The HPV vaccine - Gardasil
via the Washington Post.
“A government advisory committee agreed a month ago to recommend the vaccine for girls ages 11 and 12, for girls and women ages 13 to 26 who have not yet received the vaccine, and for women who have had abnormal pap smears, genital warts or certain other conditions.
Bradley Monk, associate professor in gynecologic oncology at the University of California at Irvine, said the best use of the vaccine would include giving it to girls and boys and all women and men, regardless of individual risk factors.”
I had originally wanted to post about this new vaccine a LONG time ago, but never did, mostly because it had me so up in arms and angry that i couldn’t post anything coherent. It is being touted as a cervical cancer vaccine, which is simply overstated misinformation. It is only being pushed for women, which drives me crazy.
Basically, a vaccine has been developed that has been shown to be effective in combating one strain of HPV. As in, there are more than one strain. HPV is considered responsible for about half of cervical cancer cases. The drug company, and the media, has made the jump that this is a cancer vaccine, and it will even appear in headlines as so (though not in the headline for THIS article, which makes me very happy). So, the effects of the vaccine have been blown completely out of proportion.
That’s the first part that pisses me off. The second is this - up until reading this article, it has been suggested that this vaccine only be given to women and girls.
OKAY.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. That is how you get it. By having sex. Singling out the female half of the population for a vaccine that is spread by both sexes is completely discriminatory - I don’t care if the reasoning sounds altruistic because it could prevent cancer if the strain of HPV you get is the single one this vaccine combats. That is just wrong. This places all the sexual responsibility of the disease solely on the shoulders of women, and not both women and men. Is essence, to recommend the vaccine to only women tells men and boys that they are not responsible for their sexual behavior and lets them off the hook.
It is women, not men, to whom annual genital exams are recommended as early as 15 years of age. It is women, not men, who shoulder the responsibility of pregnancy, the choices involved in that, childbirth, and care of children, when sex produces life unexpectedly. It is predominately women, not men (although it does exist, I am aware of that), who are more likely to be sexually harrassed, objectified, oversexualized as a gender, raped, and human trafficked. It is women who are called whores and sluts for having sex while men are called studs.
I am so tired of the responsibility and the stigma of of sex falling mostly on the shoulders of women.
There’s a magazine, called Babytalk, that’s been in the news lately for having on its cover a close-up picture of a baby nursing at the breast. Joshua and I saw a news story on this last week. Apparently, I have no idea why, but this has caused an uproar. One woman was quoted as saying she threw the magazine away and shredded the cover because she didn’t want her 13-year-old son exposed to a a sexual object in such an overt way.
WHAT?
Yes, breasts can be sexual objects. I know. I have a husband. But that is not their only function. Breasts are a source of food, nourishment and comfort for human babies. That is ALSO their function. Now I’m not an advocate of walking through the city topless, just because I’m a nursing mom. I nurse in public, and I attempt to do so as discreetly as possible. But I also know my rights and I will not be bullied about because someone doesn’t like it. i have actually never had a problem with it, to be honest - never had one person say something negative to me while nursing.
What bothers me is that the quote by the women revealed so much - it shows that she sees her body as a sexual object, and that the only way to view the breast is as a sexual object, and she is passing that along to her son. There was no opportunity for discussion about it with her son, no chance for learning, just further stigmatization and stereotyping being passed from one generation to the next.
i should really stop. I’m supposed to be keeping my blood pressure in check…
***update***
I don’t know how to do this without sacrificing the integrity of the message I was trying to get across with the original post, because I still believe in and stand by the issues I brought up. Having said that, it HAS been brought to my attention that I have some facts wrong. The way it was brought to my attention was done rather rudely, and while my initial inclination is to simply ignore it due to that alone, I’m not out to promote lies or “untruthiness” about this vaccine. So in an effort to get the facts straight, I am posting this link to a news article with some information about the vaccine that contradicts some of the things i said about it earlier.
It would be nice if I had the time to delve into it further right now. But I don’t. I’m sorry if that disappoints. And again, the main issues I (and some others) raised are still the same regardless of whether every fact and detail is ironed out on here. So if it bothers you that I’m not 100 percent correct, well, I’ll just have to be sorry for now. If you really care that much about this, there are a lot of resources and opinions out there. I suggest you start with googling it.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:30 am
Just having lost our mother to cervical cancer, all I can say to women who have the opportunity, JUST GET THE VACCINE. Even if it only saves a few women from getting the disease that causes HPV, why not get it? I understand your concerns about the overall philosophy and that women shouldn’t bear the burden, etc., but it IS a huge breakthrough that I would give my right arm for our mother to have had access to, and I would encourage my daughter to have the vaccination, as well. Singling out women with this vaccine makes sense, as it is the women who end up with the cancer (not the men). Just as it is women who end up raising a child (another result of sex, obviously) on their own if the father chooses not to participate. What kills ME are the groups that disagree with a vaccine that *could* prevent TERMINAL CANCER in women because they feel it would promote promiscuity. Ridiculous.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 am
Sorry, I meant “from getting the disease that causes CERVICAL CANCER”, not HPV.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 am
I don’t have a problem with the vaccine - it is an incredible breakthrough that has the potential to save lives. Yes. I totally agree with you.
I get angry at lies being told - it ISN’T a cancer vaccince - it’s an HPV vaccine. HPV can cause cancer. So there is a link, i don’t deny that, i just want it stated correctly.
But I don’t agree that singling out women to receive it is the answer. Vaccines are not 100 percent foolproof. Vaccinating half the population for something the is spread by both sexes is discriminatory and bad practice, anyway. I’m not saying women shouldn’t get it, but I am saying that BOTH sexes should get it.
The overarching problem I have is the sexual-political policies that cheapen women. This is just one more in a long string of those things (kind of like, I still get my PAP smear every year anyway).
The article also mentions that HPV can also be a cause of penile cancers in men, and the vaccine could be effective against that as well. Why is THIS the first we’ve heard about it?
July 31st, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Kristen,
Thank you for this post. I am in complete agreement with you. I could not have stated it better.
I choose not to vaccinate my children at all due to their father’s neurological issues. I take offense at any “immunization” being misrepresented. I think that money plays a larger part in the whole vaccination thing than the health of the general public, which is whey they are targeting women for this campaign and not men as well. Women are more likely to take an interest in their health.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Do your research. The vaccine is tetravalent and HPV is found in 99.9% of cervical cancer cases. Go read a Laurie Garrett book if you really want to understand public health policies.
http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/viral_cancers/en/index3.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sti/fact-HPV-virus.xml
http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/hpv/en/
July 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
The vaccine prevents against HPV-16, which is responsible for 50% of cervical cancer cases, so I was wrong on a technicality. I got my information from cancer.gov on the clinical trial used in the research and development of the vaccine. While perusing your sources, it says that HPV has been found present in 99 percent of cervical cancer cases, but has not been proven to always be the cause.
And Gardasil IS the brand name of the drug being marketed by Merck, I don’t see how that’s a disputed fact. You can find that in virtually any article about the vaccine.
thanks for the links. the more informed people are about any issues regarding their health, the better.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:30 am
Find out what “tetravalent” means.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/tetravalent.html
August 1st, 2006 at 7:47 am
i assumed from the context of the your last comment that “tetravalent” was a generic name for the vaccine before it was branded. I am obviously wrong.
“tetravalent” means “with valence of four.”
wow. thanks for clearing THAT up.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Are you really that dense? A tetravalent vaccine is one that is effective against 4 infectious agents. For example, this vaccine will provide protection against HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18 (that’s more than ONE strain). Obviously you didn’t read those links and are content to wallow in your own ignorance and self righteousness. Well, wallow away! You are no longer worth my time.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
wow kristen, i can’t believe you didn’t know what a tetravalent vaccine was and that clearly you are wallowing in your own ignorance like that. gee. i guess the main point of your post, that women shouldn’t be burdened with something that also affects men, just isn’t relevant in the face of the amazing revelations scooter has.
it’s really too bad he’s not going to come back and talk more shit.
August 1st, 2006 at 8:50 pm
as a member of the medical community (or 3/4 of one), I find it completely irresponsible to market this vaccine to women only. (don’t get me started on my views on “marketing” prescription drugs and vaccines) it is an incomplete public health plan. is anyone advertising that HPV can cause cancer in men? no, because it’s very rare, men are not as concerned, and are therefore less of a potential consumer market. I find the commercials “I want to tell my daughter, sister, mother… about the HPV test” laughable. The HPV test will do nothing for you prognosis-wise. the doctor will tell you to get yearly Pap smears — just like you would without a positive test. the obstetrics and gynecology recommendations are only to test if a woman has an abnormal Pap. it DOESN’T MATTER if you know you’re infected; you wait it out like everyone else. the company just wants more women to get tested with their patented test.
and it’s just a little self-righteous and arrogant to assume that someone who isn’t steeped in scientific jargon and literature on a regular basis should pick up every nuance of a complex vaccine instantly.
August 9th, 2006 at 5:43 am
@Kristen: Preface: I agree with you that both sexes should get the vaccine.
@Sarah O: re: “The HPV test will do nothing for you prognosis-wise. the doctor will tell you to get yearly Pap smears — just like you would without a positive test…it DOESN’T MATTER if you know you’re infected” Yeah, BUT your Pap could come back normal and you could still have HPV, and spread it. Correct me if I’m wrong. It DOES MATTER if you know you’re infected — you could choose not to have sex (and spread the disease) if you took the HPV test and found it positive. Otherwise, yes, nothing is different until you get an abnormal Pap. HIV is dormant for a long time too — are you suggesting we don’t test for HIV until someone gets symptoms? Of course you’re not. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
back @Kristen: I think you’re over-reacting just a touch. I think they’re just managing the roll-out of a new vaccine. The full extent of complications that could arise from this vaccine aren’t known (the lab and trials are still nothing compared to hundreds of thousands or millions of people). So they allow the people that are at the most risk — not of contracting the disease, but of having life-threatening complications from it (penile cancer from HPV is very rare) — to be the first with access to it. As more data comes in to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, they should broaden the potential audience for the vaccine. It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that reducing the total number of carriers of a disease will reduce the risk, even if only a percentage of carriers are at high risk (again, of developing cancer, not just contracting HPV); so I suspect they (medical ppl and gov ppl) want to make the vaccine universally avail asap.
Also, it’s a vaccine, not a cure. So it only makes sense to give it to people without the disease already. Since over 50% of sexually active people have the disease, to be effective the vaccine is going to have to be given primarily to people who haven’t had sex yet, i.e. young people.