In the category of personal pet peeves - the HPV vaccine.
In the category of personal pet peeves - the HPV vaccine. A politicized disaster of o noes sex! nonsense even to get the thing tested AT ALL. Even though it was carried and spread by men, nevermind they can get icky sex cancers themselves, it was originally only tested on and eventually given to pure, young virgins girls. Then they finally were like, ok, fine, sex is gross but whatever test it in males. So now it is approved in boys.
There is an estimate (and an accepted assumption) that most people will be exposed to HPV, per this article they are quoting 80% by age 45. Ok, so even if that were unequivocally supported by something more concrete than estimates, why wouldn't you give the vaccine to anyone under the age of 45 who wanted to get it? And why haven't we studied it to see what effect it has on rates of disease in people who are HPV positive?
Particularly since per the quote below it's very unlikely that you would have been exposed to all the nasty strains, even if you were exposed to one of them. How does it make sense to say that, oh, well, you'll have been exposed to at least one strain, and even if it isn't one of the nasty ones that doesn't matter so we just won't vaccinate you? It's especially stupid in women where you can do DNA testing for HPV on a PAP exam. If they get, say, 3 negatives in a row, why wouldn't you offer them the vaccine?
Everyone, barring some research to the contrary that someone can find, has assumed and continues to assume that:
a) there is no benefit to the vaccine in someone who has been exposed to HPV, and
b) there is no benefit to the vaccine in someone who has had sex (which is, of course, not true since an awful lot of those girls and boys have done sexy times things), and
c) everyone (i.e. enough people statistically to count as) has been exposed to HPV
For what potentially deadly disease (HPV is a cause of cervical cancer) do we make decisions based on all this nonsense, rather than biasing our decisions toward how to save the most lives? If it caused brain cancer, would we even be having this conversation?
"The chances you've been exposed to all nine types are actually vanishingly small," says John Schiller, a microbiologist who studies HPV and HPV vaccines at the National Cancer Institute. Schiller says the vaccine might not be a bad idea for someone outside the CDC's recommended age range. Still, it's not cheap.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/17/497677367/is-20-something-too-late-for-a-guy-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/17/497677367/is-20-something-too-late-for-a-guy-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine
There is an estimate (and an accepted assumption) that most people will be exposed to HPV, per this article they are quoting 80% by age 45. Ok, so even if that were unequivocally supported by something more concrete than estimates, why wouldn't you give the vaccine to anyone under the age of 45 who wanted to get it? And why haven't we studied it to see what effect it has on rates of disease in people who are HPV positive?
Particularly since per the quote below it's very unlikely that you would have been exposed to all the nasty strains, even if you were exposed to one of them. How does it make sense to say that, oh, well, you'll have been exposed to at least one strain, and even if it isn't one of the nasty ones that doesn't matter so we just won't vaccinate you? It's especially stupid in women where you can do DNA testing for HPV on a PAP exam. If they get, say, 3 negatives in a row, why wouldn't you offer them the vaccine?
Everyone, barring some research to the contrary that someone can find, has assumed and continues to assume that:
a) there is no benefit to the vaccine in someone who has been exposed to HPV, and
b) there is no benefit to the vaccine in someone who has had sex (which is, of course, not true since an awful lot of those girls and boys have done sexy times things), and
c) everyone (i.e. enough people statistically to count as) has been exposed to HPV
For what potentially deadly disease (HPV is a cause of cervical cancer) do we make decisions based on all this nonsense, rather than biasing our decisions toward how to save the most lives? If it caused brain cancer, would we even be having this conversation?
"The chances you've been exposed to all nine types are actually vanishingly small," says John Schiller, a microbiologist who studies HPV and HPV vaccines at the National Cancer Institute. Schiller says the vaccine might not be a bad idea for someone outside the CDC's recommended age range. Still, it's not cheap.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/17/497677367/is-20-something-too-late-for-a-guy-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/17/497677367/is-20-something-too-late-for-a-guy-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine
I'm 90% certain that the cancer that killed my grandfather was of HPV origin, actually. Maybe folks would think about it differently if it were pitched as IT MIGHT MAKE YOUR PENIS ROT OFF AND THEN YOU WILL DIE IN AGONY, not just basically "LEEPs for everyone!"
ReplyDeleteYeah. People are such idiots sometimes about their cultural hang-ups. Like I said, if it stopped brain cancer, they'd give it to everyone.
ReplyDeleteTrue! But also I suspect a nontrivial amount of the objection is that they think of it as a cause of cancer IN WOMEN, and moreover one which can be detected early and often treated surgically. If men had to have urethra swabs every year and if abnormal cells were discovered the recommended treatment was to have a third of the penis removed by cautery? I suspect the vaccine would be mandatory in a month.
ReplyDeleteYes! Absolutely!
ReplyDeleteIt's like saying the flu vaccine isn't useful because it doesn't protect against all flu strains... Oh wait. Idiots say that, too.
ReplyDelete