Wednesday, October 26, 2011

CDC: We Must Spend Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Annually Vaccinating All Pre-Pubescent Boys Against HPV, in Order to Protect Future Homosexuals and

Girls Who Will Later Have Sex with Bisexual Men from Rare Cancers Affecting Perhaps Two Out of 1,000 People!

Buried deep in the article: “Vaccinating homosexual boys would be far more cost effective than vaccinating all boys, since the burden of disease is far higher in homosexuals.”

So, this is “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS” redux, at an eventual cost of billions of dollars, painful side effects for some, including death, merely in order to appease the insatiable vanity and thirst for power of homosexualists and their heterosexual allies.

Panel Endorses HPV Vaccine for Boys of 11
By Gardiner Harris
October 25, 2011
New York Times

Boys and young men should be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, to protect against anal and throat cancers that can result from sexual activity, a federal advisory committee said Tuesday.

The recommendation by the panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is likely to transform the use of the HPV vaccine, since most private insurers pay for vaccines once the committee recommends them for routine use. The HPV vaccine is unusually expensive. Its three doses cost pediatricians more than $300, and pediatricians often charge patients hundreds more.

The committee recommended that boys ages 11 and 12 should be vaccinated. It also recommended vaccination of males ages 13 through 21 who had not already had all three shots. Vaccinations may be given to boys as young as 9 and to men between the ages of 22 and 26.

The committee recommended in 2006 that girls and young women ages 11 to 26 should be vaccinated, but vaccination rates in the United States have so far been disappointing.

The vaccine has been controversial because the disease it prevents results from sexual activity, and that controversy is likely to intensify with the committee’s latest recommendation since many of the cancers in men result from homosexual sex. The HPV vaccine became a source of contention among Republican presidential candidates after some candidates criticized Gov. Rick Perry of Texas for trying to require that girls in his state be vaccinated. Representative Michele Bachmann falsely suggested that the vaccine causes mental retardation. [N.S.: I don’t recall ever seeing a Times “reporter” write that a Democratic pol had “falsely suggested” anything.]

But for the public health experts gathered in Atlanta, the vaccine’s remarkable effects were irresistible.

“This is cancer, for Pete’s sake,” said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a nonvoting member of the committee. “A vaccine against cancer was the dream of our youth.”

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease — between 75 percent and 80 percent of females and males in the United States will be infected at some point in their lives. Most [as in, what, 99.8 percent?] will overcome the infection with no ill effects. But in some people, infections lead to cellular changes that cause warts or cancer, including cervical, vaginal and vulvar cancers in women and anal cancers in men and women. A growing body of evidence suggests that HPV also causes throat cancers in men and women as a result of oral sex.

HPV infections cause about 15,000 cancers in women and 7,000 cancers in men each year. And while cervical cancer rates have plunged over the past four decades because of widespread screening [You know—pap tests?], anal cancer rates in men and women have been increasing. Head and neck cancers have also been increasing, with the share associated with HPV infection increasing rapidly — perhaps because oral sex has increased in popularity.

Parents of boys face some uncomfortable realities when choosing whether to have their child vaccinated. The burden of disease in males results mostly from oral or anal sex, but vaccinating boys will also benefit female partners since cervical cancer in women results mostly from vaginal sex with infected males.

Vaccinating the nation’s 11- and 12-year-old boys will cost almost $140 million annually, but the one-time catch-up among males 13 to 21 will cost hundreds of millions more. The government generally pays for about half of all vaccinations.
The committee has become increasingly concerned about the cost effectiveness of vaccines, since the newest vaccines tend to be very expensive while protecting against diseases that affect fewer people. Vaccinating boys is cost effective when vaccination rates in girls are relatively low, which they are now. Fewer than half of girls between the ages of 13 and 17 have received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, and fewer than a third have received all three doses.

Only about 1 percent of boys have received the HPV vaccine, even though the vaccine advisory committee has said that boys could be vaccinated against the disease if they or their parents wished.

Vaccinating homosexual boys would be far more cost effective than vaccinating all boys, since the burden of disease is far higher in homosexuals. “But it’s not necessarily effective or perhaps even appropriate to be making those determinations at the 11- to 12-year-old age,” said Kristen R. Ehresmann of the Minnesota Department of Health and a committee member.

Dr. S. Michael Marcy, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California and a committee member, said that the money needed to vaccinate 11- and 12-year-old boys would pay for only a few hours of the war in Afghanistan while potentially saving thousands of lives in the United States.

“I’m constantly being told we don’t have the money. Well, we do have the money,” Dr. Marcy said. “We need a new set of priorities, and we if we don’t set those priorities, who will?” [“A new set of priorities” includes forcing all normal boys to undergo vaccination for a disease spread by homosexual and bisexual men, and affecting perhaps one-sixth of one percent of the population? This isn’t medicine or “public health,” it’s hysterical, leftwing politics on steroids, backed up by state power.]

The vaccine loses effectiveness if it is given after the onset of sexual activity. More than one in five boys and girls have had vaginal sex by the age of 15, surveys show. But there are many strains of HPV, and Gardasil — the HPV vaccine manufactured by Merck — protects against four of those strains. Older boys and young men may receive the vaccine even after becoming sexually active in hopes that it might protect them against an HPV strain they have yet to encounter.

Separately, the advisory committee voted to recommend routine vaccination of diabetics under age 60 against hepatitis B infections, which commonly occur in older diabetics in long-term care facilities where blood sugar levels are checked using unsanitary methods. Diabetics 60 and older may get vaccinated as well, but the panel recommended vaccines only for those under 60 because that is when immune systems respond best to vaccination.

For HPV, the committee voted 8 to 5, with one abstention, to approve a recommendation that males 13 to 21 be vaccinated, with those voting against the recommendation hoping to make the upper age limit 26. Vaccinating men ages 22 to 26 is expensive and is likely to provide relatively few health benefits.

“The bottom line is that not all kids start having sex when they’re 13. Mine didn’t, I promise you,” Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, a clinical associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and a committee member, said to laughter from the audience.

Not only are the committee’s recommendations routinely used by private insurers to determine which vaccines to pay for, but the health reform legislation of 2010 requires insurers that participate in health exchanges to offer vaccines that are routinely recommended by the committee.

[Being that this was the New York Times, the majority of permitted commenters ignored the obvious, and vituperated against Republicans and Christians.]

October 25th, 2011
1:09 pm
Now can we get past GOP objections to this vaccination? I head recently in this paper that this virus causes more throat cancer than cigarettes. We have a cure and have to deal with a collection of neanderthals who refuse to recognize science. I think Michelle Bachmann is a major cause of mental retardation, not this vaccine.
Recommended by 84 Readers

October 25th, 2011
3:03 pm
You can get HPV from KISSING! [The hell, you can!]
Recommended by 7 Readers
Report as Inappropriate

October 25th, 2011
3:03 pm
Why did they experiment on GIRLS first?
Was that a patriarchal faux pas?
I am thinking GIRLS have a class action cause!
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers

[This sounds like a parody, but I don’t think it is.]

New Mexico
October 25th, 2011
3:05 pm
Obviously preventing oral, anal and rectal cancer in men is a good thing. However, since the vaccine needs to be given before sexual activity begins, and since parents have a lot of legal control over their children, it is likely that many parents will risk their childrens lives. And while some parent concerns are legitimate about any vaccine, many parents simply too stupid (= ideological) to know what to do.
Recommended by 24 Readers

[Oh, but of course. We socialists/communists/whatevers are never “stupid” or “ideological”!]

Columbus, Ohio
October 25th, 2011
4:12 pm
The usual cast of characters here, I see. Lose the paranoid ideologies and remember that they're your children, for god's sake. Just vaccinate the kids to PROTECT them. They'll thank you later. Wish the vaccine had been around prior to when I came to sexual maturity. Alas, poor Rorick (etc.)!
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers

[As everyone knows, Republicans, Christians, and conservatives are notoriously neglectful parents, as opposed to leftists who routinely teach their children to disrespect grown-ups and that it’s o.k. to shout their heads off in public places.]

October 25th, 2011
4:12 pm
Now watch as Republican crazies like Michelle Bachman claim that the vaccine should not be given to boys because it will encourage anal sex.
Recommended by 12 Readers

mary browning
miami beach, FL
October 25th, 2011
6:41 pm
To the writer that said that this sends a message to girls that we expect them to be promiscous, I say that an innocent young girl can marry a man that has had one encounter one night with a woman a couple of years ago and then this young bride can be infected if she has not had the vaccine.

This is not about unrealistic religious dogma. This is about real life.
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
[The Times censors did permit space to some voices of sanity, though they probably laughed to each other that “those are the crazies.” For an excellent, if long analysis of such thought, see Angelo Codevilla, “America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution.”]

Joe Doe
October 25th, 2011
4:12 pm
Does anyone notice the fact that the people who actually get cancer from this virus is less than 1% of the US population? It seems like this is more about gaining money for big pharma than actually finding a way to help rid the human body of this virus.
Recommended by 4 Readers

October 25th, 2011
6:40 pm
I will need more information on potential risks of this vaccine before deciding whether to immunize my teenage son. He has not shown homosexual tendencies (just the opposite) and so is probably not going to be at high risk for certain cancers. Yes, I understand that vaccinating him may lower the risk that a female partner will become infected, but I do not believe it is ethical to deliberately subject one's minor child to the risks associated with a vaccine in order to protect hypothetical unvaccinated future partners. Remember, that future partner's family has the right to have her vaccinated right now. As a parent, is is our primary responsibility to look out for the interests of our own minor children. If my son, at eighteen, decides to have the vaccination I will support his decision, but until that time I cannot ethically subject him a risk that may give him no benefit.

Again, I am not closing the door on this, I just want to see the risks and benefits spelled out more clearly.
Recommended by 2 Readers

new york
October 25th, 2011
6:40 pm
Cervical cancer is not a cause of concern in this country because of Pap smears and the fact that it is a slow growing cancer. The side effects of the vaccination is the unknown here. So now they drug companies are trying to scare the public with other cancers. There are certain ethnic groups that have virtually no history of risk! What is good for one is not necessarily good for all!
Recommended by 3 Readers

Phil Leigh
Tampa, Florida
October 25th, 2011
6:40 pm
This is more feminist domination.

The real objective is not to protect boys, but to protect girls. Gardasil is expensive and protects against only a small number of cancers affecting women. Texas has already given it to girls at no charge and girls can protect themselves by getting the vaccine.

Our society has a decidedly false "females are always victims" prejudice and ignores the true health needs of men and boys. Everybody knows that October is Breast Cancer Month, but few know that September was Prostate Cancer Month. Equal numbers of people get prostate and breast cancers annually, but *seven times* as much money is spent on breast cancer research. Men have shorter life expectancies but gender-specific medical research is heavily skewed toward women.
Recommended by 2 Readers

Monterey, California USA
October 25th, 2011
10:22 pm
One post claimed, "Vaccines are the single most effective method of preventing diseases." Not true, plumbing is the single most important method of preventing diseases, bar none.
Recommended by 4 Readers

steve from virginia
October 25th, 2011
11:07 pm

Monstrous: the US healthcare racket has no shame. More fear mongering: the greatest killer of young adults is auto wrecks. Where is the 'vaccine' for those: $4/gallon gasoline tax?

Unmentioned are Gardasil's serious side effects:

As usual there is the usual shameful spam from Big Government to wheedle the uninformed into using their children as guinea pigs in Big Pharma science experiments.

Not much different than TEPCO, frankly.
Recommended by 3 Readers

thomas bishop
October 25th, 2011
11:40 pm
'“I’m constantly being told we don’t have the money. Well, we do have the money,” Dr. Marcy said.'

speak for yourself. or else, put your money where your mouth is.

i would get the vaccine myself if it were not so expensive and the rates of cancer for men so low.

meanwhile, i should think about buying more safety features on a car, more safety features in my home or more nutritious and less fattening food to prevent things like diabetes and heart disease.
Recommended by 2 Readers

Brookline, MA
October 25th, 2011
11:40 pm
The cases of cancer stemming from HPV do not warrant widespread, costly vaccination in our nation of over 311 million people. The Centers for Disease Control web site states that in 90% of cases, the body’s immune system clears HPV naturally within two years. So, for that remaining 10% of people where HPV doesn't clear naturally, these statistics are straight from the CDC:

- about 12,000 women get cervical cancer, which can be identified by Pap tests and treated early. The rates diminish annually thanks to Pap testing, not HPV vaccination.

- Fewer than 6,000 Americans develop HPV-associated cancers, many of which are also related to alcohol of tobacco use:
1,500 women get HPV-associated vulvar cancer
500 women get HPV-associated vaginal cancer
400 men get HPV-associated penile cancer
2,700 women and 1,500 men get HPV-associated anal cancer
1,500 women and 5,600 men get HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers (cancers of the back of throat including base of tongue and tonsils)

And genital warts, while not pleasant, "will not turn into cancer"

All in all, more an argument for the drug makers than for citizens.
Recommended by 5 Readers

No comments: