Probably depends on what you're doing with the fingers. *grin*

Yeah, I know, cheap joke. It's early and I couldn't resist.

The timing on this is interesting for Canadians. The government of Ontario just announced that it will spend $39 million to offer free, optional Gardasil vaccinations to girls in Grade 8.

As a result we're arguing about the "Big Pharma" implications over at shamelessmag.com:

http://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2007/08/big-pharma-wins-again/

Wow, good thing for us queer women then!

But seriously, did they also find the virus in women's fingernails as well? Because then this study only shows its heterosexist leanings.

well, maybe now that hpv is affecting men, then something will actually be done about it...

sad. but true.

well, maybe now that hpv is affecting men, then something will actually be done about it...

[sense my annoyed sarcasm.]

Completely off-topic, but that fingernail looks unnaturally sharp. Anyone else wincing?

Okay, so that means I definitely need to pay off my credit card so I can afford the vaccine. Is it even still effective in 21 year olds, though?

Is it really a joke, Kimmy? I certainly assumed that HPV would arrive under men's fingernails due to touching genital areas (yes, it is heterosexist). The article does not draw any conclusions as to how the HPV gets there, but that wouldn't definitely be my first guess.

In a way, it really does make sense, doesn't it? HPV does not require sexual intercourse to be contracted . . .

I've posted here about this research before. HPV is not completely transmitted through sexual activity. Calling it "sexually transmitted" is an easy way to implicate morality into health care issues.

Skittles, it's officially considered effective up to 26 (I'm 26 and just finished my course of shots in June). It might even be effective well beyond that, but there haven't been enough studies conducted yet to say for sure. My doctor offers it to women over 26, for what it's worth (but insurance won't cover it past 26, for now anyway). At 21, you're totally fine.

this really speaks the the need for comprehensive sexual health education (especially that which takes into account queer women).

...just kind of wondering why, if the study is about young men's grubby fingernails, a prettily manicured lady finger is shown...
Que?

...just kind of wondering why, if the study is about young men's grubby fingernails, a prettily manicured lady finger is shown...
Que?

So this definitely makes me want to get the shot more now!

I was wondering though, is anyone else conflicted about getting it? I told my mother I was saving up to get it and she flipped out. She pointed out that we don't know if there will be any long term effects (she referenced the supplement that was given to pregnant women way back that ended up causing waves of serious cancer in their daughters) and said that she fears that we're going to end up with a generation of girls who can't have babies or that the babies will have birth defects or some other disastrous side effect. She basically begged me not to get it. Since then I've been mulling over whether or not I should get it, I mean I don't want HPV or cancer and I feel like time is of the essence here, but my mom threw that lovely shadow of doubt into my mind and now I don't know what to do.

Does anyone know more about the research that's been done? I just want to be able to get it without having this horrible fear hang over me that 10 years down the line we're going to find out something terrible, or that my kids are going to suffer for it. :(

Newslang, I think it's smart to be cautious. From what I've read about Gardasil (and that is admittedly not terribly extensive), possible long-term effects of vaccination are not well-known, as it hasn't been in existence long enough for any to be noted.

I was diagnosed with HPV in 1999, and found out about 5 years later that I have one of the strains associated with cervical cancer. While a part of me wishes that a vaccine had been available back when I became sexually active, this has more to do with wondering if I could have avoided the emotional trauma of being told I had an STD than with any gravely serious concerns I have about my health. I doubt that this will go over well here, but... it hasn't been that big a deal, healthwise. I've been careful to get a Pap smear every year since '99; only once since my diagnosis have I had an abnormal result, and those abnormalities had disappeared when I got my next smear 3 mos. later. The one good thing about cervical cancer is that it is very slow-moving, easy to detect in early stages with regular Paps, and very treatable in these stages. All of these reasons contribute to a relatively low fatality rate from cervical cancer.

I realize that many women do not have the means for or access to regular gynecological care, and for that reason, I don't want to minimize the risks of HPV or cervical cancer. It's also nigh impossible to argue that a vaccine that could prevent most cases of cervical cancer should not be available to every woman and girl (unless you want to start attaching penalties for sexual behavior, and only assholes do that, right?). However, I don't know that there is enough information in about the risks of the vaccine yet to allow individuals to run the best cost-benefits analyses for themselves.

Umm...that's why proper ladies wear white gloves! Didn't you know that?

no touching!

I was also diagnosed with one of the strains of HPV which has been linked with cervical cancer. However, it cleared up on its own and all of my Paps since then (like 5 in a year and a half) have been normal. This experience, however, did not make me want to get the Gardasil vaccine when I heard of its existence. This is because of the hundreds of strains of HPV, I think Gardasil has been proved effective against like 4. Perhaps if it was free or at least discounted I would do it, but right now I just can't justify spending the money on it. So I figure I will just keep going in for my Paps (my doctor finally let me go back to just two a year- it was 4 for the first year), and if anything bad happens, it will at least be caught early.

Is there a reason why women should have this vaccine and men should not? The more people that are vaccinated, the fewer transmissions of the virus, correct?

"Skittles, it's officially considered effective up to 26 (I'm 26 and just finished my course of shots in June)."

I heard that it's effective unless one already has HPV, they recommend getting the vaccine before having sex. The official standard is age 26 simply because the studies covered participants up to age 26. Maybe they didn't think about virgins age 27+?

My understanding, from speaking to my doctor is they have 26 as an arbitrary cut off due to price (in australia its free for under 26's) and that the studies used women 26 and under... And im 27....

Doug S., that's the other thing I was worried about. I mean, they don't ever give things to men that they think could badly affect them (women's bc pill-barely researched, man's bc pill-researched for like 10 years). It's something that infects both sexes, so how come it's just all the girls who are getting the push to get the vaccine?

The best way to prevent cervical cancer is to have regular gyno visits with pap smears. Note: this is also more cost effective and would help poor women more than a very expensive vaccine. And, it doesn't make big pharma rich on the backs of women's fears in the process.

As someone pointed out, cervical cancer is slow-moving. I asked my doc about this and it's women who have had years without care (mostly poor women) who are the ones dying from it. So, if we had oh, say, universal health care we'd eliminate most deaths from cervical cancer.

Note to self: what a crazy world being bedfellows with right-wing nuts who are against the vaccine (because they think the vaccine will cause girls to have sex).

Ourbodies Our Blog had some great posts on this.

Cara - since neither article says where it came from (in fact, they don't know) or how many men were tested, I could see where you might think that. However, I just can't imagine these men all had finger-to-genital contact with an HPV pos person recently enough to test positive. Although, it’s possible due to it’s ability to survive separate from a host for long periods of time. This same virus cause skin disorders, i.e. non-genital/anal warts, too, so, to me, it suggests that there are other forms of transmission. Again, though, the article doesn't give us any info in that regard. There is this statement in the Seattle Post-Intellingencer article though:
"The presence of HPV under fingernails, she said, at the very least suggests another possible route of transmission. It's an additional route of infection, she said, that could explain some previous apparent anomalies such as HPV infection in infants and young girls who had not yet engaged in sexual activity."
If infants and young, not-yet-sexually active girls can get it, there is something going on here we don't yet understand. Gotta love viruses, always shaking things up.
And if I am wrong about the above, then these men need to learn how to fucking wash their hands!

It's not being given to men yet because it was mostly tested for effectiveness on women; women have priority because we have the most HPV-related health problems. Men don't get cervical cancer. Also, the 4 HPV strains that the vaccine covers were chosen because they cause 70% of cervical cancer and 90% of genital warts, so even though there are multiple strains of the virus it's still worth getting the shot. And even if you have had HPV in the past, it is still probably worth getting the vaccine; if you've had abnormal paps due to virus strains #6 #11, you can still have protection against strains #16 and #18, which cause genital warts.