In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

HPV Vaccine Approved!

Reuters reports that the FDA has approved the HPV vaccine. This is great news.

However, the approval process does not end the controversy. Individual states need to decide whether to make HPV vaccination mandatory for admission to public schools, which is where the religious-right opposition to the vaccine, called Gardasil, will be felt the most:

Much of the outright resistance to the vaccine has already softened, particularly after some of those who questioned it were publicly assailed as advocating “virginity or death.” But some observers predict renewed controversy when individual states decide whether the shot should be required for school admission.

In October, [Hal] Wallis [a former obstetrician-gynecologist from Waxahachie, Texas, who is part of the conservative Physician’s Consortium] appeared in a news release from the influential group Focus on the Family headlined, “Some question the ethics of a universal inoculation against a sexually transmitted disease.” Other conservative web sites posted similar concerns. A December blog on the Abstinence Clearinghouse declared: “Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let’s not encourage it by vaccinating 10-year-olds so they think they’re safe.”

Immunization studies have found that the best candidates for vaccination are girls around age 11 or 12, for biological and social reasons. A younger immune system may respond more robustly to the shot. And because about 30 percent of girls ages 15 to 17 already have had sex, public health officials want to immunize younger girls, before sexual exposure, during the time when HPV rates start to soar. Schools already are used as convenient depots for other health measures, including scoliosis checks and classes on teeth brushing.

Interestingly, Gardasil will not eliminate all forms of HPV, as it only protects against certain strains, and there is a second vaccine under development to immunize against other strains, which can also cause cervical cancer.

Merck predicts that if women worldwide are given the vaccine, cervical cancer deaths could drop by two-thirds. It is especially crucial that women in developing countries be protected from the virus, since they rarely receive screenings.

Now that the battle to get the vaccine approved has been won, the fight shifts to making sure that the vaccine becomes mandatory for school admission. There are several reasons why making the vaccine mandatory is important. First and foremost, universal vaccination — for both boys and girls — will do a great deal to eliminate the spread of the virus and to confer immunity on the herd (as with smallpox or polio or whooping cough or what have you). But then there’s the little matter of our fucked-up health care system here in the US — if a vaccine isn’t mandatory, insurance companies will do their damnedest not to cover it. I had to pay out of pocket, for instance, for my prophylactic tetanus shot prior to going to Louisiana because I wasn’t being treated for an injury for which a tetanus shot was indicated. Gardasil is not cheap, being a patented drug — it’s expected to cost $300 a dose. If it’s not covered by insurance, many parents may skip it, to the detriment of their daughters’ future health.

Public-health experts are watching the way the HPV vaccine controversy plays out because it’s seen as a dress rehearsal for other potential vaccines for sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV.

h/t Broadsheet.


40 thoughts on HPV Vaccine Approved!

  1. Does anyone here know anything about the approval process for new drugs/vaccines in Canada? I’ve been googling around as I’m interested to find out when this will be approved here, but I can’t seem to find anything.

  2. But then there’s the little matter of our fucked-up health care system here in the US

    Huh? The U.S. has a healthcare system?

  3. Insurance issues aside, I don’t see why it’s a big deal if the HPV vaccine is mandatory. We already have all sorts of vaccines that are not only voluntary, but covered by insurance – flu, pneumococcus (in multiple forms – the adult one and the otitis media one for toddlers), chicken pox, etc. Even the meningitis vaccine is sort of voluntary, in that you can opt out with a simple waiver. Most people get the flu and meningitis shot, and chicken pox and both forms of pneumococcal vaccine are pretty common among high risk populations.

  4. Gordon, several people have pointed out in the other thread that chicken pox vaccine is now mandatory in many if not most places. Flu vaccines are for one strain at a time only. Bacterial meningitis is a lot rarer than HPV, which affects a HUGE percentage of the adult population.

  5. I don’t know… it seems to me that there’s a reasonable argument for not making this vaccination mandatory:

    Vaccinations have side-effects (generally — I don’t know if that’s been shown in this case) and, unlike other diseases for which we vaccinate, HPV is not a risk to an individual if he or she is a virgin. So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %).

    That’s not to say that I think parents have a good sense of whether or not their kids are having sex or will have sex… and it’s not to say that I personally don’t think that HPV vaccinations should be universal. I’m just saying that the argument seems potentially valid, and perhaps not easily dismissed.

  6. HPV is not a risk to an individual if he or she is a virgin.

    Sure it is. You don’t have to be having P/V sex* to contract it.

    *I say P/V sex because that’s most people’s conception of virginity.

    So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %).

    But that child will one day (most likely) have sex, and this “virgins are safe” line is completely inapplicable in cases of rape and sexual assault.

  7. It’s also inapplicable if your lawful wedded husband has picked it up from somewhere and gives it to you.

    There is no magic force field given out by wedding rings that protects anyone from disease.

  8. So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %)….I’m just saying that the argument seems potentially valid, and perhaps not easily dismissed.

    This argument should be dismissed out of hand, considering that (a) parents can’t predict their child’s future actions (b) it discounts sexual assault, which statistics show is a real possibility (c) it assumes that their child’s future spouse will be a virgin and (d) HPV often shows no symptoms, making a girl who expects her future husband to be a virgin absolutely dependent on his truthfulness.

    I don’t know why parents would want to expose their child to a risk like that. Oh, yeah, it’s beause they believe that STI’s are dirty infections that only happen to dirty people, although some studies have estimated that 3 out of 4 adult Americans are infected with one HPV strain or another.

  9. The virginity argument is bogus. What if the kid is raped? 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted in the USA in her lifetime. Some are attacked as kids, others as adults so even if the girl wants wait until marriage she may not be granted the choice. Also as another said what if her future spouse is not a virgin when he marries or later breaks his marriage vows?

    And most of all what kind of sick, twisted people would rather let their daughters suffer and die because they had sex? I can understand wishing murderers and rapists dead but females who have sex – even once deserve to die and die horribly?

  10. My point was more that those vaccines I mentioned are all covered by insurance – at least on some plans – without making them mandatory. Call me crazy, but I think insurance coverage of vaccines should be attacked at the roots as a problem with insurance, not by making the vaccine mandatory.

    I suppose given the prevalance of HPV, you could make an argument from the public health standpoint, but that falls apart as well; if you’re concerned, you can protect yourself, so the public transmission issue is perhaps less of a threat.

    The reason I would be uncomfortable making the HPV vaccine mandatory is that this gives fundies an argument against allowing the vaccine at all (“they’re forcing it on us!”). Just because it’s been approved doesn’t mean approval can’t be withdrawn.

  11. So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %).

    This argument might, might, have some merit if it weren’t for the fact that the vaccine is most effective when it is given well before the person in question starts having sex. If you wait to a point where the vaccinee is likely to already be having sex, a) they amy be having sex and you don’t know it, and/or b) the vaccine may not be fully protective when the virus strain hits the system.

    And, as others have pointed out, assumptions of purity don’t mean much when you’re raped.

    By the time a woman is fifty, she has an 80% chance of having aquired at least one HPV strain. 80%! There are an enormous amount of carriers out there. Vaccinate them all early enough and let HPV go the way of polio.

  12. My point was more that those vaccines I mentioned are all covered by insurance – at least on some plans – without making them mandatory.

    Where are you getting this from? You didn’t even know that chicken pox vaccine was mandatory for many school systems.

    And how is the public health argument not a good one? Taking the libertarian stance of “I got my shot, too bad for you” is not what public health is all about. Public health is all about protecting the public at large, and such selfish thinking does not play into those considerations.

  13. It’s also inapplicable if your lawful wedded husband has picked it up from somewhere and gives it to you.

    There is no magic force field given out by wedding rings that protects anyone from disease.

    Zuzu–That would have been my parents’ logic. I think they actually believe cervical cancer comes from sexual activity, not from a virus. After all, they were the ones who said you don’t need OB/GYN exams until you’re married, because gynecological problems come from sex, and sex doesn’t happen until you’re married in our family (that’s how they think, not how it is).

    The question is, if cervical cancer is sexually transmitted, why do they still assume my husband will give me an STD? They never explained that one. (which is why I think they don’t realize it’s viral).

    My mom even told me that the only reason you should ever get a urinary tract infection is if you’re married–not kidding. (Because they only come from sex). Imagine her surprise when I got one from a cold while unmarried and not having sex.

    That theory was wonderful back in the days when 18 years old and marriage basically came together, so you could get your first GYN exam with your “Premarital Physical.” But today, they recommend that you get them at 18, married, nun, or otherwise. I chose to listen to science, not my prudish family.

    Bottom line though….I think that they still would have opted me out of the vaccine in high school if it wasn’t covered by insurance and non-mandatory, assuming that “She’s not going to have to worry about that for a few more years.”

  14. I suppose given the prevalance of HPV, you could make an argument from the public health standpoint, but that falls apart as well; if you’re concerned, you can protect yourself, so the public transmission issue is perhaps less of a threat.

    Two words: herd immunity.

    Public health vaccination campaigns are most effective if you can get nearly everyone on board, rather than seeing vaccines as a purely individual option for protection. No vaccine is 100% effective, so anyone individually getting the vaccine will have a chance (sometimes very small, as with the polio vaccine, and other times rather large, as with the flu vaccine) of turning out not to have gained immunity from the vaccine. And there will always be people who cannot take a particular vaccine, due to health conditions that create contraindications to that vaccine (for example, some vaccines cannot be taken by people with allergies to something that was used in making the vaccine). But if vaccination for a disease is widespread, it creates a sufficient immunity in the population as a whole that everyone is protected.

    This is also why sufficiently widespread use of condoms is a more effective measure against STDs than you would expect if you judge solely from the failure rate of condoms as a contraceptive device. For contagious illnesses, anything that protects the people form whom you would catch the illness also protects you.

  15. So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %).

    It seems unlikely that, even barring the risk of sexual assault, most people will stay virgins their entire lives. Remember, the vaccine is probably most effective when given at around age 10-11, partly because of a more robust immune response at that age. Delaying the vaccine on the grounds that sexual relations won’t start until later may reduce the chances of the vaccine being effective when it is given. (That having been said, I’m going out and getting the vaccine ASAP since, somewhat bizarrely for a sexually active 38 year old, I’m currently HPV negative. And I’d like to keep it that way if my immune system is still up for it. Plus that way I can be part of the post-marketing safety trial which hopefully will work out any remaining problems with the vaccine before my kid needs it in another 7-8 years.)

    Incidently, cervical cancer is not the only cancer associated with HPV. Penile cancer and head and neck cancers have been associated with HPV as well. So vaccinating the boys is not an act of charity towards their future partners, it protects them as well.

    One final word which should induce every woman out there who gets regular health care to run for the vaccine: Imagine a world where Pap smears are unnecessary.

  16. After all, they were the ones who said you don’t need OB/GYN exams until you’re married, because gynecological problems come from sex, and sex doesn’t happen until you’re married in our family (that’s how they think, not how it is).

    After my mom got cervical cancer and ended up having a hysterectomy, I was in the stirrups at age 16 (still a virgin). She drilled into my and my sister’s heads that annual checkups/tests are imperative.

  17. Oops, HPV has also been associated with non-small cell lung cancer and skin cancers as well. (Though obviously a weaker association than with cervical CA.) Just get the vaccine already, people.

  18. I suppose given the prevalance of HPV, you could make an argument from the public health standpoint, but that falls apart as well; if you’re concerned, you can protect yourself, so the public transmission issue is perhaps less of a threat.

    Except for if you’re one of those 1 in 3 American women who is sexually assaulted or raped. I guess if you get raped and your parents decided you didn’t need the vaccine, too bad for you? I’m not actually that worried about my kids. Both of them will get it, whether our insurance covers it or not. I’m worried about the low income parents who can’t afford to get it for their kids, the girls whose parents would refuse based on the “Only sluts get HPV” theory, etc… Unfortunately, even if you do make it mandatory, people can still opt out of vaccinating their children. If you provide documentation of a religous objection to vaccination in general, you don’t have to vaccinate your children. I had someone try to convince me to do it with my daughter, but I have no such objections and am firmly pro-vaccination. I do know of people in my school though that were never vaccinated.

  19. The “but we don’t know if someone will have sex”/”they could be raped”/”they might not marry a virgin” argument is weak and should be discounted. The alternative to mandatory school vaccination isn’t no vaccination; it’s just not compelling parents to vaccinate children. People can get themselves vaccinated when they’re old enough to consent to their own medical treatment – regardless of their parents opinions. No problem there.

    The argument that the “best candidates for vaccination are girls around age 11 or 12, for … social reasons” is the same reason people target girls that age for genital mutilation – if you leave them to their own devices, they might not make the ‘correct’ decision when they grow up. I don’t have too much respect for it: why can’t people make their own decisions for good or ill.

    Next up: mandatory school vaccination has historically been justified to stop school epidemics (there’s a shock!). But there’s no suggestion HPV causes school epidemics. I doubt many people pick it up by having sex in the school toilets. So why mandatory school vaccination? Like it or not, this is a big change in policy which you shouldn’t brush under the carpet: mandatory vaccination is being used to push something upon people for their individual benefit or for social benefit, depending on how you see things, rather than to protect children from infection at school. It’d be interesting to see what else you could justify with that line of reasoning, it’s extremely paternal.

    Lastly, can people stop bullshitting about herd immunity and the eradication of HPV. There are good reasons why this can be done with polio: the vaccine confers long lasting immunity, blocks the transmission of the virus, most of the non-vaccinated population is immune through past infection, and there isn’t a huge chunk of people with persistent infection. None of that’s really been shown to be the case with HPV. The reason people want to vaccinate is to prevent a disease (cervical cancer) in the vaccinees. We don’t have much of an idea about the population effect of the vaccine, you’re just engaging in wild bosterism and speculation.

  20. The argument that the “best candidates for vaccination are girls around age 11 or 12, for … social reasons” is the same reason people target girls that age for genital mutilation – if you leave them to their own devices, they might not make the ‘correct’ decision when they grow up. I don’t have too much respect for it: why can’t people make their own decisions for good or ill.

    No, Nik.

    First off, in countries where FGM is practiced, girls are mutilated at age 6 or so. They’re married off at 11 or 12.

    Second, the reason you need to give the HPV vaccine to kids at the age of 11 or 12 is that it must be given prior to becoming sexually active, and at a time when immune response to the antibodies will be robust. If you let someone wait until they’re old enough to legally consent, chances are they’ve been exposed to the virus. Moreover, not too many 18 year olds have their own insurance or can pay $300 out of pocket for a vaccine.

    And, no, Nik, we will not stop “bullshitting” about herd immunity. You clearly dont’ know how it works, so why don’t you just stop trying to argue with people who do?

  21. The argument that the “best candidates for vaccination are girls around age 11 or 12, for … social reasons” is the same reason people target girls that age for genital mutilation – if you leave them to their own devices, they might not make the ‘correct’ decision when they grow up.

    Nik, that’s not remotely the argument. If you really think that the proponent of mandatory HPV vaccination think that women will not get the vaccune voluntarily when they are adults, you don’t understand a thing about the thinking on our side.

    The thinking is that for those who will become sexually active at 15 and 16, if their parents oppose vaccination, then they are not in the kind of environment where they can ask their parents to get them the vaccination. They are likely to become sexually active without the vaccination rather than find a way to get it.

    Also, comparing vaccination to an amputation that reduces women’s sexual function for a lifetime is disgraceful, and you should apologize to the readership.

  22. Vaccinations have side-effects (generally — I don’t know if that’s been shown in this case) and, unlike other diseases for which we vaccinate, HPV is not a risk to an individual if he or she is a virgin. So someone could make the argument that, because their child does not and will not have sex, that the risk of her not being vaccinated is much less (0%) than the risk of her being vaccinated (some small side effect %).

    Do people actually expect their children to refrain from ever having sexual intercourse ever in their entire lives? Why? Do they actually know of any people who voluntarily never have sex? Will they disown their children for marrying or having children?

    There’s not much resistance to this in no small part because I sincerely doubt all but the most insane wingnuts actually think that no woman should ever have sex even once in her life, even if she is a daughter, which all women are.

  23. You didn’t even know that chicken pox vaccine was mandatory for many school systems.

    When I got my pox shot a few years ago, my doctor told me that she couldn’t believe she was recommending it – that she thought vaccinating people againt chicken pox was a bad idea, that she generally advised patients *against* it, and that she was surprised to have found a case (me) where she thought it was appropriate. And she’s a pretty mainstream doctor.

    And how is the public health argument not a good one? Taking the libertarian stance of “I got my shot, too bad for you” is not what public health is all about. Public health is all about protecting the public at large, and such selfish thinking does not play into those considerations.

    I will withdraw this statement because of the point raised in 22. However, I still think it’s going to rile up the folks who fought against approval in the first place (they were playing the “they’ll force it on our girls” card from the beginning), and that that is something to be avoided when possible.

  24. I think the most interesting thing I’ve learned from this thread is that there is a chicken pox vaccine. I can’t say I’d ever heard of it.

  25. The chicken pox vaccine is fairly new (approved in the 90s), now mandatory in many places to enter into public schools (in DC, to enter any postsecondary institution, regardless of how old you are or whether you live on campus), and a terrible idea, in my opinion. But that’s neither here nor there.

    And Gordon, I think that your contention up top that even some vaccines not mandated are covered by insurance does not apply here. In general, insurance companies will cover vaccines that, given to the relevant population, will cost less than treating the disease that would arise in that population absent the vaccination. So flu shots make sense, as they are (relatively) cheap, can be given by PAs or NPs rather than expensive physicians, and there’s a direct link between the shot and not getting sick (and taking up a half hour of that expensive physician’s time) in the next couple of months.

    Unfortunately, the reality is that no insurance company will cover a relatively expensive vaccine that they have little, little hope of gaining monetary benefit from–I mean really, what are the chances that the 12-year-old you spend $300 on today is still going to be insured by you in 30 or 40 years, when she’s at risk for developing cancer (and costing you money)?

    I’d like to be wrong here, but that’s my initial take on it. I think there’s a fairly high probability that insurance companies will not cover this vaccine absent a requirement. (Alternatively, I’d probably be almost as happy if they passed a law requiring any insurance carrier who covers any vaccine to cover this vaccine as well–you still have the problem of right-wing parents who object on moral grounds, but in reality those people could probably get a religious exemption to the school requirement anyway.)

  26. The chicken pox vaccine is fairly new (approved in the 90s), now mandatory in many places to enter into public schools (in DC, to enter any postsecondary institution, regardless of how old you are or whether you live on campus), and a terrible idea, in my opinion.

    I wasn’t initially enthused about the chicken pox vaccine because of concern about waning immunity, ie that a person might be protected by the vaccine as a child only to get chicken pox as an adult when it is more serious. But that seems not to be a problem, making me much happier with the vaccine.

    The thing about chicken pox is that it doesn’t ever actually go away: when people have chicken pox, their body fights it and gets it out of their circulation, but it is never elminated from the body but rather lives in the spinal cord. At times of stress, the virus can escape and cause painful lesions called shingles. Even worse, it can reactivate systemically in a person with severe immunosuppression (ie organ transplant.) Ick. The vaccine’s better.

  27. Lastly, can people stop bullshitting about herd immunity and the eradication of HPV. There are good reasons why this can be done with polio: the vaccine confers long lasting immunity, blocks the transmission of the virus, most of the non-vaccinated population is immune through past infection, and there isn’t a huge chunk of people with persistent infection.

    Give me a break, Nik. Whatever gave you the idea that herd immunity applies only when a disease can be eliminated (like polio) or nearly eliminated (like smallpox)? You’re simply wrong about this, and that’s no bullshit; vaccination is the one medical issue into which I’ve put considerable time and study and reading of the medical literature. Herd immunity applies any time you can significantly reduce the incidence of a contagious disease in a population.

    Look at pertussis/whooping cough, for example. Here’s a highly contagious disease, which was both nearly widespread in childhood, prior to vaccination, and sometimes fatal. And the original whole cell vaccine for this illness (now replaced by a better acellular vaccine) was one of the most flawed vaccines on the schedule: it had more side effects, less durable immunity, and a greater incident of people vaccinated not acquiring immunity (though still good enough that a large majority were immunized) than the other vaccines on the standard schedule. And it was, for that reason, the most controversial vaccine on the schedule. And still the incidence of whooping cough dropped, in countries with widespread vaccination of children for pertussis, by a significantly greater percentage than the percentage of people who acquired individual immunity from the vaccine. And shot up in those countries which discontinued the vaccine, like Japan (the testing ground for the acellular pertussis vaccine for that reason). And when down again by leaps and bounds when pertussis vaccination got reintroduced.

    As for whether the vaccine provides long lasting immunity, have you ever heard of booster shots, Nik? It’s standard practice, when a vaccine is found to be effective against a deadly disease, like cervical cancer, to introduce widespread vaccination before you know that the first vaccination cohort will have lifelong immunity, but it’s also normal to keep track of whether the first cohort’s immunity is wearing off, and add booster shots should that be the case.

    None of that’s really been shown to be the case with HPV. The reason people want to vaccinate is to prevent a disease (cervical cancer) in the vaccinees. We don’t have much of an idea about the population effect of the vaccine, you’re just engaging in wild bosterism and speculation.

    On the contrary, I’m expressing an opinion informed by many decades of medical experience with numerous vaccines. Herd immunity is the whole reason we have public vaccination programs, and that’s not speculation, it’s fact.

    Mind you, the fact that most girls will already have had sex by the time they’re eighteen and get to decide for themselves is an additional good reason for wanting them to be vaccinated at 10 or 11, as Thomas pointed out.

  28. Oops! That should be “eliminated like smallpox or nearly eliminated like polio.”

    My other points still apply, despite my lousy proof reading :-).

  29. Lynn Gazis-Sax Says: Public health vaccination campaigns are most effective if you can get nearly everyone on board, rather than seeing vaccines as a purely individual option for protection. No vaccine is 100% effective, so anyone individually getting the vaccine will have a chance (sometimes very small, as with the polio vaccine, and other times rather large, as with the flu vaccine)

    Funny you should bring up polio, after the vaccine pretty much wiped out the disease, the biggest source of polio was the vaccine itself, pesky live virus vaccines. If I remember correctly, the recommendation was to switch to the injectable stuff for the first round, and then let the second two courses be the live oral vaccine. Furthermore, The flu vaccine got itself a bad rap when a bunch of people got the flu from a shot of “weakened, but not dead virus”. My dad got a dose of the “not weak enough” flu shot when he was in the Navy. It would have been against orders to refuse it. Everyone got sick. I’ll never willingly take another live virus vaccine, and that includes the newfangled flu nasal vaccine mist.

    It’s probably not fair for me to bring up thalidomide, so instead I’ll bring up COX-2 inhibitors. Fairly recently approved, yet they ended up having serious side effects after they became widely available.

    I’m overjoyed the vaccine was approved, but I fail to see the wisdom in making the stuff mandatory right off the bat. There could be problems.

    Didn’t drug companies get themselves some congress-critter standard mischief limits of liability in regards to vaccines recently?

  30. the reason you need to give the HPV vaccine to kids at the age of 11 or 12 is that it must be given prior to becoming sexually active… If you let someone wait until they’re old enough to legally consent, chances are they’ve been exposed to the virus

    Why are people who at 16 will have been infected with the virus, and would have liked to been vaccinated in the past, more important than people who haven’t been infected, and would like not to be vaccinated or to make their own decision?

    And no-one has yet addressed my point about the mandatory school vaccination being twisted away from preventing school epidemics to a stick to be used for general health promotion. Maybe we should stop kids who eat burgers from going to school too?

    I’m expressing an opinion informed by many decades of medical experience with numerous vaccines. Herd immunity is the whole reason we have public vaccination programs, and that’s not speculation, it’s fact.

    This is just not true. We have public vaccination programs against plenty of diseases which are not transmissible from person-to-person and where herd immunity can’t exist – like tetanus.

    Your opinion may be informed by many decades of medical experience with numerous vaccines, but I think that’s your problem. Your imagining this is another vaccine against acute self-limitting diseases – like polio or measles or rubela. It isn’t. HPV’s a chronic disease and works differently.

    As far as I’m aware the vaccine’s been shown to prevent cervical cancer, and to prevent the persistent infection that causes it. If you want to argue about herd immunity, why don’t you start off by telling me where the vaccine’s been shown to prevent HPV infection or transmission? That’s not something we’ve seen much evidence about. As far as I can see the vaccine hasn’t been demonstrated to stop people catching HPV and passing it on, it just helps them clear the virus before it gives them cervical cancer. You’re making some very inappropriate comparisons.

  31. Funny you should bring up polio, after the vaccine pretty much wiped out the disease, the biggest source of polio was the vaccine itself, pesky live virus vaccines. If I remember correctly, the recommendation was to switch to the injectable stuff for the first round, and then let the second two courses be the live oral vaccine.

    That’s entirely correct. And it was a good reason, once it became apparent, to switch from the live virus vaccine to the killed virus polio vaccine. It’s certainly not a reason to lament the fact that we were using the live virus vaccine to begin with, though, since the amount of polio caused by it was several orders of magnitude less than the amount of polio prevented by it (until the vaccine made polio rare enough that a switch was reasonable). The live virus polio vaccine does have some immunity advantages over the killed virus vaccine, and is still a reasonable choice in areas where polio is endemic (like Nigeria), but not a good idea in the US, where polio has been eliminated.

    I’m overjoyed the vaccine was approved, but I fail to see the wisdom in making the stuff mandatory right off the bat. There could be problems.

    And that’s a reasonable concern. I’m not against a general policy of letting vaccines be voluntary for a while before making them mandatory (with exceptions where the disease severity and prevalence is such that the cost/benefit ratio for a particular vaccine is particularly good).

  32. Why are people who at 16 will have been infected with the virus, and would have liked to been vaccinated in the past, more important than people who haven’t been infected, and would like not to be vaccinated or to make their own decision?

    Because the risks of the illness are much greater than the risks of the vaccine? We normally give children all kinds of medical treatments without their consent, if the benefits heavily outweigh the risks.

    Here’s a study of the cost-effectiveness
    of a widespread program of vaccinating 12-year-old girls against HPV. Note that it takes into account the fact that we don’t yet know what boosters may be required to maintain immunity, and presents several different curves, depending on what the duration of immunity turns out to be.

    This is just not true. We have public vaccination programs against plenty of diseases which are not transmissible from person-to-person and where herd immunity can’t exist – like tetanus.

    Tetanus is the exception. The overwhelming majority of diseases against which we vaccinate are in fact transmissable person-to-person. Tetanus is very unusual; it’s pretty much the only disease on the standard list of childhood vaccinations where the main source of infection is not other people who have been infected with the illness. (It’s also a vaccine with a relatively low likelihood of side effects, for an illness that is both easy to get if you’re not vaccinated and nasty.)

    Your imagining this is another vaccine against acute self-limitting diseases – like polio or measles or rubela. It isn’t. HPV’s a chronic disease and works differently.

    No, I’m not. We already vaccinate against hepatitis B, which is both chronic and largely sexually transmitted. In the case of a chronic disease, you won’t be able to eliminate the condition as quickly through widespread vaccination as you will an acute self-limited disease like measles; you’ll still have already infected people in the population to spread the disease. But it’s still the case that a population in which people are widely vaccinated against, say, AIDS, a person who can’t tolerate the AIDS vaccine (assuming we did have an effective vaccine for AIDS) is much less likely to get the disease than in a population where people aren’t widely vaccinated against AIDS. And over time, the disease prevalence in the population will go down, even in those who haven’t been able to acquire immunity. When you say that herd immunity only applies to diseases like measles, you’re just plain wrong.

    If you want to argue about herd immunity, why don’t you start off by telling me where the vaccine’s been shown to prevent HPV infection or transmission?

    Here’s a study which discusses the prophylactic use of vaccination against HPV. I quote from the study:

    In the according-to-protocol analyses, the rate of vaccine efficacy against incident infection with HPV-16 and HPV-18 was 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.5 to 98.0) and the rate of efficacy against persistent infection was 100% (95% CI, 47.0 to 100). In the intent-to-treat analyses, the rate of vaccine efficacy against persistent cervical infection with HPV-16 and HPV-18 was 95.1% (95% CI, 63.5 to 99.3) and the rate of efficacy against cytologic abnormalities associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection was 92.9% (95% CI, 70.0 to 98.3). The vaccine was generally safe, well tolerated, and highly immunogenic.

    The study findings show that the bivalent HPV vaccine is effective in preventing incident and persistent cervical infections caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18 as well as their associated cytologic abnormalities and lesions. Standard, widespread vaccination against these HPV types could substantially reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.

    Looks to me as if they’re saying it both prevents infaction in the first place and helps infection not become chronic in those cases where it failed to prevent initial infection.

  33. I will withdraw this statement because of the point raised in 22. However, I still think it’s going to rile up the folks who fought against approval in the first place (they were playing the “they’ll force it on our girls” card from the beginning), and that that is something to be avoided when possible.

    If that proves to be the case, perhaps mandating the vaccine and being generous with the exemptions for parents who are strongly opposed to it will at least take care of the insurance coverage issue, and make sure a large portion of the population gets vaccinated. Sucks for all the girls whose parents objected, and who go out and have sex before they’re 18 and get infected anyway, but politics is the art of the possible.

  34. And no-one has yet addressed my point about the mandatory school vaccination being twisted away from preventing school epidemics to a stick to be used for general health promotion. Maybe we should stop kids who eat burgers from going to school too?

    Vaccines are required for school entry not to prevent school epidemics, per se, but because the schools are a convenient place for public-health programs to ensure that large groups of people are immunized, particularly at a time when they’re unlikely to have been exposed to various diseases. They’re also a good way to prevent the spread of diseases to the general population, given that kids are germ vectors. I have no kids, but I’m constantly picking up illnesses from my coworkers who do have kids. I got the flu that way this year.

  35. Lynn;

    (1) The study you cited is not about the vaccine we are discussing – the one people want to make mandatory.

    When you say that herd immunity only applies to diseases like measles, you’re just plain wrong.

    (2) I’m not saying that herd immunity only applies to diseases like measles, that’s a view you’re falsely attributing to me. I am saying people were “bullshitting about herd immunity and the eradication of HPV”. Zuzu talked about “universal vaccination… do[ing] a great deal to eliminate the spread of the virus and to confer immunity on the herd”, you tried to justify mandatory vaccination on the basis that “if vaccination for a disease is widespread, it creates a sufficient immunity in the population as a whole that everyone is protected”.

    You’re both going way beyond the available evidence (“engaging in wild bosterism and speculation”). It’s obvious given the nature of the vaccine and the disease it’s not going to be possible to eliminate HPV from the population like this. If you’re going to justify vaccinating people on the basis of protecting others you’re going to have to find some evidence that the vaccine (a) can do this and (b) will have more than a negligable effect. Some vaccines can, others can’t. Evidence that this one can is pretty thin on the ground at the moment.

  36. When you say “stop bullshitting about herd immunity,” I think that “this vaccine will have no effect on the herd immunity of the population at large” is not an unreasonable interpretation. Now you claim that I’n falsely attributing views to you; I call foul. How the hell was I supposed to know that “bullshitting about herd immunity” meant that the disease wouldn’t completely go away in the short term, and not, you know, that the vaccine would provide no protection for anyone but the actual individuals receiving it? The meaning of “herd immunity” is that the incidence of a disease is reduced beyond its actual recipients, not that “herd immunity” applies only when the disease is completely eliminated in the near future.

    (1) The study you cited is not about the vaccine we are discussing – the one people want to make mandatory.

    Is this the information you want? Would you explain to me how the results of Gardasil’s Phase III studies show that its recipients continue to be infected with HPV, so that there are just as many HPV carriers as before, but it just doesn’t happen to progress to cervical cancer? Because that explanation of the mode of efficacy of the HPV vaccine is something that I am only hearing from you, and not in any other material that I’ve read about the vaccine. It would be highly unusual for a vaccine against a contagious disease to only protect the recipients, and not reduce the number of carriers in the slightest.

    If you’re going to justify vaccinating people on the basis of protecting others you’re going to have to find some evidence that the vaccine (a) can do this and (b) will have more than a negligable effect.

    If you want to argue that protecting others isn’t an argument for vaccination, then I suggest you be more explicit about what your standards are for a “negligable effect.” On the one hand, you keep talking about how the vaccine can’t “eliminate” the disease from the population (as if zuzu and I had ever claimed that the disease would quickly vanish from the entire world, or even from this entire country – come on, even if 100% of the population were protected against this particular strain of HPV, that would only eliminate 70% of cervical cancer, which is pretty darn good but not the same as eliminating all cervical cancer). On the other hand, when I take you at your word, and assume that you think “herd immunity” applies only to infections that are rapidly spread and can rapidly be nearly eliminated, you accuse me of twisting your words.

    If mandatory vaccination against HPV had the same level of effect on the incidence of HPV as mandatory vaccination against hepatitis B has had against hepatitis, would you consider that a “negligible effect,” and insufficent cause to introduce a mandatory vaccination program?

    Given that you have compared a vaccination program which would provide protection against a deadly disease to, for heaven’s sake, female genital mutilation, you hardly have cause to complain if people don’t read your views in the most favorable possible light. Dial down your rhetoric about others a bit, before you get accuse people of falsely representing your views.

  37. Wow, the willingness to pretend that you don’t know why vaccines work the way they do–in mass quanities–just to justify the “punish the sluts” attitude is disturbing.

    Tetanus vaccines do no offer lifelong immunity. They have to be renewed every ten years and if you haven’t had one recently and you cut yourself, they’ll vaccinate you again at the doctor’s when you get treatment. I had to get a renewed tetanus shot a few years ago when a spider bit me up and down my back.

  38. I think the concern that a lot of people have is: What if the vaccine turns out to have nasty side effects?

    Also, people do not like the idea of the government telling them what they must do do with their body (or in the case of children, what their guardians must make the children do).

    Public-health experts are watching the way the HPV vaccine controversy plays out because it’s seen as a dress rehearsal for other potential vaccines for sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV.

    If there ever is an HIV vaccine, I think that the push against making it mandatory will be a lot stronger. Despite claims to the contrary, heterosexual men who do not abuse drugs have very little chance of contracting AIDS, and women who do not receive anal sex from men who have homosexual sex or abuse drugs also have very little chance of contracting it. So for large segments of the population, there will be a lot more worry about potential side effects of the vaccine than there will be worry about getting HIV.

    With HPV, almost anyone who is sexually active can contract the virus, and any women with the virus can get the symptoms of the disease and the increased cancer risks. (I don’t know whether men can get any symptoms from HPV or whether it increases their cancer risk, or whether they can only become carriers).

  39. Lynn;

    When you say “stop bullshitting about herd immunity [I actually added ‘and the eradication of HPV’ too, but you didn’t quote that]” I think that “this vaccine will have no effect on the herd immunity of the population at large” is not an unreasonable interpretation.

    This is my problem: you’ve tried to justify mandatory vaccination on the basis of a claim about the herd immunity effect from HPV vaccination. The idea being that making the vaccine mandatory will provide some protection to other people over and above not making it mandatory, that this is a wonderful idea and we should go for mandatory vaccination.

    If you’re going to try and justify mandatory vaccination like this is reasonable for me to ask what evidence you have that the HPV vaccine can accomplish this, and what the size of the effect (the reduction in incidence in unimmunized people) will be. As far as I can see, you don’t know. That’s why I used the word “bullshitting”, I think you’re making claims of benefit that could come from this which are unsupportable and go beyond the available evidence.

    We get a long list of other diseases and vaccines (smallpox, polio, measles) trotted out where this is the case and some vague analogies are then made. For measles we can make a statement along the lines that if you vaccinate 95% of the population, measles incidence in the remaining 5% will be reduced to zero. But HPV and HPV vaccine aren’t analogous to these diseases and vaccines – and I’ve never seen any defensible similar statements for HPV made.

    I realise you’ve moderated your position from one where vaccination could ensure the population as a whole is protected, to one where the vaccine will probably create some sort of herd effect, because other vaccines tend to do that sort of thing. But if you want to enforce vaccination by law for this reason, I think you’re going to have to try to come up with a slightly more convincing justification.

    Nik: anti-slut, pro-cancer.

    No. I’m just arguing against mandatory vaccination, an argument that’s widely accepted in almost every country apart from the US. (Are the Netherlands and Sweden anti-slut, pro-cancer too?) It’s pretty clear what the real reason US feminists want the vaccine made mandatory is – to bait the religious right. I think that’s a totally inappropriate basis for inflicting a public health policy on kids.

Comments are currently closed.