> Christian conservatives
> are trying to block the
> vaccine for fear

Can you please provide proof for this. The article you linked to does not back up your assertion.

In fact, both Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have come out IN FAVOR of the HPV vaccine.

"Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, both faith-based conservative policy organizations, recently have spoken in support of HPV vaccines from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline because of their life-saving potential. But the organizations still promote abstinence before marriage as the best way to prevent infection."

From http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/economy/merck/

So, can you backup your claim that Christian groups are trying to prevent this from reaching the market?

As far as I know, the wackos are having about as much impact as they always do (think AFA boycotts - woop de doo). Merck is already putting out a cervical cancer awareness campaign in anticipation of a June FDA approval of their vaccine, and I don't see how the loonies will get to GSK if they didn't get to Merck.

From the FRC web site:

Both health care providers and parents should reinforce the fact that limiting sexual activity to the context of one faithful and monogamous long-term relationship is the single most effective method of preventing all sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and the whole range of negative psychological and social consequences that can result from sexual activity outside marriage.

The subtext here is in line with Jessica's post: You only deserve to be protected from HPV if you have abstained in the past and have only had sex with your spouse. In other words, you deserve to die if you have sex outside of marriage. That really, really bothers me...

Here's the link to the page referenced above:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH06B03

dp: You are sort of right, these groups are not trying to block the vaccines from reaching the market. They’re too smart for that. They're savvy enough to know that "pro-family" groups can't openly oppose a cancer vaccine. BUT, the are actively against making the vaccine mandatory. This is a subtle but important distinction. One that allows these groups to say, "the HPV vaccine is awesome - we just don't think you should have to give it to your daughter if you don't want to."

This stance seems acceptable, but it really undermines the effectiveness of the vaccine. If children are not required to get this 100% effective vaccine it will not live up to its promise of eradicating HPV. The 12 year old girl whose parents teach her to save sex for marriage and refuse to give their pure little princess a vaccine (even if she does indeed remain abstinent) may still contract HPV from the man she eventually marries who maybe wasn’t so pure.

Madeline:

1. I think you mistaken. I believe this vaccine is not suitable for inclusion in the standard vacinnes regime given to infants.

2. As far effectiveness goes, there are always people who refuse vaccines. Worst case is that HPV will affect those who elect (or parents) not to receive the vaccine. Unlike other diseases HPV isn't going to transmit except through sex. It's not, like say, whooping cough or measles. So, if fundamentalists refuse the vaccine they are only hurting themselves, not the public at large.

dp, this is not exactly what you were asking for, as it's totally anecdotal, but I was talking about this vaccine with a friend while we were escorting outside our local abortion clinic (I was in the clinical trials for Merck's vaccine--still don't know if I got the real thing or the placebo), and the protester who is there every morning started raging about how it was an immoral vaccine, she would never allow her daughters to have it, it would make young women today even more promiscuous than they already are, etc. I suspect we'll get a better sense of where conservative and pro-forced-pregnancy orgs fall out on the subject as the vaccines progress through the FDA approval process, but Jessica's not just talking unfounded shit.

Kristen:

The protestor you encountered, according your acccount, was she trying to block the vaccine?

Saying "my daughter will never have it" and it will make you slutty etc is not the same as asking for the vaccine to be blocked.

Is any Christian activist group or any block of conservative Christians attempting to block the vaccine?

Here was her quote:

> Christian conservatives
> are trying to block the
> vaccine for fear

Is this true, or is this made up? The only statements I can find from actual Christian groups are statements of support for the vaccine's approval.

Jessica says that "Cause obviously you're much better off with cancer than multiple sex partners." - attributing this idea to conservative Christians. Is this a true reflection or is it just her view of what a conservative Christian might say?

dp, if you find my humor and writing so offensive maybe you should go troll somewhere else. i really don't need my threads to become all about you--which seems to have happened in the same sex marriage post from yesterday. damn i can't wait till my comment registration kicks in.

Sure conservative Christians wouldn't come right out and say "you're much better off with cancer than multiple sex partners." But they will say this: "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful' Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, 'because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/pollitt

Conservative Christian opposition to this vaccine is well-documented and out there dp, just do a little research yourself.

Believe me I am not christian or religious, but I can not believe all of these folks out there who have so quickly just jumped on the drug companies' band wagon over this one. You mean I am just supposed to automatically trust what Merck says about their new 'HPV vaccine?' Like I was supposed to trust what they had to say about Vioxx? Well, let's hope that in California some new legislation will pass soon which will require all drug study data to be made available to the public? Did you all realize that doctors and the public do not currently have access to ALL drug study data? And we are talking about drug tests which are done by the companies producing the drugs, right? Not like independent studies or something? That would just make too much sense or something?

What else? I tell you, all of these folks talking about making an experimental drug mandatory are truly frightening, imo. Ever heard of the Nuremberg Code ? And yes, I do consider this to be n experimental drug even if it has already been 'tested.' From what I have read, some might really like to have their drug, vaccine made mandatory as this might insure govt. funds, more money to be made? Go and read some of the reports on this drug in some of the financial sections of different publications? Think this sounds like a good stock tip?

What about some I read about some wondering if there was a possible link between this vaccine and birth defects? What other possible problems are associated with this? Anyway, I am hardly just going to be jumping on the bandwagon on this one, running around spewing the sales pitch lines, until I know a lot more about this? If someone would like to explain more I am more than happy to listen. Thanks!

Tongue,

I read the article before posting.

The Family Research Council does not want to shelve the vaccine.

I am asking you this: is there justification to the statement "Christian conservatives are trying to block the vaccine...".

Just because the FRC or any other group is going to recommend to people that they not use the vaccine does not mean they want to block the vaccine from becoming available.

In fact, the FRC says explicitly:

Media reports suggesting that the Family Research Council opposes all development or distribution of such vaccines are false.

So, can you backup your claim (and Jessica's claim)? Are any conservative Christian groups attempting to block the vaccine?

Jessica,

1. I don't find you offensive.

2. Are you saying that your statement: "..Christian conservatives are trying to block the vaccine for fear that it will make young girls slutty.." was a joke?

3. Why am I trolling? You are making a specific claim - that conservative Christians are attempting to block a very important life saving great vaccine that will improve health the world over.

I am asking you to backup your claim. Can you do that? So far you haven't provided anything that justifies your claim that Christian conservatives want to aide in the cancer death of 200,000 women a year.

DP: Although the conservative groups are now only trying to block the mass inoculations necessary to wipe out the disease, this is actually a fallback position for them because they got hammered over their initial opposition to it being distributed at all. (This was a year or so ago. I remember my disgust quite distinctly. I didn't keep copies at the time, sadly, though I found a reference to the flip-flop at http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/LOCAL/205310319/1078/news)

The groups involved that I remember were Dobson's Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. There may have been others that came out during that period as well, but those are the ones that stuck in my head.

Make no mistake, however, about their final reasoning, even if they have given up on a complete block: these are people who want girls who have sex to develop cancer, so they can serve as "object lessons" to keep others in line. "Family Values" apparently include supporting a death toll in the thousands each year.

Zed,

Thanks for a very helpful post. I am digging through some of the sites listed in archived format to find statements. If I can find any directly from them I will link here shortly.

Checking all of the sites that are current, I don't believe any support blocking the vaccine.

And, oh wait! What happened to the theory that herpes caused cervical cancer? What about what I have read about a deficiency in folic acid being linked to cervical cancer? Is that right? What about what I read about the birth control pill, smoking, etc., being linked to cervical cancer?

Uh, yes, I would imagine that injecting folks with toxic chemicals would cause an immune response? Not sure what all they've put in this 'HPV vaccine,' but from what I have read, in other vaccines folks add aluminum which causes an antibody response? Well, lots of allergenic, toxic substances, and now maybe even genetically engineered junk, foreign proteins, etc., put in vaccines? So, no, don't be surprised if someone has an immune response? But this hardly means that someone has artificially created some kind of future immunity to something? How is having an immune reaction to some synthetic/toxic/allergenic junk going to create future immunity to something non-synthetic, etc., anyway? ('Uh, yeah, I had an antibody reaction to some genetically engineered proteins, so I am all good to go! Woo-hoo! Got my invisible shield on too!')

What did I read? That this ('HPV vaccine') is not a vaccine in the traditional sense of the word anyway? But calling it that nonetheless? Can someone explain this to me?

DP sent me a lovely email saying that I "owe Christians a public apology for distorting and outright fabricating opposition to this vaccine when in fact there is none." Yeah, I just love to make shit up.

For more information on the opposition to the HPV vaccine, click here, here, and here.

And please don't feed the trolls.

Yeah, cause opposition to the HPV vaccine is all founded on concern about drug safety . . . I'm sure those are exactly the same concerns that conservatives have about Plan B--just want to keep women safe--thanks conservatives.

db:

I have no idea what you read. I remember reading that the world was made out of the snot of a giant when I was very young, but I wouldn't base my decisions on that.

In any case, the clinical trials of Gardasil came out with 100% effectiveness. If you're implying that Gardasil is not effective, or is going to actually cause cancer, you're going to need better evidence than, "I don't understand biology."

As to it not being a vaccine in the traditional sense of the word, "traditional" vaccines are made by injecting dead or mostly dead viral particles into the body, and letting the immune system key itself to them directly, with the downside that sometimes, rather than getting immune, you get infected instead. In the case of Gardisil, it's what's known as a recombinant protein vaccine, which is to say that it has particles that contain the signature elements of the virus (enough to train the body on) without actually having the risk of real virus particles.

It's still a vaccine in the sense that you get injected with something that provides an immunity for the next several years. This is how the word "vaccine" is used by the common population, which, like you, generally doesn't understand the fine details enough to make inventing a new word helpful.

What responsible parent would deny the vaccine to their daughters?

Even if the little darling remains chaste until marriage there is no guarantee that she won't be raped or sexually assaulted.

There is also no guarantee that her loving husband might be getting a little on the side and although men do not get cervical cancer, they can pass the virus on to their partners.

Is there some reason why a post I made (db) is now attributed to 'dp' and a post I think 'dp' made is now attributed to 'db?' Just curious. Does this kind of thing happen often on this board?

Yeah, cause opposition to the HPV vaccine is all founded on concern about drug safety . . . I'm sure those are exactly the same concerns that conservatives have about Plan B--just want to keep women safe--thanks conservatives.

[sigh] What this issue does once again show is that women's health and safety in this country are seen as less important than promoting a political agenda that punishes them for engaging in sex--just like with misoprostol.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/04/CMGPOIP80O1.DTL&hw=abortion&sn=001&sc=1000

I always wonder what is it going to take to make women across the board begin to wake up and demand proper and timely healthcare, and refuse to see their bodies as merely contested political terrain for the patriarchy? When will our lives and bodies be honored for what they are, instead as merely being seen as an avenue for reproduction?

More links to opposition to HPV vaccine:

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3429199D-5FE5-4795-B0E6-CD957617C160.asp

"Fortune magazine features a major article highlighting the debate. They quote members of powerful Christian and right-wing lobbying organisations including Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who said: "It sends the wrong message. Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."

"His views are echoed by Hal Wallis, a Dallas gynaecologist who is head of the conservative Physicians Consortium tells the magazine: "This isn't as much about morality as it is about good medicine. If you don't want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain, and when you find a partner, stick with that partner." Leslie Unruh, of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse adds: "I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100% preventable with proper sexual behaviour.""

big annie,

None of the people or groups you specify advocate against the availability of this drug.

These people's position is that because HPV can only be spread sexually there is no reason to force people to be vaccinated. They are personally opposed to forced vaccination.

So far as I can tell there isn't a single conservative Christian group who supports blocking availability of the vaccine to the public or who wish to see the treatments denied approval.

If some wish to believe in a bunch of corporate junk science and call that 'biology,' seems to be your right in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Okay. If this drug is designed to create future immunity, then why did I read in an article that it was being given to women who already had this virus?

Ha! Ha! If you want to believe in some ancient hick junk science *theory* of vaccines creating immunity, go ahead! Go and grow some creepy crud in some chicken eggs or on some mouse brains, or genetically engineer or create some synthetic proteins and pretend you are saving the world with this toxic junk if you wish, but I think I will listen to some smart vegans, medical professionals, other folks who have read quite a bit about what a bunch of bunk vaccine theory is? Got any more hick farm/lab remedies for us? Yeah, and how much money has been paid out of this Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund? Billions? Is that right? Surprise, surprise? And who wants to give drug companies immunity from legal action against them if their vaccines, drugs, injure and kill folks? Republicans? What else? The pharmaceutical industry was a top donor to the Bush-Cheney campaign, also helped get Blair elected? I know, I should just trust these companies cuz they are really just trying to save the world, just have the best of intentions. Ha! Ha!

Must be hard work to be a troll dp. Kind of like stalking requires the will to go that extra mile and sit outside of someone's house all night, trolling also requires fire and spirit.

What opposition to this drug or any other couldn't possibly be about concern over drug safety? You mean groups like Public Interest Research Groups, Consumers Union, etc., aren't really trying to get legislation passed so that the public will have access to all drug study data cuz they are concerned about safety, consumer protection? They are really being controlled by radical christian groups who just want to stand in the way of folks getting important drugs? You mean, properly-taken, properly-prescribed prescription drugs are not really one of the leading causes of death and injury in the U.S. every year? Killing hundreds of thousands and injuring millions more? You mean taking something like an over-the-counter pain killer is just super safe, not really killing tens of thousands of folks every year? Etc.? Just a bunch of crazy christian kooks! I know! What is the world coming to?! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hey! Do you also think it is ethical to tell folks in some places in Africa that they have 'HIV' without ever even giving them any kind of test? Without any kind of proof that they have 'HIV' in their bodies? Just based on clinical symptoms of extending fever, upset stomach, wasting, etc.? Think it is okay for some to tell folks they have 'HIV' just based on symptoms cuz you know! 'so many folks over there have it and they are all running around giving it to each other, so if someone comes in with the symptoms it is safe to assume that they have it?' Ever take logic or ethics?

I don't know what kind of parent would deny their child this vaccine Annie. I imagine poor parents will have to be the ones that see their daughters go without, people are already predicting that cervical cancer will become a poor woman's disease, because it's looking like this vaccine is going to be ridiculously expensive--don't even let me get started on how treating cancer is now seen as an easy and fun way to suck out all the money of people's pockets, cause they don't have any other options [double sigh].

db:

I can only come to the conclusion that you are either completely insane, or deliberately trolling.

You don't believe in the existence of functioning vaccines? You don't believe in clinical trials?

I will address one thing, however: if you read that this is being intended for those that have already contracted the virus, your source is woefully misinformed. It has been quite clear from the beginning that Gardasil (or any other similar vaccine) will have pretty much zero effect on anyone who has already contracted the strains it protects against, which is why it is so important to put it in the mass inoculation program so that kids are getting it by the 10-15 year old range (which is when the antibody response is going to be strongest anyway).

The only possible time when taking this vaccine post-HPV infection is going to be helpful is if by some freak chance you managed to catch only one of the more exotic strains, without catching the four most common that the Gardasil covers.

I don't think anyone is planning around that, however. It's been pretty clear that this is intended for kids who have not yet had sex. It isn't going to have any immediate effect on cancer rates. The results of a mass inoculation now will be felt 30 to 40 years from now, when HPV-related cervical cancer drops by 80%.

Zed,

your points are crystal clear, but won't have any affect on dp. Just don't feed the troll, and let's collectively move forward with this discussion. See how we've all got mired in discussing how vaccines work? That's not the level of debate we want to see here!

That said, do you think that if the House and Senate move toward more Democratic control that we will actually start to see more advances in science and health procedures related to sexual health and women's health?

A lot of people are opposed to forced vaccination. A lot of people who are on the left, are not religious nuts, who are not worried about some vaccine making young folks promiscuous, etc. What? Do some of you also actually believe that there was no link between vaccines and autism, links between many, many injuries and deaths over the years? There are plenty of people who never had their children vaccinated with all of this crud and their children did not die or even get sick with any of these illnesses? I was cracking up with my one friend who was telling me he took his baby in for a check up and they wanted to give his kid a hepatitis c vaccine. I don't know how old he was, probably under one year. So my friend was like 'and how long does it last?' He was told 'seven years.' Then he asked 'and how do people get hep c?' Was told that it was mostly a problem for intravenous drug users, and given a list of other ways that someone gets this where the chances of his kid getting it between under one year of age and seven or eight were basically, uh, non-existent. My friend sat there and stared at the person recommending this vaccine and I think must have been thinking something along the lines of 'we have just got the best and brightest pushing these ridiculous drugs I guess?' I mean, just take a moment, ponder a few questions and think it through? Ha! Ha! Wanting to give some infant a hepatitis c vaccine? OMG! It might be funny if it wasn't so creepy? I am glad that my friend has enough sense to not have let them inject his sweet baby with any creepy crud that is fer sure!

Just last week I had a discussion about this with my doctor while in for my annual physical.

For what it's worth, she told me that the parents of some of her patients have already informed her they would refuse to have their daughters vaccinated and that they (parents) would teach their girls to practice abstinance instead.

My doctor just shook her head. She obviously KNOWS who is having sex.

I agree that it would be great if the HPV vaccine were mandatory the way the other childhood shots are. But it doesn't seem that bad if it's at least available the way birth control is.

I went to a religious high school with no sex ed (because none of us were having sex, of course), so you can count me in the legions of teens who cut school to get birth control. Of course, I was fortunate enough to be living near a big city that has Planned Parenthood.

As for the argument: "Unlike other diseases HPV isn't going to transmit except through sex. It's not, like say, whooping cough or measles. So, if fundamentalists refuse the vaccine they are only hurting themselves, not the public at large."

Sigh... think of the children of the fundies.