I was part of the test for this vaccine. Watching this "controversy" has been one of the most frustrating things I've done in a while.

Among other things, HPV is different from other STDs because a) it causes cancer which can lead to sterility and/or death, and b) it can be carried by men who have no way of knowing they have it. Unlike other STDs that I know of, there are no symptoms for men - there isn't even an FDA-approved test for HPV in males. So, literally the only way a man can know if he has it is if his female partner gets it.

She then gets the uber-fun privilege of getting cancer, losing the option of having children, and possibly dying.

According to the CDC, approximately 50% of sexually active people contact HPV. That means that 50% of sexually active men are carrying this disease, and have no way of knowing it.

If there were a disease carried by 50% of men that caused their sperm to die? We have to wear freaking armbands or something. Of course, a vaccine that protects women encourages promiscuity.

Gross.

Ha, got a little ahead of myself there - that second-to-last paragraph was supposed to say:

If there were a disease carried by 50% of WOMEN that caused men's sperm to die? ...

wren:

Unlike other STDs that I know of, there are no symptoms for men

This isn't quite accurate. The term "HPV" actually covers a fairly wide range of viruses. The specific strains that cause cancer in women tend not to have any effects in men, but there are also strains that cause genital warts, and those do. Two of the most common cancer-causing strains and two of the most common wart-causing strains are covered by the vaccine, IIRC, and the male-affecting strains where deliberately chosen to provide incentive for males to get vaccinated.

Focus on the Family has no right to get involved in these scientific breakthroughs that aid women's health. Religious groups need to stay out of the scientific policy decisions, as well as government affairs. Great arcticle.

This circumstance is utterly horrifying on so many levels. I just can't stand that anyone believes there is any acceptable reason to stand in the way of preventing cancer. I don't want to hear about girls having sex too young, waving around examples of rape and incest, religious fanatics threatening their daughters with cancer to keep them chaste for their husbands.

Their is nothing to discuss once you lose parents and friends to cancer. Inoculate all girls early and thank everyone who participated in this advance in women's health.

Zed,

Thanks for the info. The study I was in was just for women, so I probably didn't get the whole picture.

Also, I had crazy comment-explosion above with slow browser loading. Sorry all!

Cervical cancer is caused by the human papilloma virus, which is sexually transmitted. By doing away with the fear of most cervical cancers, this vaccine may give adolescent girls a green light to have sex.


I know that, when I was a teenager, the things to fear from having sex were HIV and pregnancy--other STDs were not as much of a concern, and, of those, HPV was near the bottom (not as ugly as syphilis or herpes, not as painful as the clap, and, as I didn't want kids anyway, the infertility complication would have been considered a blessing). Now, if they made an AIDS vaccine, I bet many people would go out and engage in risky behavior (though this would not be a reason to withold it). HPV? Most kids don't know what it is, especially considering the current state of sex education.


Abstinence does play an important role in health education. But it can't be the only message.


I consider the sex ed I took in high school to be comprehensive and abstinence emphasizing. They showed you the different forms of contraception and how to use them, but emphasized that the only way to be 100% safe was to abstain. I guess I was lucky to have received so much information, but, then, I live in California...


Klepacki also did not consider the very real possibility that the source of the dangerous virus was the woman's husband.


This reminds me of that commercial which states that, when you have sex with somebody, you are having sex with all of their previous sexual partners, too. What if a woman was a "good girl" and stayed a virgin until marriage, and her husband, who has had many sexual partners (he's male, so of course it's okay for him to sleep around), is unknowingly carrying the virus?


You have to wonder about a policy that would throw American girls to the wolves because they had lost their virginity.


Is it really surprising? The abstinence-only crowd need people to make examples of.


"We support abstinence until marriage and fidelity in marriage," Klepacki said.


They say they support abstinence until marriage for both sexes, but primarily focus on girls' sexual activity (or lack thereof). Thet teach that it's the girl's responsibility to say no, because, unlike girls, boys can't be held responsible, much less condemned, for their sexual urges.


I bet that, hypothetically speaking, if testicular or prostate cancer were caused by an STD, and somebody made a vaccination for it that had to be administered before boys become sexually active, it wouldn't be considered controversial--because "boys will be boys."