Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The HPV Vaccine: Watch How Fast the Debate "Shifts"

1

It's against the Bible to have the oral sex.

Posted by Praise His Name!!!! | May 10, 2007 8:56 AM
2

I try not to have sex against the bible. I prefer to be against the headboard.

Posted by Dan Savage | May 10, 2007 8:57 AM
3

Related story about the drug's effectiveness in today's Seattle Times.

Posted by PA Native | May 10, 2007 9:00 AM
4

God, I hate that your right.

Posted by CodyBolt | May 10, 2007 9:02 AM
5

I never understood why they only recommended girls get the vaccine. Since men can be carriers doesn't it make sense to vaccinate them against carrying it to a potentially unvaccinated woman? Maybe now they will add men to the list of recommended recipients and we can reduce the carriers as well.

Posted by ky | May 10, 2007 9:22 AM
6

Thats when you say to the church, hey
thats when porn comes in handy(pardon the pun. It keeps sex outside of one self from actually affecting or infecting another human being. It keeps the virus from spreading if their even is a virus. unless thats what the Church wants. They feed us lies about ourselves and cause some to ask why do you hate your body so much?

Posted by summertime | May 10, 2007 9:40 AM
7

5-- I thought that too, and I asked my doctor about it. She told me clinical trials take time and money and so they do the clinical trials at first on the most important, which was women 9-26, so that's the only group the vaciine is approved for right now. She said she expected them to start clinical trials on other groups as well, so eventually the vaciine would be approved for women and men of all ages.

Posted by Jessica | May 10, 2007 9:42 AM
8

It sucks when women persecute other women who like to have sex (and they do, Erica, just ask any girl in junior high), but I suppose there may be some twisted logic to it. But for the life of me I can't understand why heterosexual men jump on board.

Come on guys, stop being idiots. When a breeder woman decides she likes sex, don't bite the hand that might feed you. Put her on a pedestal. And fight for her right to the HPV vaccine.

And stop calling Paris Hilton a whore.

Posted by seandr | May 10, 2007 9:43 AM
9

Paris Hilton is such a whore!!!

Posted by Nicky Hilton | May 10, 2007 9:54 AM
10

I hope Dan and Erica aren't stupid enough to be doing all this great shilling for Merck without some sort of financial compensation...

Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 9:57 AM
11

Yes, we've seen this exact same thing before over condoms. Condoms can save a woman's life because being pregnant/having a baby makes her more likely to die than NOT being pregnant. Granted, condom advertising isn't exactly commonplace, but it's not nearly as rare as it once was.

Posted by Laurie Mann | May 10, 2007 10:40 AM
12

Paris isn't a whore, she's a cunt. And not cause she likes sex. She's a cunt because she was born rich and beautiful and I wasn't.

Also, this news is sure to cause a rise in the sale of dental dams...

Posted by Mike in MO | May 10, 2007 10:45 AM
13

So I pretty much agree that this vaccine is a good idea...but does it bother anyone else that the sponsor of bills to make it mandatory is the drug maker? That freaks me the hell out...I realize religious nuts are the ones who got the bill taken off the table and am annoyed/appalled for all the reasons Dad cited, but damn, we shouldn't allow drug co's to come up with a drug then make it mandatory! That is complete insanity.

Posted by Dianna | May 10, 2007 10:47 AM
14

This is going to be exactly like abortion is immoral except my abortion. Was it Santorum or some other "family" dude who said that they opposed the distribution of the vaccine, but if it came down to his daughters he would give them the vaccine. So in other words, we'll try to brainwash ignorant fucks, but my daughter's HPV vaccine is okay, because I'm special.

Kind of like the Catholic church telling ignorant folk in poor countries not to use birth control, when somehow Italy has the lowest birthrate in Europe. Birth control is immoral unless it's my birth control.

Or Ted Haggard. Getting fucked up the ass is immoral unless it's me getting fucked up the ass.

Posted by D. | May 10, 2007 10:50 AM
15

Paris might be rich and beautiful (depending on your point of view), but most importantly after watching the video, she’s a boring lay.

And on to this subject, if it saves lives, it shouldn’t matter who sponsors it. But if the church folks don’t approve, than let them choose not to take it. No loss to society in my view.

Posted by MD | May 10, 2007 10:57 AM
16

HPV vaccine for men: almost certainly effective, but not yet proven, so not FDA approved yet for men, but doctors are still free to order it for men (in what would be considered an "off-label use").

Some insurance companies that have decided to pay for the vaccine have already decided to cover its use for both men and women. Check with your insurance company.

And by the way: ditto for use in women older than 26 - not FDA approved but still available from a doc willing to order it for for older women in an "off label use". It's not been studied in women older than 26 since it's likely to have a much smaller impact in older women (who have a higher chance of already being infected and lower chance of future exposure) so it would be harder to "prove it works" in a study. So overall, the vaccine is going to be less cost-effective for older women, but especially for late bloomers who have had lower than average sexual contact in the past, but expect to have multiple partners in the future, the HPV vaccine is likely very effective and very safe.

Posted by Barak Gaster | May 10, 2007 11:04 AM
17

Dianna,

you'd think something like that should concern people...but we're such good, little, frightened, submissive sheep that we're willing to accept that the drug companies are somehow guided by altruism (backed by a "study" or two and a couple of clinical trials).

Out of fear, we'll accept what they tell us in the most simple terms is absolute truth. HPV causes cervical cancer, therefore HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer. Who can argue with that logic? People who don't ask questions, that's who.

Turning into a "moral" issue, or liberal vs. conservative one, will happily bypass any healthy debate about the actual science behind HPV, cervical cancer and the effectiveness of a so-called "vaccine". As is usual in The Stranger, emotionalism is in the driver's seat, while reason, critical thinking and rationality are strapped into the back seat.

Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 11:07 AM
18

Ok, BD, I'll bite. Let's debate the science.

The peer-reviewed scientific article epidemiologically connecting HPV-infection, low condom usage and number of oral sex partners to oral cancer can be found in the New England Journal of Medicine.

This study was funded by:
1. Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
2. the State of Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund
3. the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (DE016631-01)
4. the National Institutes of Health (Training Grant T32AI50056)

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported and the NEJM has strict reporting requirements.

Many previous studies, by multiple independent groups, have shown a molecular basis for HPV transforming (oral, anal, and cervical) epithelial cells. When one looks in tumor cells for the virus (as was done in this NEJM study) one can find copies of the virus genes in almost all. To my knowledge there is no credible work disputing this connection. Do you know of any?

What makes this paper unique is the rigorous connection between viral exposure and the disease in the real world (rather than simply cells in a dish.)

From the NEJM paper, one can see the viral genes only in tumor cells (the brown dots in the images on the right side.)

To quote from the paper: "Oropharyngeal cancer was also strongly associated with serologic measures of exposure to HPV-16 and with the presence of oral HPV infection." For example, those showing exposure to the most dangerous viral proteins (E6 or E7) were sixty-fold more likely to have oral cancer compared to those who do not have evidence of exposure to these genes by one (imperfect) test.

Another key point: "...after adjusting for HPV-16 L1 serologic status. In this analysis, sexual behaviors were no longer significantly associated with oropharyngeal cancer." In other words, it isn't the sexual practices in question, it is (statistically) exposure to this virus that apparently causes oral cancer.

The vaccines available both have been repeatedly shown to be amazingly effective at preventing infection from HPV-16, as well as other variants of the virus. While (to my knowledge) the vaccines have not been shown to protect against oral cancer, it seems a reasonable inference given the data available.

So, what is your point, your argument? Did you bother reading the paper, or the many many papers supporting the use of a vaccine to prevent these particular forms of cancer.

Posted by golob | May 10, 2007 11:36 AM
19

Golob,

let's cut to the chase...

Nowhere did you show that HPV causes cervical cancer.

What makes this paper unique is the rigorous connection between viral exposure and the disease in the real world

Nice marketing..."rigorous connection". Is a "rigorous connection" causation? No.

Don't worry. I can hardly stand in the way of drug company profits. And as long as there are useful (and cheap!) idiots like Dan and Erica around, things are very unlikely to change.

Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 11:47 AM
20

Why is Dan so ravingly pro-vaccine? This vaccine only protects against a few strains of HPV--and when you only vax against a few strains, the others very often become much more prominent. (This is already happening with the childhood vax Prevnar, against pneumococcal diseases--it has been in common use for only about 10 years and now there are REALLY bad strains out there, for which there is no vaccine.) Giving everyone this vax could end up making HPV much more virulent than it is now. (Remember, most people infected with HPV will NOT get cervical cancer.)

Merck charges $400 for each course of the HPV vaccine. Many docs won't even carry it because it's so expensive for them to buy. Lots of health plans won't cover it.

The safety trials on this vaccine were done on older females, but they are all hot to prescribe it to 11-year-olds, on whom there have been NO safety studies.

There is no research on the long-term effects or effectiveness of this vaccine. Given Merck's experience with Vioxx, I wouldn't exactly be too trusting of what they say their research says about safety.

Children today are supposed to get around 30-40 shots, if they got every single recommended and 'required' vaccine (including the ridiculous chicken pox vaccine, which even many pediatricians will say is overkill). Only about 20 years ago, kids got about 10 shots. Before the 1940s, many got none.

Dan should understand that the huge drop in mortality and complications from childhood diseases happened 40-60 years before most childhood vaccines were even introduced. Vaccines are not magic, and I don't think it's insane to wonder whether the huge use of vaccines these days is having some effect on health & development.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the HPV vaccine even if you're not a Christian.

Posted by toadlady | May 10, 2007 12:03 PM
21

Koch's Postulates can be used to establish a causal relationship between a microorganism and a disease. Let's review them for HPV and epithelial cancer:

1. "The microorganism must be found in all organisms suffering from the disease."

This has been repeatedly demonstrated by many groups in oral, anal and cervical cancers. As in the example I linked to above, one can see the viral genome in tumor cells, but not in adjacent non-tumor cells.

It is true that there are many HPV carriers (those with the virus but not the disease.) Having carriers is perfectly acceptable when establishing causality here.

2. "The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture."

This has been done many many times. HPV can be reliably propagated in vitro.

3. "The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism."

Strictly speaking, Koch abandoned this postulate, as some individuals can be resistant to organisms.

Still, exposure of cultured human epithelial cells to the cultured HPV virus transforms the cells into tumor-like cells.

Clearly it would be unethical to intentionally expose a person simply to prove this point. Still, multiple animal studies have shown HPV-like viruses can cause cervical cancer.


4. "The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent."

Again this has been shown in animal models and in-vitro with human cells.


By this standard, HPV is a cause of cervical cancer beyond a mere correlation. Using modern molecular biology techniques, the exact mechanism by which variants of HPV can cause cancer has been determined. For example, the E6 gene disrupts the key anti-cancer gene p53 in infected cells.

What's your evidence COUNTER to this connection? It is wholly irrational to wait until there is perfect evidence for a connection between HPV, epithelial cancer before beginning preventative vaccination.

Posted by golob | May 10, 2007 12:21 PM
22

When one looks in tumor cells for the virus (as was done in this NEJM study) one can find copies of the virus genes in almost all.

Golob,
a little deconstruction for our emotional, logic-impaired friends...

First: finding virus genes in tumor cells does not prove causation.

Second: the virus genes were not found in all of the tumor cells. In the absence of your presumably guilty virus genes...what agent or agents are responsible for the virus-gene-free tumor cells?

And now for the $money$ quote (notice the use of fear...if we don't do something NOW, we're doomed!): It is wholly irrational to wait until there is perfect evidence for a connection between HPV, epithelial cancer before beginning preventative vaccination.

I like how you interpret Koch's Postulates on your own terms there, golob. That's ok, I'm sure you know better than Koch...or the rest of us.


Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 12:31 PM
23

Golob,

I expect some reinforcements from your friends from the pharmaceutical companies to chime in here soon. You'll have to do without my input for a while as I'm off to work. Have fun!

While I'm away, maybe Dan and Erica can ask you some questions. Doubt it.

Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 12:41 PM
24

Whoops. Sorry, Golob. It's hard to tear myself away. You've left me a goldmine of quotes to work with...

BD: Out of fear, we'll accept what they tell us in the most simple terms is absolute truth. HPV causes cervical cancer, therefore HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer. Who can argue with that logic? People who don't ask questions, that's who

Golob: It is wholly irrational to wait until there is perfect evidence for a connection between HPV, epithelial cancer before beginning preventative vaccination.

Posted by BD | May 10, 2007 1:09 PM
25

BD I have a question. Is this the same science and fact you get from the scientists and websites that dispute the Global Warming as illfuted fear, and have been the reason why theres always a debate and nothing gets done?
Science is always open for debate is what I'm saying, thats cool, but if it something that can benefit our health or our planet where is the harm in letting it pass as something valuable?

Posted by summertime | May 10, 2007 1:36 PM
26

The following is a quote form the father of modern statistics, and heralded geneticist R.A Fischer:
"THE association observable between the practice of cigarette smoking and the incidence of cancer of the lung, to which attention has been actively, or even vehemently, directed by the Medical Research Council Statistical Unit, has been interpreted, by that Unit, almost as though it demonstrated a causal connexion between these variables"

He did not believe that cigarette smoking caused cancer, because the studies only showed a correlation between the two, not causation.

BD, how much evidence do you require? Given the potential upside to the HPV vaccine (no cancer), is it a reasonable level?


Posted by tlmnnity | May 10, 2007 2:04 PM
27

Summertime, tlmnnity: Are you really trying to use rational thought on someone like BD. It's wasted time.

Posted by D. | May 10, 2007 2:05 PM
28

BD, I'm interested in why you're so skeptical of the theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. Perhaps you could tell us.

Also, please post any links you have to studies that use sound scientific evidence to refute or question the belief that HPV and cervical cancer are strongly connected. Medical journals preferred, obviously.

Posted by Mary | May 10, 2007 3:43 PM
29

Oral sex with a condom sucks!

Posted by monkey | May 10, 2007 3:48 PM
30

It's been known since 2004 that oral sex can cause mouth cancer in both women and men. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4712 . This fact hasn't appeared to cause a shift in the debate.

Posted by zydborg | May 10, 2007 4:37 PM
31

And, to make it clear, the HPV link to oral sex causing mouth cancer, in both women and men, has also been known since 2004.

Posted by zydborg | May 10, 2007 4:39 PM
32

Also see: http://www.slate.com/id/2130125/ from 2005.

Posted by zydborg | May 10, 2007 5:07 PM
33

For that matter, it's also known that HPV can cause penile cancer in men. The effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in men has not been demonstrated.

Posted by zydborg | May 10, 2007 5:55 PM
34

It's well-known that what can cause what?

Hey, let's be clear. If you want to let the government stick your daughter with a bit of cellular sludge, that's been passed through the gloriously uncorruptable hands of the FDA, line 'em up, and call your lawyer for the class action.

People buy into this - Like Dan Savage - because they're fighting a religious war against a religion that doesn't like them. They've put their lives in the hands of the FDA, and flushed their common sense and critical thinking down the toilet, out the window - whichever is closer in your house.

Liberals back this kind of stuff, mostly because it seems to upset Christians.

When you cite a peer-reviewed article, as though it really meant something substantial, it means you aren't well aquainted with the current job of the pharmaceutical industry - to keep you doped, unaware, and willing to lay down on command.

So, line up your daughters, comrades, if you believe that a common wart actually causes some wildly unrelated problem in the vagina 40 to 60 years later.

I've looked at the numbers, they don't add up.

But, like I said, there are enough people on the planet for us to scrap a few in the pharmaceutical scrap-heap, so that you can feel good about pissing off some church or another.

Line up your daughters, if they don't mean that much to you.

Posted by LS | May 10, 2007 8:53 PM
35

Mike,

Don't worry, Paris isn't good looking, and she is a whore AND a cunt.

Posted by Kris | May 10, 2007 9:08 PM
36

I'm at the libertarian end of the Democratic party, and I would *never* let anyone give my nine and six year old kids psychotropic drugs for ADD or whatever the latest pathologization of childhood behavior is being called.

But goddamn it vaccines are the reason that humans live into their seventies nowadays instead of just their thirties. Throughout this thread the pro-vaccine folks have gently but firmly offered fact after fact, and have been met by ad hominem attacks on the FDA and the medical community.

And to those who suggest Dan (or any of us parents) would give our kids medicines merely to make a political or religious point: fuck straight off.

Posted by Big Sven | May 10, 2007 10:52 PM
37

BD, LS, various others... how do you feel about fluoridation of the water supply?

Posted by DE Dono | May 10, 2007 11:02 PM
38

BD, LS et al. I am curious to know if ANY of you are female, first and foremost. If you meet that qualifier, have you EVER had an abnormal pap smear? Do you have any comprehension the kind of emotional harm that can do to a teenage or young adult female? Moreover, have you ever had multiple abnormal paps? Do you know what a colposcopy is? Have you ever been had your cervix biopsied for cervical cancer?

If you answered no to any of these questions, shut the fuck up. Talk to any gyno worth his or her salt and they will tell you, HPV is the number one cause of cervical cancer. Pap smears specifically look for this virus. (Pap=Papilloma=wart.) If HPV was not something to be concerned about for longterm women's health, why would they do that test YEARLY? Do you honestly think that doctors would do a needless test on every woman in the country? And no, this is not the common plantar's wart you'd get on your foot. Or the kind you'd get on your hand. Those strains are non-transferrable to musuc membranes. As such, HPV is non-transferrable to non-mucus membranes.

Oh, you may also look into the research that has raised the theory that HPV may be small enough to fit through the porus latex used to condoms.

In my 8 years of being sexually active, I have never ONCE had sex without a condom, and I have had HPV for 6 of those years. At 17, I was told that I had an incurable disease that could very well cause cancer, a cancer 4,000 women die of every year, and this was the case even though I NEVER had unprotected sex. Not once. As I see it, the only thing wrong with the vaccine is that they didn't put in on the market until it was too late for me and so many others. So take your bullshit elsewhere, cause you're sure as hell not selling it here. Fuck you.

Posted by Angry Bitch | May 11, 2007 3:15 AM
39

LS, if you're so suspicious of the drug industry, I wonder if you'd refuse antibiotics if you had pneumonia or a staph infection.

We all constantly depend on FDA-approved items to sustain our lives. Isn't the food you put in your body everyday approved by the FDA? I'd be more worried about that if I were you. Think of all the poisons that could be slowly trickling in your system every time you eat something you bought at a grocery store...

Posted by Mary | May 11, 2007 6:35 AM
40

toadlady: "Before the 1940s, many got none. ... Dan should understand that the huge drop in mortality and complications from childhood diseases happened 40-60 years before most childhood vaccines were even introduced."

Sorry, what? Does the word POLIO mean anything to you? You know, that disease that still cripples people across the globe, but thanks to a vaccine your kids don't have to worry about it every summer? Maybe better hygienical practices (like better municipal waste management, cleaner water, and a whole campaign post-civil war to control infectious disease) helped a lot with human borne infections, but that still left plenty of viruses and other diseases to take down children across the US.

Because even with such an effort for cleanliness 40 to 60 years before childhood vaccinations it was still in vogue to take "sleeping" portraits of your recently deceased children.

Posted by Redletter | May 11, 2007 7:00 AM
41

Before vaccinations it was common to only have two or three children out of 8 or 9 live into adulthood. I can't believe how the Bush ideology of distrusting science has seeped into society so deeply. This is truly frightening.. it's like the freeking 15th century. I mean, it's good to have a healthy dose of cynicism (that is actually the entire basis of the scientific method), but some of you people are making it sound like tried and tested scientific proof from well documented sources is some sort of shamanistic dream interpretations. Because we can't trust the government! We can't trust the medical community! And no, you can't always. They're people, just like everyone else who screw stuff up. That's why we have the systems in place we do, such as peer-reviewing and having tests done by trained research physicians with NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Posted by hifisci | May 11, 2007 8:28 AM
42

Oh, but LS, YOU'VE looked at the numbers. Well, thank you for saving us all. And BD, it DOES prove causation, you are obviously not versed in research terminology. Both of you, go look at some pictures of oral warts, and the next time you have your face is someone's genitalia, just ponder for just a second whether it would be nice to have that vaccine.

Posted by hifisci | May 11, 2007 8:30 AM
43

More fun quotes from golob.

Still, exposure of cultured human epithelial cells to the cultured HPV virus transforms the cells into tumor-like cells.

"Tumor-like cells"?

"Tumor-like cells" is not the same as tumor cells.

The idea that "tumor-like" equals tumors only "works" if science is taking its cues from golfing and handing out "gimmees". Sorry, "tumor-like" doesn't cut it...unless there are profits to be made, of course.

The microorganism must be found in all organisms suffering from the disease

@#18: When one looks in tumor cells for the virus (as was done in this NEJM study) one can find copies of the virus genes in almost all.

Well, seems that we have some tumor cells that are without copies of the virus genes, according to golob. It's looking like Koch's first postulate isn't being fulfilled here.

Still, multiple animal studies have shown HPV-like viruses can cause cervical cancer.

Could you be more vague? "HPV-like"..."can"...in animal studies. We're a hell of a long way away from HPV causes cervical cancer in humans now.

By this standard, HPV is a cause of cervical cancer beyond a mere correlation

By what "standard"? You mean by your reworking of Koch's postulates? The best you've been able to do in proving your case so far is to state that HPV virus genes can be found in some, but not all cervical cancer tumors. Correlation? Some. Causation? No.


Using modern molecular biology techniques, the exact mechanism by which variants of HPV can cause cancer has been determined.

This sentence starts off strong, and I thought you could inch toward proving your case, but then we get to the magic word..."can". Would have been better to just leave "can" out of the sentence. A little tip for you for next time, golob.

For example, the E6 gene disrupts the key anti-cancer gene p53 in infected cells

Almost sounds impressive. But it doesn't prove that HPV causes cervical, or any other kind of cancer.

Try again, Golob.

Posted by BD | May 11, 2007 11:16 AM
44

BD, do you believe cigarette smoking causes lung cancer?

Posted by skinny | May 11, 2007 1:54 PM
45

OH MY FUCKING GOD, BD, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

All viruses damage the cells they interact with, and some can cause errors in the genetic code that controls cell death and/or the cell replication rate... ergo tumors. This is known to be a scientific fact... it has been observed in patients and in research facilities.

You're a moron. Toddle off and find someone who wants to listen to you play devil's advocate against solid research... I think creationists are pretty into that scene.

Posted by Lauren | May 11, 2007 5:13 PM
46

Hiscifi wrote:

Oh, but LS, YOU'VE looked at the numbers. Well, thank you for saving us all. And BD, it DOES prove causation, you are obviously not versed in research terminology. Both of you, go look at some pictures of oral warts, and the next time you have your face is someone's genitalia, just ponder for just a second whether it would be nice to have that vaccine.

I've gone and looked at some pictures of oral warts, as you suggested (fortunately your high school year book photos are online),

and I've gone back to look at the info on the vaccine that doesn't stop the virus that doesn't cause cancer,

and I'm thrilled that you want to use it. You know, maybe the belief that it'll help will help. Maybe.

Oh, right, but it ain't for you, you filthy hog-monkey, you digger of warts, it's for someone's pre-sexually-active 12 or 13 year old daughter.

Hey, imagine that, you want to stuff her full of adjuvants, mercury and other neurotoxins, so you can feel better about your pedophilic fantasies.

Good on you, scifi. Good on you.

Posted by LS | May 13, 2007 12:41 PM
47

Gardasil doesn't contain mercury or "live" material. It's a recombinant vaccine like the Hep B vaccine, which most people get as kids.

Posted by Mary | May 13, 2007 5:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).