Panel: Boys should get vaccine for HPV too

Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2011-10-25 19:56

Article here. No mention of girls getting vaccinated in part to prevent them from spreading the sexually transmitted virus to boys. Excerpt:

'A government panel wants young boys as well as girls to get the controversial HPV vaccine, in part to prevent them from spreading the sexually transmitted virus to girls.

The HPV vaccine has been recommended for young girls to protect them against cervical cancer and genital warts for the last five years. But the vaccine has been slow to catch on — only about a third of adolescent girls have gotten all three shots.

Experts say the HPV vaccine could protect boys against genital warts and some kinds of cancers. But they also say vaccinating 11- and 12-year old boys could help prevent them from spreading the human papillomavirus to girls.
...
There are two vaccines against HPV, but Tuesday's vote applies only to Merck & Co.'s Gardasil, which costs $130 a dose. The other vaccine wasn't tested for males.

An estimated 50 percent to 80 percent of men and women are infected with HPV in their lifestimes, although most clear the infection without developing symptoms or illness, according to the CDC.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The HPV vaccine is dangerous and ineffective. It's a profit scheme for the pharmaceutical companies.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lolnt/hpv_vaccine_will_finally_be_made_available_for/c2uco34?context=3

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by jayhammers on Wed, 2011-10-26 07:19

HPV vaccination is more focused on girls compared to boys for several reasons. Before I get into them I want to disclaim that I am only stating the reasons, not necessarily agreeing with them

First, a general statement about most STDs: Girls catch STDs easier than boys as a result of anatomy and the physical nature of sex. Our genitalia is inside, so it is harder to clean after intercourse, sexual fluids stay inside after intercourse (even after we shower), and if intercourse takes place around the time of menstruation then STDs have direct access to our blood stream. STDs harm fetuses if a woman has an STD while pregnant.

For females, HPV can cause infertility, and cervical cancer which can often lead to death. On males HPV can show up as warts that are visible and a man can seek treatment. If the virus does not produce visible warts he will still spread the disease, but will likely have no other consequences In females, the virus is inside her vagina or on her cervix so she likely will not be aware she has it even if warts are formed, so it is unlikely she would seek treatment if she is unaware of her condition.

There is some controversy about what types of HPV lead to cancer and how the HPV vaccine is being marketed to prevent these cancers. HPV warts can also lead to cancer in males, but it is very rare slow spreading forms of penile cancer with lower death rates compared to the quick-spreading cervical cancer risk for females

I believe HPV was first marketed to girls over boys as strictly a matter of efficiency especially when considering the cost of the vaccine ($360) compared to other vaccines which cost only a few dollars (even if the cost is covered by the government or insurance, an agency or taxpayers are still paying for it) . The majority of the population is heterosexual, and if you immunize one gender it effects the other gender. And as I stated above, the consequences for females catching the virus is far more sever (infertility, cancer, death) compared to the consequences men face (genital warts). and by immunizing women you protect fetuses as well (current and future pregnancies).

This can be viewed as sexist in two ways. It can be viewed as showing more concern for females over males or it can be shown as putting all the responsibility onto females and none onto males (many females were upset that only they were recommended for the vaccine). In Texas the governor, Rick Perry, put out an "executive order" for all young girls to get vaccinated!! without demanding the same for young boys (he received so much deserved criticism and his order was overturned)

Now the vaccine is being marketed to include boys. I am sure the manufacturer is thrilled. The article says "they" are recommending the vaccine for boys in part to prevent girls from getting HPV. I am not sure who "they" is referring to and if it really an official statement from any agency. I believe this is not good marketing practice for health care as healthcare should be about the wellness of the individual.

I recommend caution and knowledge when considering vaccines and should only be done for the best interest of the individual receiving the care. And I agree with Jay Hammers comment above. There is a lot of greed in the vaccination business. Manufacturers contribute heavily to politicians in hopes that their vaccine will be on the "must have" list.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Wed, 2011-10-26 23:25

"HPV increasingly causes oral cancer in men"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956090/ns/health-oral_health/t/hpv-increasingly-causes-oral-cancer-men/

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2011-10-27 00:17

Two observations, that may seem conflicting:

If the only medical reason to give the vaccine to boys is to prevent cancer in girls, that sounds like good medical practice. (I assume in that statement the vaccine is actually serving its purpose and is not just a marketing ploy by greedy Big Pharma--which it could be, of course.)

On the other hand, it's my observation that our society tends not to help boys or men until whatever problem they have affects women. Just helping the male sex is not enough; we need to justify it by saying it also helps women. That tendency muddles the issue here in ways that Kris describes.

It would be nice if the powers-that-be--such as the State of Texas--would help men without having to justify it by saying it also helps women.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2011-10-27 01:27