Octopus Overlords

ages 11 or 12.

Kinda surprised I haven't heard anything about this before.

ATLANTA (AP) — Taking up a potentially explosive issue among religious conservatives, an influential government advisory panel Thursday recommended that 11- and 12-year-old girls be routinely vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Ohhh boy. How much do mommy and daddy love the sexual health of their little girls....

Scientists say the vaccine is most effective when given to girls before they become sexually active. About 7% of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13, and about a quarter of boys and girls have had sex by age 15, according to government surveys

I always wonder about these numbers. My guess is they're a bit higher.

Gardasil, made by Merck & Co., is the first vaccine specifically designed to prevent cancer. Approved earlier this month by the Food and Drug Administration for females ages 9 to 26, it protects against strains of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers and genital warts...The panel focused on 11- to 12-year-olds in part because children that age already routinely get two other shots

I can't even imagine trying to make this decision in 10 years. Good lord.

Smoove_B wrote:ages 11 or 12.

Kinda surprised I haven't heard anything about this before.

ATLANTA (AP) — Taking up a potentially explosive issue among religious conservatives, an influential government advisory panel Thursday recommended that 11- and 12-year-old girls be routinely vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Ohhh boy. How much do mommy and daddy love the sexual health of their little girls....

Scientists say the vaccine is most effective when given to girls before they become sexually active. About 7% of children have had sexual intercourse before age 13, and about a quarter of boys and girls have had sex by age 15, according to government surveys

I always wonder about these numbers. My guess is they're a bit higher.

Gardasil, made by Merck & Co., is the first vaccine specifically designed to prevent cancer. Approved earlier this month by the Food and Drug Administration for females ages 9 to 26, it protects against strains of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers and genital warts...The panel focused on 11- to 12-year-olds in part because children that age already routinely get two other shots

I can't even imagine trying to make this decision in 10 years. Good lord.

I read about it awhile ago, maybe becuase I was married to an OB/GYN, don't know. It was all over the local paper yesterday too. I didn't pay any attention to it because I thought it was old news.

LordMortis wrote: I read about it awhile ago, maybe becuase I was married to an OB/GYN, don't know. It was all over the local paper yesterday too. I didn't pay any attention to it because I thought it was old news.

I knew the vaccine was coming out; I didn't expect to see this kind of recommendation. FWIW, I think it's fantastic. But I can't imagine (as a parent) coming to terms with providing that shot. Similarly, I can't imagine NOT providing it.

I honestly don't remember reading about this kind of conundrum in the "So You're Going to be Somebody's Daddy" brochure.

I heard about this because various religious groups were campaigning against it because it promotes sex.

Mr. Fed wrote:I heard about this because various religious groups were campaigning against it because it promotes sex.

Well duh - that's what the female circumcision is for.

Mr. Fed wrote:I heard about this because various religious groups were campaigning against it because it promotes sex.

Also the dramps deserve it since they are screwing around.

There's no conundrum for me but there are for others. My daughter will be getting the shot.

Smoove_B wrote:I honestly don't remember reading about this kind of conundrum in the "So You're Going to be Somebody's Daddy" brochure.

Are there any side-effects or drawbacks to getting the shot?

Otherwise, as the parent of a one-year old daughter, I don't see the conundrum. Just because Elise gets a shot to prevent cancer doesn't mean I want her to boff the football team.

Exodor wrote:Otherwise, as the parent of a one-year old daughter, I don't see the conundrum. Just because Elise gets a shot to prevent cancer doesn't mean I want her to boff the football team.

Well, it's a personal-health issue. Providing vaccines against whooping cough or hepatitis is one thing. But as a parent, making a decision regarding your child's sexual health? That one has me a bit creeped out.

Just like I wouldn't take her to the doctor when she starts menstruating and get her Depro or whatever it is they do now.

I don't think the vaccine encourages sex; it just seems weird to be making that kind of sexual assumption for a minor.

Exodor wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:I honestly don't remember reading about this kind of conundrum in the "So You're Going to be Somebody's Daddy" brochure.

Are there any side-effects or drawbacks to getting the shot?

Otherwise, as the parent of a one-year old daughter, I don't see the conundrum. Just because Elise gets a shot to prevent cancer doesn't mean I want her to boff the football team.

Yeah. I mean, what's difficult about this decision?

Smoove_B wrote:

Exodor wrote:Otherwise, as the parent of a one-year old daughter, I don't see the conundrum. Just because Elise gets a shot to prevent cancer doesn't mean I want her to boff the football team.

Well, it's a personal-health issue. Providing vaccines against whooping cough or hepatitis is one thing. But as a parent, making a decision regarding your child's sexual health? That one has me a bit creeped out.

Just like I wouldn't take her to the doctor when she starts menstruating and get her Depro or whatever it is they do now.

I don't think the vaccine encourages sex; it just seems weird to be making that kind of sexual assumption for a minor.

The only assumption being made is that your daughter will have sex at some point in her life. I'm with Exodor - I don't see the dilemma here honestly. If there was an HIV vaccine wouldn't you want your daughter to have that? If there was a vaccine for lung cancer would you not want her to get that at 11 because you're afraid it will lead to smoking?

Smoove_B wrote:I don't think the vaccine encourages sex; it just seems weird to be making that kind of sexual assumption for a minor.

I can see the conundrum if your twelve year old comes to you and wants to get a prescription for birth control pills - that's condoning underage sex.

But this is a vaccine that will prevent cervical cancer for life, right?

I don't want Elise to be more vulnerable to cervical cancer becuase I was sqeamish when she was 11 and she waited to get the vaccine until later, when it's not as effective.

Obviously each parent has to make this decision for their kids, but to me it's a no-brainer. I haven't discussed it yet with my wife (who is much more conservative than me), but I suspect she will agree.

Exodor wrote:
But this is a vaccine that will prevent cervical cancer for life, right?

Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.

Hopefully by the time I have to be involved in making this decision, good solid studies are around. Don't get me wrong. As Public Health Smoove, I'm all for it.

I just feel a little weird acting as the shepherd for the vagina of my 3 month old. I'm sure that'll change.

The difficulty is the honesty in which you give the shot.

Mommy, what's this gonna be for?

It will help you from getting cancer when you get older.

Why am I getting it now?

Because your gonna be out there giving blow jobs and getting fingered this year and next year that's not gonna be good enough for either you or your little hoodlum boyfriend, so he gonna try and get laid right before he breaks up with you and you're gonna do it, partly because you want to and partly becuase you think it's going to save your relationship with him.

Oh.




Wouldn't it be much easier to make part of your sixth grade phyiscal? I mean if they can poke a finger up a little boys ass and grab his nuts without explaining it, they can easily give a girl a shot as part of the battery of innoculations for the physical.

LordMortis wrote:
Wouldn't it be much easier to make part of your sixth grade phyiscal? I mean if they can poke a finger up a little boys ass and grab his nuts without explaining it, they can easily give a girl a shot as part of the battery of innoculations for the physical.

Where the fuck did you go to sixth grade? Prison?

Smoove_B wrote:

Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.

Hopefully by the time I have to be involved in making this decision, good solid studies are around. Don't get me wrong. As Public Health Smoove, I'm all for it.

Ah. I see the conundrum now. Why inoculate little Suzi at 11 when Cathy McChristian knows her daughter will remain pure?

Still a no-brainer for me, but at least I understand the issue.

Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school, said the group's policy analyst, Moira Gaul.

Making it required before school enrollment is a much stickier wicket.

LordMortis wrote:The difficulty is the honesty in which you give the shot.

Mommy, what's this gonna be for?

It will help you from getting cancer when you get older.

"It'll stop you from being sick"

Seriously - did you ask you parents about how you might get rubella or diptheria?

Mr. Fed wrote:

LordMortis wrote:
Wouldn't it be much easier to make part of your sixth grade phyiscal? I mean if they can poke a finger up a little boys ass and grab his nuts without explaining it, they can easily give a girl a shot as part of the battery of innoculations for the physical.

Where the fuck did you go to sixth grade? Prison?

It was the standard where we went because lord knows we all talked about it like:

I can't believe anyone is actually debating whether to get the vaccine.

Was there such a huge fuss when kids started getting vaccinated against hepatitis B? And did it cause a huge spike in childhood intravenous drug use and unprotected sex?

For the record, I'm an ob/gyn.

While HPV (the vaccine associated with 99% of cervical cancers) is sexually transmitted, even condoms do not provide adequate protection.

Currently, we perform Pap smears on women to detect the precursors of cervical cancer (known as dysplasia), and treat women before invasive cancer develops in most cases.

Many, many of the women that end up with abnormal Paps are young (teens and twenties), and the treatment can and sometimes does result in later reproductive difficulties (especially with more severe abnormalities and more invasive treatments).

I don't see the vaccine as promoting sex since for most of the women I see, HPV is the last disease they think about. Until the recent TV commercials, I would find it very rare that a patient would even know what HPV was or it's significance. The vaccine does not prevent chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomonas, herpes, or any other STD.

It's strictly a modality that can be used to help prevent cervical cancer.

The fact of the matter is that no vaccine can prevent a disease once you are infected. So for this vaccine to work, it must be given before the sexual debut.

i haven't yet read if this vaccine works on males. does it? because HPV (and HSV) is transmitted through basic skin-to-skin contact in affected areas - and condoms don't cover everything....

and does it prevent *all ~100 forms of HPV (including the asymptomatic ones)? that's a pretty big breakthrough in virus immunology, if so...

hitbyambulance wrote:i haven't yet read if this vaccine works on males. does it?

That's still under study.

and does it prevent *all ~100 forms of HPV (including the asymptomatic ones)?

No.

I think it's a GREAT idea. If they'd had this a decade ago, UE wouldn't be having such an epidemic. (blech)

Smoove_B wrote:

Exodor wrote:Otherwise, as the parent of a one-year old daughter, I don't see the conundrum. Just because Elise gets a shot to prevent cancer doesn't mean I want her to boff the football team.

Well, it's a personal-health issue. Providing vaccines against whooping cough or hepatitis is one thing. But as a parent, making a decision regarding your child's sexual health? That one has me a bit creeped out.

Just like I wouldn't take her to the doctor when she starts menstruating and get her Depro or whatever it is they do now.

I don't think the vaccine encourages sex; it just seems weird to be making that kind of sexual assumption for a minor.

Sorry for the double post... but what kind of sexual assumption? HPV is one of those diseases that women rarely think about until it's too late. And it's something that a condom does very little to control. I can't think of any good reason why I wouldn't have my child vaccinated against HPV. In my mind, that doesn't assume she's going to need it because she's promiscuous or somesuch, it simply protects her from something she may encounter in the normal course of life. (I forget the statistic, but the percentage of women age 30 with HPV is realllly high.) I have a friend who is having to deal with getting HPV from her first partner EVER. She was 20 at the time. So it's not just "dirty" girls who have a high chance of being affected. It can be anyone. I'd definitely want to protect my daughter if I could.

Exodor wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.

Hopefully by the time I have to be involved in making this decision, good solid studies are around. Don't get me wrong. As Public Health Smoove, I'm all for it.

Ah. I see the conundrum now. Why inoculate little Suzi at 11 when Cathy McChristian knows her daughter will remain pure?

Still a no-brainer for me, but at least I understand the issue.

Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school, said the group's policy analyst, Moira Gaul.

Making it required before school enrollment is a much stickier wicket.

I don't have a daughter, but I certainly wouldn't object to the shot. It's no different than vaccine for any other disease. If she wasn't allowed to enter school before the shot, I might have an issue with that, just for the principle of enforcing vaccines on people.

I have to say, I think it'd be terribly irresponsible for a parent to NOT have their child get this at the age required. When your girl turns 21 and gets cervical cancer from HPV and she says, "Why didn't you vaccinate me Mom/Dad"? Then proceeds to have to go through the terrible trials of cancer and potentially die... unreal. Like was already mentioned you don't have to tell your child, "Oh by the way, you just got a shot for sex diseases, whoppee!"
Say, "It's a vaccine to help you from getting sick".

As a Christian it pisses me off when parents make dumb decisions for their kids based on ignorance or their own perceived stigmas (though Catholic I vehemently disagree with the churches position on birth control).

"Sorry hon, we didn't get you vaccinated because we wanted the stigma of reproductive cancer to haunt you and keep you from having sex".

Agree. Unless studies show some counterbalancing risk, any daughter I may have will definitely get the vaccine at the appropriate time. To not do so out of some misguided sense of prudery in incomprehensible to me.

I have a 12 year old daughter and I'll be asking our doctor if this is available here yet the next time I see her. I can't see how getting her vaccinated against this is in any way encouraging her to have sex.

LordMortis wrote:The difficulty is the honesty in which you give the shot.
Mommy, what's this gonna be for?

They are talking about 11 or 12 year olds the majority of whom will be going through puberty by that age, not 3 year olds, whats wrong with telling them honestly what its for.

Reality Check: Cervical Cancer I see no debate here. If it is safe and prevents cervical cancer, then I am all for it. To not have it done (assuming all of this is safe) is completely disgusting and you need your head checked.

Thing 1 is 10 years old. She just had a checkup and I completely forgot to ask about this.

LordMortis wrote:Mommy, what's this gonna be for?

"Preventing Cervical Cancer."

What's the problem again? Heck, if they start getting into an early habit of checking for breast cancer, that's good too.

My mother had a hysterectomy shortly after I was born due to the early stages of cervical cancer being caught in time. Do you think she would have wanted that vaccine if it would have saved her that heartache? Do you think I'd withhold that vaccine from my daughter if it would save her that heartache years from now?

As was stated above, this doesn't prevent any other STD or pregnancy. There is no viable argument that this will increase teen sex rates.

Bakhtosh wrote:As was stated above, this doesn't prevent any other STD or pregnancy. There is no viable argument that this will increase teen sex rates.

At this point, I don't think even a magic pill that made sex 100% disease and pregnancy free would do much to increase teen sex rates.

Teens have always believed they are invulnerable.

Now it's official, a 100% consumer base: boys too!

CDC wrote:CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) approved today recommendations for routine vaccination of males 11 or 12 years old with 3-doses of HPV4 to protect against Human Papalloma Virus. The HPV vaccine will afford protection against certain HPV-related conditions and cancers in males, and vaccination of males with HPV may also provide indirect protection of women by reducing transmission of HPV.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Now it's official, a 100% consumer base: boys too!

CDC wrote:CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) approved today recommendations for routine vaccination of males 11 or 12 years old with 3-doses of HPV4 to protect against Human Papalloma Virus. The HPV vaccine will afford protection against certain HPV-related conditions and cancers in males, and vaccination of males with HPV may also provide indirect protection of women by reducing transmission of HPV.

What are the chances that the CDC is influenced by pharmaceutical companies? It ~kinda~ makes sense from a female sense. 1 out of 147 women will have to be treated for cervical cancer and 70% of them are from HPV. I'm sure the treatment is hundreds of times (economically alone) more expensive than the vaccine.

But boys? Or is it that the CDC just doesn't care how many resources are used? (Cost is $360 per treatment).

It's basic vaccination theory. Human females aren't the only reservoir for the disease. Add that to what seems to be a pretty low vaccination rate for girls (~40%) and it makes sense to recommend that same series of vaccination for boys - particularly when it seems like the rate of oral cancer in men is increasing beyond what could be attributed to tobacco use.

EDIT: $360 / treatment is exponentially less expensive than treatments for cancer and/or a lifetime of medication for warts.

Smoove_B wrote:It's basic vaccination theory. Human females aren't the only reservoir for the disease. Add that to what seems to be a pretty low vaccination rate for girls (~40%) and it makes sense to recommend that same series of vaccination for boys - particularly when it seems like the rate of oral cancer in men is increasing beyond what could be attributed to tobacco use.

EDIT: $360 / treatment is exponentially less expensive than treatments for cancer and/or a lifetime of medication for warts.

Yeah, you're vaccinating the boys because of the large number of girls that aren't being vaccinated. However I get uncomfortable when it's viewed as a cancer vaccine. It's no more a cancer vaccine than a nicotine patch is a cancer vaccine. It helps reduce the incidence of something that causes cancer. It doesn't vaccinate against cancer, it vaccinates against HPV.



Also, just a minor point, the typical consumer/insurance cost is a bit more than $360, probably more like $450-$550. Wikipedia seems to have the wholesale price (and an old one at that).

Smoove_B wrote:It's basic vaccination theory. Human females aren't the only reservoir for the disease. Add that to what seems to be a pretty low vaccination rate for girls (~40%) and it makes sense to recommend that same series of vaccination for boys - particularly when it seems like the rate of oral cancer in men is increasing beyond what could be attributed to tobacco use.

EDIT: $360 / treatment is exponentially less expensive than treatments for cancer and/or a lifetime of medication for warts.

Exactly. Girls have to be getting the virus from someone. If we have it in our power to eliminate 70% of all cervical cancers (and some cancers of the mouth), is $360 too much to ask? Of course, this wouldn't be necessary if 100% of girls got the vaccine but since they don't it makes sense to vaccinate any potential carrier of the virus.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:It's basic vaccination theory. Human females aren't the only reservoir for the disease. Add that to what seems to be a pretty low vaccination rate for girls (~40%) and it makes sense to recommend that same series of vaccination for boys - particularly when it seems like the rate of oral cancer in men is increasing beyond what could be attributed to tobacco use.

EDIT: $360 / treatment is exponentially less expensive than treatments for cancer and/or a lifetime of medication for warts.

Exactly. Girls have to be getting the virus from someone. If we have it in our power to eliminate 70% of all cervical cancers (and some cancers of the mouth), is $360 too much to ask? Of course, this wouldn't be necessary if 100% of girls got the vaccine but since they don't it makes sense to vaccinate any potential carrier of the virus.

That's the wrong question. Of course it's worth $360 per person. The better question is can $360 per person (roughly 2 million males) for an annual cost of nearly $1 billion per year be better spent elsewhere?

If the actual vaccination rate for girls is 40%, don't you think it stands to reason that it will be even lower for boys?