cancer sluts

[xchrom]

Cancer Sluts
Does the HPV vaccine "promote" promiscuity?
By Meghan O'Rourke
Posted Thursday, Sept. 27, 2007, at 11:31 AM ET
Read more from Slate's Sex Issue.
---


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do—and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.

This view involves a hefty dose of ignorance, as well as a dollop of old-fashioned magical thinking. As any doctor can tell you, it takes only one sexual contact to contract a strain of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer. The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And—contrary to Runner's insinuations—you needn't be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.

Meanwhile, the idea that a mere vaccination could "promote promiscuity" is bizarrely simplistic—as if the prick of a needle in the arm of a pre-adolescent girl stands in for a, well, prick of another kind. For one thing, no evidence suggests a connection between a decrease in HPV and an increase in sexual activity, nor is it likely to: HPV is hardly a major deterrent to kids who might be squeamish about STDs, since it has few short-term effects and cervical cancer usually takes years to develop. Adolescents have a hard enough time thinking about next week, let alone a decade from now. They're more likely to be worried about the immediate effects of herpes, gonorrhea, or syphilis, or even AIDS, which is still more prevalent than cervical cancer. For another thing, there's already a vaccine out there designed to prevent a sexually transmitted disease—and it's not being protested by anyone on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity. That vaccine is for hepatitis B, and it is given to approximately 88 percent of all American children by the time they are 19 months old. Finally, it's not as if adolescents are incredibly rational about their sexual calculations, as the vaccine-promiscuity argument would have Americans believe.

And so liberal parents who distrust Big Pharma are also highly suspicious of Gardasil. But as Darshak Sanghavi, a pediatric cardiologist and a Slate writer, told me, speaking by phone from his office, "Looking at the science, I think it's highly unlikely that there is any significant side effect that hasn't been caught. For sure, there could be something rare. But there is no suggestion of anything masked." He stressed the importance of contextualizing the vaccine, pointing out that it takes a lot of research money to create vaccines, and it is not always a profitable enterprise. Given the very real dangers of cervical cancer, Sanghavi said, "I don't believe that they have pushed in an unethical manner. They have a product that is almost certainly going to save lives." In the meantime, fears about the health risks of Gardasil have obscured the hidden moral calculus of the conservative opposition to Gardasil: that in the end, it may be worth it for several thousand women to die from cervical cancer every year as collateral damage in the war against premarital teen sex. Because, of course, even if the vaccination did encourage promiscuity, it's not clear that it's OK for women to die as a result.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Implicit in this argument is the theory that what is holding

young women back from fucking like bonobo apes is fear of cervical cancer. That is a fucking laughable argument, if only it were meant as a joke. Instead it is meant to kill people.

[cosmik debris]

2. This bears repeating.

"Because, of course, even if the vaccination did encourage promiscuity, it's not clear that it's OK for women to die as a result."

Promiscuity is not a crime and the death penalty should not be imposed. And people who believe in the death penalty for sex are Neanderthals.

[xchrom]

3. and why do i strongly suspect -- that underneath

the concern and fear about Big Pharma -- this is what we're really talking about?

[trotsky]

4. We've seen it being hinted at, sometimes even directly expressed,

in Gardasil threads of the past. No, it's not a motivation for all critics, but it's definitely there.

[xchrom]

7. indeed -- there is something of it there. nt

[beam me up scottie]

5. "American money would be much better spent...since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices"

They say the same thing about HIV.

In the meantime, fears about the health risks of Gardasil have obscured the hidden moral calculus of the conservative opposition to Gardasil: that in the end, it may be worth it for several thousand women to die from cervical cancer every year as collateral damage in the war against premarital teen sex.

...there's already a vaccine out there designed to prevent a sexually transmitted disease—and it's not being protested by anyone on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity. That vaccine is for hepatitis B, and it is given to approximately 88 percent of all American children by the time they are 19 months old.

But that's different, the hepatitis B vaccination protects boys as well as girls.

[xchrom]

6. i also see now that vaccinations for meningitis

among teens is rapidly increasing -- especially before they head for college -- and yet where is the hysteria for that?

the quote re: hep is most especially telling.

i find a curious parallel between the anti-gardasil comments and some of the veiled homophobic comments that have become common place on DU in recent months.

it's not that i think they are directly related -- but there is an odd conservatism or willfull ignorance -- something -- that is lurking -- and i'm not sure how to express it.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Paranoid ignorance is just as dangerous as morally bankrupt conservatism.

And just as despicable.

[xchrom]

9. hammer meet nail

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

18. Cervical cancer and AIDS are punishments, dont'cha know?

Just like pregnancy.

The world according to the *cough* moral majority...

[xchrom]

19. the world according to some people who post in here.

we see -- we know there is a different subtext to what we're reading.

but underneath is a message about gay people, women, bodies, sex -- a whole list -- and the message isn't progressive, it isn't about
Big Pharma etc.

[beam me up scottie]

21. If the "but but but hpv/cervical cancer can be prevented without vaccines!!1!" brigade

ever take a long hard look in their mirrors, they'll probably find Senator George Runner looking back at them.

Take a gander (outrage warning for posters with high blood pressure):

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9706#409

[PVnRT]

22. Kind of like the attitude about HIV in the 1980's

"Eh, it's just a fag disease, who cares?"

Oops.

[Warpy]

10. What it all comes down to

is parents not wanting a male to do "that" to their precious little girl dolly. Once that happens, she's ruined forever, not their perfect little girl any more. She's been soiled.

Since the ignorance and threat of hell didn't kill anybody's sex drive, maybe the threat of death will, right?

That's the real mindset we're up against here. The perfect little girls don't deserve to die from a shot, you know. They do deserve to die if they let some boy do that to them.

[lizerdbits]

13. Funny

I never heard of HPV when I was a sexually active teenager. This was the early 90's so I don't know when it became more 'common' knowledge. And of course at that time most of my peers believed that HIV was only infectious to gay men so our big worry was pregnancy.

This loser's comments reminds me of a conversation with a coworker last week. He said he thought some of the HIV work being done where we are was a waste of money since it's "population cleansing." I asked about kids born with it and he said that was too bad, they're victims of their parents. I asked what if I get raped when I'm out jogging and he asked what I wore when I was jogging. I guess if I wore small shorts and jog bra with no shirt as lots of women do then I'm asking for it and brought it on myself. Later in the lunch room he's discussing being in the Navy and being on ship for months and the guys all couldn't wait to hit land and pick up hookers. In Africa in the 60's. He's lucky to have not "cleansed" himself out of the population since it was 20+ years before the virus was identified. :eyes: Perhaps this 66 year old is mentally the same as my teen peers over 15 years ago.

[dropkickpa]

20. Shit, I was only vaguely aware of the link

Until I got cervical cancer myself 5 years ago. We just weren't taught that (I lucky went to a school that had sex ed), it just wasn't talked about. Warts from HPV, yes, but nothing about the high risk strains.

[Celebration]

11. well the first is a laughable idea

Getting a vaccine has nothing to do with promiscuity.

However, I am no fan of Merck's marketing--

http://www.bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1288

Merck suffered mightily from the Vioxx scandal, but Gardasil isn't a blockbuster pain medication nor a lifestyle drug. Vaccines are not Viagra. We all know that vaccine development is not going to easily yield a blockbuster. We learned this with pandemic flu vaccination, as the world asked why no corporation had worked to protect the public against such a threat. It just isn't a sustainable business model. But can't Gardisil make money for Merck without this high price? They clearly did not think so. After plumbing the depths of the direct to consumer market with Gardisil, it quickly became clear that the only lucrative strategy for dispersion of this life-saving vaccine was to mix metaphors: on the one hand, Merck deployed and paid for a traveling PR effort of female legislators who proclaimed that Gardasil was an unadulterated boon for public health - at any cost. On the other hand, Merck has positioned itself as the Halliburton of cervical cancer - Gardisil has, critics say, become akin to the $1000 toilet seats on military aircraft. Merck also dispatched lobbying teams across Washington, but more notably into the offices of governors and leading legislators across the entire United States, to carry the message that the cure for cervical cancer will save money, but only after the premium of an incredibly expensive vaccine is paid up front. In short, pay now, save later.

If pharmaceutical companies are going to fund lobbying to improve public health, they also need to support public health. A pharmaceutical company that can set aside billions in case it had to pay out big settlements or spend tens of millions to lobby government officials to order mandatory inoculation, also can afford to cut the cost of the vaccine. In addition, just as pizza bearing cheerleader drug reps are a poor substitute for medical education, pharmaceutical company lobbying is a poor substitute for well-reasoned public health policymaking. Merck should fund public health science, education and services so that, for example, we can learn more about who needs the shot, how to price it, and how to build a healthy relationship between the government, the public and corporate biomedicine.

[trotsky]

12. This thread isn't about Merck's marketing.

No need to threadjack. Start your own.

[Celebration]

15. please read the last paragraph of the op

"And so liberal parents who distrust Big Pharma are also highly suspicious of Gardasil. But as Darshak Sanghavi, a pediatric cardiologist and a Slate writer, told me, speaking by phone from his office, "Looking at the science, I think it's highly unlikely that there is any significant side effect that hasn't been caught. For sure, there could be something rare. But there is no suggestion of anything masked." He stressed the importance of contextualizing the vaccine, pointing out that it takes a lot of research money to create vaccines, and it is not always a profitable enterprise. Given the very real dangers of cervical cancer, Sanghavi said, "I don't believe that they have pushed in an unethical manner."

[trotsky]

16. Yup, read it. Doesn't make this thread about Merck's marketing.

Nice try, though! You'll get 'em next time, I'm sure!

[LeftishBrit]

14. I'm reminded of the old limerick...

"When tempted to be a bit wild,
She kept herself quite undefiled
By thinking of Jesus,
Venereal diseases,
And the danger of having a child'.


Except that it's not always that effective!

At any rate the verse demonstrates that it is generally '*she*' who is expected to be quite undefiled! Incidentally, males can also be endangered by HPV, which increases the risk of penile cancer. Maybe once men realize that HPV is a potential threat to their precious penises, there will be less criticism of girls' 'lifestyle choices'.

[xchrom]

17. well i always like to point out the vaccine is for both sexes.

we battle more over women/girls.

but as the op points out we vaccinate for hep b -- both sexes -- which is a sexually transmitted disease.

[xchrom]

23. kick