Cancer Vaccine Blocked By Religious Right
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Religion, Science, SexualityOkay, see, this is why we’re going to witness the downfall of the religious right. They really can’t see the forest for the trees. Because instead of giving millions of girls almost 100% certain protection against cervical cancer, they’re against it because they think it would promote promiscuity.
So let’s see here…cancer or more sex…cancer or more sex…hmmm…
The latest data from a large clinical trial of Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, found it offered 100% protection against cervical, vulval and vaginal diseases, caused by HPV (types 6, 11, 16 and 18) and 98% protection against advanced pre-cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18 (New England Journal of Medicine: vol 356, p1915).After around three years of the four-year trial, almost all girls who received the vaccine before being exposed to HPV 16 or 18 appear to be protected. Those who had already been exposed to the viruses received little benefit, but by vaccinating early on, perhaps at 11 years of age, most girls could be protected.
However, the introduction of a vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, which together cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, has been dogged by arguments. Some conservative groups complain that by cutting the risk of catching a sexually-transmitted disease, the vaccine would encourage sexual activity in young girls.
And you know what, it very well may encourage more sexual activity. They could be right about that. But wouldn’t you much rather have those people vaccinated, alive and having sex than facing the prospect of removing their uterus because they didn’t get the correct sexual education because…once again…the religious right thinks abstinence education is more important than teaching our kids about the realities of life.
I won’t even get into the fact that more cancer makes our health care collectively more expensive…
Good times…
This entry was posted on Monday, May 14th, 2007 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Religion, Science, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I want my daughters to believe that pre-maritial sex equals death - if not from disease, from me. I’m old-fashioned like that. I know you think your saving lives and you probably are saving some from cervical cancer, but cervical cancer is but one danger in ho-alley. And the Religious Right isn’t going anyplace Justin, the society will continue to slouch towards Gomorrah and people will continue to take their children out of public school and safeguard them from degenerate liberals. You’re in losing battle. The culture of life breeds much more than your ilk, and we protect our children not just from death, but from the culture that promotes death through immorality.
I’m so glad the comment section is back on.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
They are blocking compulsory vaccination. I would tend not to like anything be mandatorily injected into my childs body unless there is a damn good reason, such as potentially epidemic contageous disease. Cervical cancer is not spread through incidental contact like polio or measles, unless you consider sex to be uncontrollable like sneezing - which some people do apparently.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[...] While a lot of the issues I blog about aren’t really emotionally charged, every once and a while I will find something that hits a nerve. Today is one of those days where I am so worked up over this that I am not going to attempt to be non-biased or look at this objectively. Sometimes it just isn’t possible. Sorry to leave you hanging in suspense but I am going to take this one nice and slowly, that way I don’t lose anyone. About an hour ago, I was over on the 9rules homepage, which is one of my favorite places for picking up good ideas. On the RSS feed of their members, I decided to click on an article that caught my interest. The feed took me to a blog called Donklephant, one that I had not yet visited. The immediate vibe was that it was a strongly liberal blog. My rule of thumb is that I do not take anything as fact from a blog that is heavily biased towards one end of the political spectrum, so I always do my homework after the fact to make sure I am getting reality and not 100% opinion. The entry that I was reading on Donklephant covered the debate being waged between conservatives (the religious right) and health officials (and everyone who isn’t religious right) over the release of the new cervical cancer vaccine that has been in the works for a long time now. This debate was news to me because, last I heard, the vaccine was still in development. Apparently it has been completed, but it has not made it into the hands of health professionals and doctors yet because of the ongoing stalemate between the aformentioned parties. [...]
May 14th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
To summarize this published medical journal article:
1. In the FUTURE I trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 2 and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma — the only recognized precursors to cervical cancer.
2. In the larger FUTURE II trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma — the strongest (and many would argue only valid) precursors to cervical cancer.
3. Extrapolating from GARDASIL’s very limited clinical “success” (in the FUTURE II study only) against grade 2 cervical dysplasias (40% of which regress spontaneously), 129 women would be have to be vaccinated (at a cost of about $60,000) to prevent a single grade 2 cervical dysplasia.
4. GARDASIL’s protection against cancer associated HPV strains 16 and 18 appears to cause a disproportionate increase in of pre-cancerous dysplasias associated with other HPV strains associated with cervical cancer “raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18.”
5. Even if you segregate out the women who hadn’t been previously exposed to either HPV 16 or 18, we are talking about just a 17% decrease in all high grade dysplasias (266 out of 6080 vs. 219 out of 6087) — many of which would spontaneously regress without treatment. So we would have vaccinate 129 women (at about $500 for the three shot regimen) to avoid a single, eminently treatable dysplasia. That’s about $60,000 per dysplasia prevented.
This is all directly from the article linked above.
I myself would add that we currently have only 3 years of follow up to go on in terms of both GARDASIL’s safety and efficacy among the 16 to 26 year female population, no data concerning its efficacy among 9 to 12 year old girls and only 18 months of follow up on less than 600 total preteen girls in terms of safety data about GARDASIL within its targeted population.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
In response to Jimmy the Dhimmi, sex is not uncontrollable, but wouldn’t you like to know that your daughter will be safe when she becomes sexually active. If her first (or even only) sexual experience is with a guy that has had sex with any other girl (even just one), she will be at risk for this disease and cancer. I am not saying that this vaccination should be completely mandatory, but I would think that you would look out for the betterment of your child over the morality of sex.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Given that two thirds of the population have had it at some point if only the bride abstained until marriage she syill looking at crappy odds without the vaccination.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I can only hope DosPeros is a spoof. Lets say your daughter is a virgin when she marries; the chances are that her husband has HPV.
You’re going to look like the crappy Dad of the year when she comes back from the Gynecologist and is told she has warts and will need a biopsy. What are you going to say to her? She will know by then that this could have been prevented.
BTW were you a virgin when you got married? Was it by choice?
Full disclosure, my daughter is on shot 2 of 3; know she won’t get HPV priceless.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:16 am
rob - of course I was a virgin before marriage. I’m practically a virgin in marriage. And look, I celebrate your choice to prep your daughters for sex. For years, I’ve been encouraging our elementary schools to teach the Kama Sutra and do the whole condom on the banana thing and the “Sally has 2 Mommies” thing. It is logical isn’t it. We know that a certain percentage (fairly high) of our female children are going to turn out to be huge sluts. Forget about marriage, we should consider ourselves lucky at this point if we can keep them from exhibitionist public fornication. We allow them to idolize promiscuous little tramps, what do we expect? For these females, we should take every precaution to save them from themselves and, as Justin pointed out a few posts ago, legalize prostitution so they can earn money for college.
In terms of my own children, I’m far more concerned with what goes into their minds, which will ultimately direct their behavior and what they value. I don’t feel the need to shoot them up with the latest vaccine for sexually transmitted diseases in anticipation of sexual activity. They are not high-risk children for a variety of reasons. But you should be very proud, you have done what you feel is necessary to protect your kids. I just don’t have the same concern about my daughters at this point.
DosPeros Parenting Tip #1: The most dangerous thing in the house for children is the television.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hey, I probably would get my daughter the vaccine if it proves to be effective. Even if she stays a virgin before marraige, maybe her future husband has the virus (how do guys acquire this virus anyway?) But like you, I don’t believe it should be mandatory, and all the “religious right” did was to block the compulsory vaccinations in public schools. I completely understand if you don’t feel its necessary.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I think DosPeros is taking this to the EXTREME, but I would say that I agree on the point that while nice, a shot like this should NOT be mandatory.
Sure I’d sign my kid up for it… why NOT be prepared, even the best parenting cannot prevent the kids from going against the rules set for them. You can forbid till the cows come home, if they WANT to do something then they’re going to find a way.
I do agree that American society is ASKING for it with our slut addiction. Just look at the people begging the governator to pardon Paris Hilton because she’s a “beacon of hope for our children”. Odd, I don’t recall a bone thin tramp ever being a beacon of hope for anyone.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Guys acquire the virus by having sex - the same as women acquire it - with someone who has it.
HPV is a problem for females because very few men will ever have symptoms of HPV. This means that it is undetectable by these male “carriers,” unless they get tested. I believe the test for HPV for men is pretty involved, so most men are not going to want to take it. This means that women (regardless of when, where, why, who they are sleeping with) are at a great risk of getting HPV and having negative symptoms, including an increased risk of cervical cancer. You could be a virgin and marry a man with it, or you could get it from your cheating husband (or boyfriend).
This vaccination is a great development for a disease that is next to impossible to detect in men, who will sleep with and infect thousands of women. I’m glad to see attention on women’s health issues.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
If they ever get married then it turns out they are.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
You know, I’ve never completely understood the double-standard with sex. A girl has sex even once before marriage and she’s a slut but a boy is not only expected to go to his marriage bed “experienced”, but his sleeping around is considered “sowing his wild oats (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)”. While I agree it should be a parent’s choice as to what vaccines are given to their kids, I disagree with DosPeros that a) having this vaccine will automatically make a girl more prone to being a “slut” and that b) any girl going to her marriage bed a virgin is automatically not at risk due to the encouragement given boys to sleeping around.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:20 am
I thought it interesting that Dos mentioned only that he wants his daughters to think that premarital sex equals death…apparently he has a different belief for his sons (assuming he has any).
Personally I welcome the advent of a vaccine that prevents a disease that has no cure, is easily transmitted, and can cause several medical problems and complications, only one of which is cancer.
I see this as far less of an issue than providing birth control, which is far more specifically targeted towards sexual activity (though personally I believe all girls everywhere in the world should have easy access to that - premarital sex is far preferrable to teen pregnancy, ruined lives, and unwanted babies. Not to mention I’d rather have them take a pill than have to get an abortion.) With this vaccine, you don’t really even need to tell your daughter what it’s for…just lie and say it’s for measles or something, then she won’t have any reason to think it has a sexual link at all.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
[...] so I always do my homework after the fact to make sure I am getting reality and not 100% opinion. The entry that I was reading on Donklephant covered the debate being waged between conservatives (the religious right) and health officials [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I think the problem is this:
1) The disease this vaccine prevents is already preventable if someone does not have sex. If your girls dont have sex they wont catch HPV. So the disease is preventable without the vaccine.
2) The real problem is the vaccine cost $360 and someone has to cover that cost.
So are you willing to have you health insurance costs increase, to cover a vaccine which prevents a disease that is already preventable? If insurance companies are forced to cover the vaccine costs? Afterall heath insurance companies are going to increase their rates to cover this cost, people will end up paying for it not the health insurance companies.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:32 am
I really cannot understand some of the comments made here and elsewhere.
If a women has sex before marriage she is a slut?
HPV can be prevented by not having sex?
You people can’t be serious. Sex is a completely natural part of life whether you are married or not and whether you have multiple or just one partner. How can you possibly marry someone without knowing first if you are sexually compatible? Sex isn’t just for procreating, it’s a way of showing love and affection and it’s also FUN!
As for HPV being preventable… Who goes through life not having sex? Who would want to? Who would want their child to be deprived of such as wonderful thing?