any possible health risks for men would offset the health benefits for them.

Vaccinating just specific groups is a bit of a warning that there's probably something going wrong. That's usually only done when supplies of vaccines are short, hedging this way without shortages is always going to be suspicious.

swingers? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833390)

What about male swingers in their mid-30s? Not saying this is me, but. . . If these people are possibly spreading disease, wouldn't it make sense to vax them too?

Re:swingers? (2)

iceperson (582205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833442)

I think the argument is most of the adult population already has HPV so it's too late for them.

Re:swingers? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833520)

Is there not a test for HPV- for those HPV negative- they could be vaccinated.

Re:swingers? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833534)

I think you need to read the other response to my question.

Re:swingers? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833470)

From what I understand of it, the argument is that once you've become sexually active there's little point as you've probably already been exposed.

Re:swingers? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833652)

Right, at present I don't believe there's much evidence to support any benefit for people already infected, however if you're only infected with one of the strains that is included, there would likely still be some benefit.

But, as others have said, it's not just sex, these strains do sometimes cause throat cancer as well as penile, cervical and anal cancers so, hypothetically there should be some risk just from kissing.

Re:swingers? (0)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833686)

That's not necessarily true. My girlfriend, 24, tested negative, so they gave her the vaccine.

Re:swingers? (5, Informative)

fwice (841569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833508)

I got the HPV vaccine last year as a male at the age of 26. There is the overall thought that if you are sexually active (ie, not a non-infected virgin with another non-infected virgin), you will have obtained some strain of HPV (there are more than 150, most are relatively benign). Your body can "clear" most of these, and they will never be an issue. I thought it was still appropriate for me to get the vaccine, as there are some benefits:

  • if you aren't infected with certain strains, you are vaccinated from 2 high-risk (HPV 16&18, cancer causing) and 2 high-trauma (HPV 6&11, wart causing) strains of HPV. These strains account for ~70% of HPV-related cancers and ~90% of warts, if I recall the numbers correctly.
  • if you are infected with HPV 6/11/16/18, the vaccine may help your body to clear and infection if it lingers, and may reduce (or eliminate) outbreaks of warts

Vaccination was uncovered by my insurance (gee, thanks!) but I figured it was worth the $510, to protect myself and any partners (should I be a carrier).

Re:swingers? (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833544)

Thanks. That's PRECISELY the type of answer I was looking for. Very informative. They really oughtta cover those for males then. Glad to see the medical community is finally accepting what needs to be done, but what's in it for the insurance companies?

Re:swingers? (1)

fwice (841569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833638)

what's in it for the insurance companies?

Less infections requiring procedures would mean less money spent on treatments, and would reduce the amount of money they would have to pay out for treatment.

Oh wait, that's probably not what they want, since that means less money passing through their hands for them to skim off of.

Re:swingers? (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833838)

Was $510 the cost of just the shot(s) or did that also include the doctors office visits?

News? (-1, Troll)

Psychophrenes (1600027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833396)

So, necro81, which pharmaceutical lab are you working for?
Your article sounded more like propaganda than news...

Re:News? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833692)

Your mind has obviously been infected with the Slashdot Paranoid Meme Virus, but this raises an interesting point. The HPV vaccine is the most expensive one made. It is a complicated vaccine to make, took some time to create (20 years) but apparently the manufacturer had a different metric for determining price:

Gardasil took more than 20 years to develop, is complex to manufacture, and must be constantly refrigerated, but that’s not why it’s so expensive. Instead, Merck calculated the price based on the money the vaccine will save the entire health-care system—and the CDC approved the price, as it does with other vaccines. “We based the price on a number of factors, most importantly the value Gardasil brings to individuals and society,” says Jennifer Allen, a spokesperson for Merck. “HPV-related diseases cost the U.S. health-care system about $5 billion every year, and we took that into consideration.” Although Merck would not make sales projections, population data show that the vaccine would gross more than $11 billion if all women 11 to 26 in the United States were vaccinated per the CDC recommendation.

THIS to me, tells me that the system is broken. Merk (and the rest of big Pharma) has long jumped the ethical shark. Research should be brought back into the government fold (along with the patents) and manufacturers should be limited to manufacturing the drugs with reasonable, but not outrageous, profit margins.

****** insert exited Libertarian rants here *******

Re:News? (2)

Psychophrenes (1600027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833872)

My views on pharmaceutical labs were already pretty low, and I wasn't even aware of this...
Very interesting quote you just made.

For reference, I found the article from which the quote originates here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/hpv [discovermagazine.com]

Re:News? (1)

Psychophrenes (1600027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833696)

Wow, modded -1, troll for asking a legitimate question, albeit maybe a tad too sarcastically.
You do realize studies have proven that this vaccine causes more cases of severe secondary effects than there are actual cases of cancer caused by the virus it aims to cure?

New transmission method. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833406)

Can we invent vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases that get transmitted sexually? Imagine the distribution efficacy and cost benefits we could realize with STVs!

great, but... (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833492)

Wouldn't a cure be all around better than a preventative vaccine? It seems like economies of scale make any sort of vaccine cocktail impractical as the number of available vaccines grow. I mean, in 100 years are we going to be pumping our babies full of drugs so that they MIGHT avoid some kind of disease?

Re:great, but... (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833564)

As though they are mutually exclusive. 100% vaccination means you don't need to cure it, and prevention is far preferable (and usually cheaper) than trying to fix it after it goes badly.

It's not like cancer is one disease that we can just cure. It's a symptom of huge array of diseases and mutations, HPV vaccine goes after one of the causes.

Re:great, but... (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833608)

Vaccines are better than cures. A 'cure' requires that the individual get sick first, this directly means that whatever microbe infecting the person has already multiplied and could potentially spread to another host continuing on the cycle. Vaccines are preventative on this account which removed the possibility of further transmission. Once the vaccination rate is high enough, the disease simply has no were to run to and once it's out of hosts, it dies and it is effectively cured for everyone and all time and the vaccination program ends.

testing? (2)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833512)

Last I heard they didn't have a way to test men for HPV. Men are almost, if not always, asymptomatic and wouldn't have enough viral material accessible to test for it. Have they refined this? How much testing has been done to show the effectiveness of this on boys? I'm all for this vaccine and I'd get it myself if I'm not already a carrier, but it's expensive and unless they can effectively test for this it's possibly just a cash grab.

Re:testing? (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833556)

This is why they have an age limit on the vaccine. The goal is to get boys and girls vaccinated before they become sexually active and are exposed to the virus. The assumption being that after a certain age, the likelihood of exposure approaches one and by then it's too late (combined with the difficulty in testing for the virus.)

Re:testing? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833818)

But should still be of value to persons who have not been sexually active, yes? regardless of age.

And I'd been wondering why they didn't vaccinate males; after all, carriers are half the equation.

Re:testing? (1)

fwice (841569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833572)

testing for males is very difficult, as an asymptomatic male will show no signs of being infected, and, if I recall properly, the FDA does not have any approved tests for HPV in men. I believe the effectiveness in this comes from "Herd Immunity".

Balance the benefits. (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833518)

On one hand it will prevent many caners in future generations, thus decreasing suffering and medical expenses.

OTOH, SEX!

On one hand it will allow many couples to have children that may not have otherwise due to cancer, which most agree is a good thing

OTOH, SEX!

And really isn't that what is all about? Preventing anyone from having sex outside a state defined and mandated relationship. We can't have people going around enjoying themselves without the approval of the feds, can we?

I was amazed at the opposition to HPV for vaccines. Do people really think that kids alone in the backyard are going to limit themselves to mutual handjobs because they are afraid they might give each other cancer? Do they really think that kids are going to be more likely to want to see what all the fuss is about because they have the vaccine? Sure I understand the implicit idea is that the vaccine assumes multiple partners over a life time, but isn't that the status quo that is modeled? Newt Gingrich has slept with at least three women. If marriage is between one man and one women, and we promise god that we will be faithful untile death do us part, isn't any number more than one kind of morally equivalent.

One hesitates to suggest that if this was a vaccine against prostate cancer there would not be so much discussion.

Re:Balance the benefits. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833744)

You have excellently described a huge public psychological problem on this issue.

I'd rather let my children have sex than kill them with preventable cancer to try and keep them celibate.

Re:Balance the benefits. (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833798)

I was amazed at the opposition to HPV for vaccines.

The odds of corruption and payoffs being involved approach 100%, as seen w/ governor Katie Perry of Texas and his little scandal.

There is a possibility, maybe even a good possibility, that there are accidentally medical benefits as a side effect of profits.

Then again, there is a long tradition of govts doing truly horrific and unethical things WRT medical care and especially STDs, always explained away each time as "we're more ethical now". I'm sure they are, I'm sure they are.

Re:Balance the benefits. (1)

costy41 (2493534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833810)

i agree with you

Recommendation vs mandate (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833530)

Recommendation is one thing. Mandate is another altogether. I don't have a problem with somebody recommending something. I have a problem with somebody taking over your decisions about your body and your health (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).

Re:Recommendation vs mandate (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833714)

So then I should be allowed to spread disease if I want?

What if I want to infect myself with TB and walk around infecting others?

I think you should be allowed to opt out of the vaccine, then you should of course be legally responsible for anything that happens because of it. Including an insurance company refusing to pay for your cancer.

Re:Recommendation vs mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833870)

The insurance company in that scenario already accepted his money, thus any attempt on their part to back out of providing the service he paid for is fraud. If they want to charge him higher premiums due to his not being vaccinated, that's another matter.

Re:Recommendation vs mandate (2)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833792)

If you choose to put a chink in the armor of herd immunity, I agree it should be your right. Somewhere else. Maybe we can make an island for people who like smallpox and polio, too.

I jest, but you're coming at this from the angle of a person who has already benefited from government-mandated vaccinations given to your parents and grandparents; vaccinations which may have saved your life.

Re:Recommendation vs mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833824)

I have to agree. I can see smallpox or mumps vaccines being mandated; they are essentially unavoidable. However, if I don't want my kids to get an STD vaccine, why would the government make me? HPV is 100% avoidable... it's like herpes... it isn't something that just happens. You could be walking around a mall and get the flu or any number of other airborne viruses, but I don't see flu shots being mandatory.

I know this will get flamed to death from left-wing nut-jobs (even though I'm extremely left-wing on basically everything), but I really don't think the government should have any say in this specific example; I will teach my kids about safe sex and if they choose to get the HPV vaccine, that's fine, but no one should be able to force them to get it. As a mandate, it just looks like big pharma gets paid off again and there are more lawmakers getting kick-backs on their prudent investment.

Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833576)

I had never even heard of HPV until they came out with a cure for it. And now everybody in the world has HPV.

Is this like Mothers Day? The industry inventing something that will consume their product?

Wellman

Why should I care ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833678)

I see no reason to take a (very) small risk just so women have less chance of catching cervix cancer.

Warning (4, Funny)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833726)

Vaccination can lead to retardation in mothers, up to voting for Michele Bachmann.

Took long enough (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833730)

It took long enough. Everyone screaming about the uterine cancer that girls can get, but nobody gives a damn about the penile cancer that boys can get.

God damn sexist media.

Been tried before. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833746)

This is the same vaccine that Rick Perry mandated for young girls in Texas before the legislature overrode his authority. He was bought by the vaccine company. Now it appears the company has bought somebody new.

My kids will be getting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833848)

Regardless of the moral implications (which I think are ridiculous, despite my family being a church-attending family every week), my children will be getting the shot. Why? Too many people have become carriers of this virus (and will continue to spread it through sexual activity of various kinds). The last thing my kids need is to get cancer or at the very least be rendered sterile by HPV because they fell in love with someone that didn't make good choices.

The sad part is that the anti-vaccine extremists will spread enough half truths and fearmongering to keep enough people from reaching herd immunity levels and stop HPV's spread.

Ignorance (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833850)

Pretty soon there will be a "vaccine" for bad attitudes.

Wish we had it for other HPV strains (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833856)

I'm tired of getting warts frozen off the bottoms of my feet. Now that I work in a lab with access to liquid N2 I might just start freezing the bastards off my self.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>