HPV Vaccine- For or Against It?

[QUOTE]

[b]catqueen wrote:[/b]

hm -- it would be shaky ground to [i]enforce[/i] it for guys if there were absolutely no benefits to them maybe.  (maybe)  But even still, its the greatest good for the greatest number.  If a guy being vaccinated prevented 3 girls from contracting it, then yes, i think its a worthwhile risk.  I see what you mean, but i don't think its completely right to say you cant expect people to take risks for other people.  They would be preventing themselves getting the virus in the first place, so there is benefit to them.  I'm trying and failing to think of an example where someone is expected to take a risk for other ppls benefit.  I guess bone marrow transplants, or live organ donation, but both of those are usually for specific people, and usually people known to the donor.  I do know some home carers who get the flu vaccine because of the impact flu would have on the person they care for, when the person they care for refuses to get the vaccine, but again, that is for the benefit of a specific person. [/QUOTE]
My point of course is not that it's a dog eat dog world and we're all on our own baby. Ha ha.  Consideration and concern for others motivates things each of us do voluntarily every day and it's a rewarding part of being a human being.  It would certainly be part of what I would cover in any discussion with my own son about any decision he might make to get the vaccination.  What I was reacting to was the assumption that seemed to be being made that the recommendation for boys was exclusively to protect the girls - that they were 'carriers' and such - and since it was for a school assignment I thought it might benefit the OP to think that through a bit more.

Back to our hypothetical situation. :)   There are more routes to a high number of boys being vaccinated than enforcement alone.  Cultural and social expectations for example, or messaging from health organizations and special interest fuchsia ribbon "Be a Dear and Protect Women from Cervical Cancer' type campaigns could all put upward pressure on the number of boys who  would eventually roll up their sleeve and be injected.  In Canada there are Gardasil adoption rates that vary by province from about 50% up to about 90%.  Let's hypothesize that with education and acceptance and lobbying we could eventually assume a steady average adoption rate of about 80% or so for both boys and girls.   So in a class of  30 kids (assuming 50% girls and 50% boys), 24 get vaccinated and 6 don't.  That leaves 3 girls unprotected who could benefit from immunity conferred to the boys.  So 12 boys have been vaccinated to potentially protect 3 girls.  We're already at 4 times the aggregate risk and none of the benefit.

Add to that now that the actual statistics are that it takes the vaccination of just under 800 girls to prevent one lifetime death from cervical cancer.   That's the girls directly protected themselves.  So by the time we statistically get to that special case where that one vaccinated boy who would have been among the percentage of people who otherwise would have contracted HPV, who now doesn't give it to the minority unvaccinated girl he's slept with, who now has to be among the small minority of girls who doesn't clear the virus on her own and instead develops a persistent infection, and further is one of the percentage again whose infection develops into cervical cancer, and that cancer is not caught during a regular screening of the type that is available to all of us from our late teens, and finally that the cancer is not cured or managed and eventually proves to be fatal - well by this time we have vaccinated at least several thousand boys to prevent the death of one woman from cervical cancer in her lifetime.  Given that that same woman could have been protected at a ratio of one girl:one shot it's clear that we would have asked a lot of our boys who's health and bodies should be just as valued.  Vaccination risks are small but real, from personal reactions to unsafe clinical conditions to getting hit by a bus on the way there.

Further thought experiment:  what if for every x number of women whose lives were saved under the above scenario one boy died from some circumstance of the vaccine.  This would fall under a purely objective 'greatest good' and you can choose the magnitude.  At what value of x would it become morally acceptable to adopt/encourage such a policy that would see, in effect, a boy who lost his life to cervical cancer?

That's all a little simplified and hypothetical but again I just thought it deserved more thought because such a scenario would neither be as straightforward or as morally clear as it seemed to me that people were presenting it.

I really hate all these statistics and "what ifs". In fact I do agree that people should not be forced to get vaccinated if they do not want to but first there is nothing "ethical" in not getting vaccinated and secondly most people who decide against vaccination are not making an educated risk assessment but are mostly uneducated, uncaring or even bizzarely misinformed or paranoid about the implications of vaccination. I googled the Michelle O'Bachmann incident and I have to say I am horrified about the ignorance and stupidity in a civilized person, just incredible.

Funny how we agree about the facts but disagree about the discourse: )

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] . In countries like Sweden and Finland vaccination is so normal that parents do not even think about it much. Once it is recommended by the government, people simply get the vaccination. As a result dangerous diseases like the measles are virtually non-existent in such countries. Health insurance usually covers vaccination.[/QUOTE]
Although the majority still opt for vaccination, the disturbing thing is that the anti-vaccination conspiracy-theory groups have gained popularity in Finland. For example, http://www.rokotusinfo.fi/english_html poses as a source of neutral information, whereas in reality they are really just another anti-vaccination group. I think these groups and their followers, mainly parents who opt not to ever vaccinate their kids, could start something disasterous, considering that they still put their own kids into public daycare and so forth. Then again, they can always count on all the other kids being vaccinated, so their non-vaccinated kids are less likely to get anything serious, right?

The microchips that I have received from all the vaccinations I've been injected with made me type this pro-vaccination message. Help me!

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] I really hate all these statistics and "what ifs". In fact I do agree that people should not be forced to get vaccinated if they do not want to but first there is nothing "ethical" in not getting vaccinated and secondlymost people who decide against vaccination are not making an educated risk assessment but are mostly uneducated, uncaring or even bizzarely misinformed or paranoid about the implications of vaccination. I googled the Michelle O'Bachmann incident and I have to say I am horrified about the ignorance and stupidity in a civilized person, just incredible.

Funny how we agree about the facts but disagree about the discourse: ) [/QUOTE]
Because this is a hypothetical situation, I didn't think we were discussing a discourse. :)  It is really more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.  Still, statistics are so integral to public health decisions that I don't think I've ever even seen the word "Epidemiology" without the words "and Biostatistics" trailing behind in any scientific, academic, public policy or think tank setting.   I laid them out to illustrate that far from catqueen's example of vaccinating one boy to save three girls the reality in any reasonably well accepted vaccination program with the goal of preventing cervical cancer would see the vaccination of 3 or 4 or 5 thousand boys to save one woman - one woman to whom the vaccination was equally available in the first place. I'm old enough to still swoon a little over chivalry but, jeez, I've got wonder a little how entitled we've gotten as a gender if we imagine this would ever be considered responsible policy or a reasonable expectation.  If the goal of a vaccination program was exclusively to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, as seemed to be assumed here, and not to prevent HPV infection for broader benefits on several fronts, it would simply never happen in my opinion.  Anything above 50% adoption would see an increasing statistical likelihood that the boy had undergone not only a completely unnecessary medical procedure for himself but for anybody else either!   If we agree that there is nothing ethical about not getting vaccinated, surely we can agree that there would be even less ethical about expecting thousand of boys to pick up the slack for every girl who didn't without exploring every single last other option first.

I'm starting to wonder if the idea wasn't to recommend boys receive the vaccine as a way to get more girls vaccinated. Seriously. Most women know better than to wait for men to do something that would protect them (the women). Hearing that boys should be vaccinated in order to help prevent the spread of the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer should alert women to the fact that most men won't do it and so THEY should do what needs to be done for themselves... and their daughters. Of course, there will always be some who will sit back, blindly believing the vaccine is either harmful or will promote promiscuity, but I think - hope - they are the minority.

MagicalFM you made me practically almost choke on an actual ice cube.  And these ice cubes have weird pointy ends, so it hurt! LOL  Anyway...holy gynocentrism Batwoman! My goodness! :)

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] MagicalFM you made me practically almost choke on an actual ice cube.  And these ice cubes have weird pointy ends, so it hurt! LOL  Anyway...holy gynocentrism Batwoman! My goodness! :)[/QUOTE]
Happy to be of service. ;-)

[QUOTE]

[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b] I'm starting to wonder if the idea wasn't to recommend boys receive the vaccine as a way to get more girls vaccinated. Seriously. Most women know better than to wait for men to do something that would protect them (the women). Hearing that boys should be vaccinated in order to help prevent the spread of the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer should alert women to the fact that most men won't do it and so THEY should do what needs to be done for themselves... and their daughters. Of course, there will always be some who will sit back, blindly believing the vaccine is either harmful or will promote promiscuity, but I think - hope - they are the minority. [/QUOTE]
Yeah well wink all you like!  You'd miss me if you killed me.  :P

Really though, vaccination recommendations follow on rigorous studies and empirical evidence, hopefully not done with too much influence by the drug companies, that must justify the initial or expanded use of the vaccine.  I don't think the above psyop  would meet that bar, to say the least.  I've read that some have hoped that targeting the boys will be easier because there is an expectation in the culture that boys will be sexually active while girls are expected to be chaste, and that perhaps the targeting of both genders would support a normalization of the program that would increase acceptance and participation across the board.  And of course there are secondary complementary benefits to the girls in reducing the spread of HPV and bridging gaps in acceptance which could certainly be included in the scientific justification, but not, I don't think ever, as the exclusive reason to expand the program.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b] Yeah well wink all you like!  You'd miss me if you killed me.  :P [/QUOTE] Truth be told, I would indeed. :-)

And, for the record, I don't actually believe there was a dark plan to trick women into having their daughters vaccinated. That comment was sarcasm. Some in society (lots in the homeschool community) have such an exaggerated paranoia regarding vaccines  - and they argue against them with such passion - that I guess I couldn't help myself. I really shouldn't post here after a long day without coffee. :-/

Update!
I did my presentation today! I grossed out everyone with graphic pictures and got voted as best persuasive speech! Tomorrow I'm representing my class in a public speaking showcase!!!!
Michele Bachmann is an idiot by the way...
Showed a clip of her talking crap about HPV shots
Haha got funny responses to that x]

Stay safe!!! :P

Hey that's great. :)   Good luck in the next round!

I just spotted someone on my Facebook news feed that thinks vaccines are a method of depopulating the earth, that planes are leaving 'chemtrails', and a bunch of other stuff that is well known to be bullshit ...

Biting my digital tongue as hard as I can.

I lost... :(
Guess HPV wart pics were too much for the judges... XD
Oh well..
I mean I lost a chance at winning money for textbooks or tuition
But thats ok! I think..

At least some classmates were there and said I was good!

Vaccines are probably one of the most beautiful and innovative inventions....
Thank you Edward Jenner for listening to those farmers about cowpox preventing smallpox!

If it wasn't for that, I have no idea where the hell we would be as a population...