Now now Dan, let's be understanding here. Jesus gave that child HPV; to punish the father and mother. And child. For...uh...hold on...oh yeah! The lord moves in mysterious ways. Amen.

Do you think it got there because of chronic nut scratching?

Josh and Dan: Please don't post an HPV and HRC link one right after the other. People might get the two viruses confused.

Much as I support the vaccine, I don't see how it helps in this case -- men aren't being offered it (not that I can see how it would kill virus under their fingernails even if they were), and neither are babies. The vaccine's not particularly effective if administered after one's already been infected.

Unless you're proposing that it should be added to standard infant vaccinations, which would be an interesting battle to pick.

@4: Well, obviously, when most women are vaccinated against HPV, they won't be able to pass it on to male partners, who then won't be able to pass it on to babies. In any case, stop being so impatient. Trials are going on as we speak for male vaccination, and guys may be able to get it prescribed "off-label" already.

Under fingernails, huh?

Let's not question that one!

What are our options at this point (since we believe everything we read)?

We could remove everybody's fingernails...much like the push to remove foreskins in Africa.

Or, we can ALL hand over several hundred dollars to Merck for their "vaccine".

Or both. Just to be safe.

Dan, do you ever get tired of talking out of your ass? I mean, doesn’t your little ass-mouth get all chafed from the constant yammering?

There are a lot of people who are concerned about that vaccine because it’s a relatively new medical technology that, if used widely before its effects have been tested over a long time period on a medium-sized sample, could result in unforeseen medical problems down the line. The wider the use, the wider the problems could be. The history of medicine is full of medical “advances” that were prematurely released to a wide population and turned out to be terrible fuck-ups. Thalidomide babies anyone? And what about possible links between mercury preservatives in vaccines and autism? Making the vaccine mandatory at this stage could mean forcing people to choose between their health and the law. The numbers may ultimately show that the potential health risks of the vaccine are outweighed by its health benefits, but it’ll take time to gather that data and the drug company that makes the stuff doesn’t want to have that conversation right now.

But never mind any of that. Dan’s got a hammer, so every problem must be a nail.

I'm always amazed at how quickly and blindly "liberals" and "progressives" like to make things mandatory when it comes to health issues.

No discussion, no difficult questions. Just round people up and force something down their throats or into their veins.

So... would that mean that the virus is getting passed during diaper changes?

There's absolutely no evidence that autism is linked to vaccines. RFK, Jr. has been talking out of his ass. Increases in autism diagnoses have exactly matched decreases in retardation diagnoses. Autistic kids are no longer being pidgeon-holed as retards. It has nothing to do with mercury.

Whew!

Thanks, Keshmeshi!

That debate has finally been put to rest just by you're saying so!

Er, I'm in an HPV vaccine trial right now
It's been going on for 2 years and will last 2 more.

@ 7: Yeah I'm sure THAT'S why fundamentalists oppose it.

@8: Where do I get the magic glasses that let me see where that post says "mandatory"?

amanda: the central debate around this issue has been focussed on an effort in Texas to make the vaccine mandatory for girls above a certain age to attend public school, ostensibly with the goal of wiping the disease out altogether. There's a substantial bloc of people who oppose this on the grounds I indicated above. I wasn't suggesting that "fundamentalists" oppose the vaccine for common sense reasons, I was suggesting that not everyone who opposes the vaccine does so for religious reasons and that Dan's attempt to reduce the debate to a "religion vs common sense" discussion is misinformed and, likely, disingenuous.

Read a newspaper.

And take a rhetoric course.

Judah - Dan's post doesn't mention wanting to make the vaccine mandatory. I bet he was just implying that if you don't want to give your child the vaccine solely for religious reasons (i.e., abstinence is the only policy so anything that reduces potential negative effects of sex is bad), then you are a moron.

The HPV vaccine is a recombinant vaccine, which means that it doesn't contain "live" material. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that it will make patients ill. The U.S. version of the Hepatitis B vaccine is--as far as I know--the only other recombinant vaccine used on humans.

#15 - But the people in Texas opposing mandatory vaccines were using religion as their logic. They feel that giving a protection to their kids will encourage them to go around sleeping with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and if they do, they think having to face terrible disease and possible death is a just punishment.

Dan- Have read this article published recently in the journal Nature Medicine? I have not heard any media coverage on this novel finding. It would suggest that regardless if you are HPV vaccine-phobic, you should switch from nonoxynol-9 coated condoms to carrageenan (seaweed-based extract) coated condoms to minimize HPV transmissions. Wait, maybe this only works for mice - anyhow. Enjoy!

Nature Medicine 13, 857 - 861 (2007)
Published online: 1 July 2007 | doi:10.1038/nm1598

Genital transmission of HPV in a mouse model is potentiated by nonoxynol-9 and inhibited by carrageenan
Jeffrey N Roberts1, Christopher B Buck1, Cynthia D Thompson1, Rhonda Kines1, Marcelino Bernardo2, Peter L Choyke3, Douglas R Lowy1 & John T Schiller1

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted infection, and virtually all cases of cervical cancer are attributable to infection by a subset of HPVs (reviewed in ref. 1). Despite the high incidence of HPV infection and the recent development of a prophylactic vaccine that confers protection against some HPV types2, many features of HPV infection are poorly understood. It remains worthwhile to consider other interventions against genital HPVs, particularly those that target infections not prevented by the current vaccine. However, productive papillomavirus infection is species- and tissue-restricted, and traditional models use animal papillomaviruses that infect the skin or oral mucosa3. Here we report the development of a mouse model of cervicovaginal infection with HPV16 that recapitulates the establishment phase of papillomavirus infection. Transduction of a reporter gene by an HPV16 pseudovirus was characterized by histology and quantified by whole-organ, multispectral imaging. Disruption of the integrity of the stratified or columnar genital epithelium was required for infection, which occurred after deposition of the virus on the basement membrane underlying basal keratinocytes. A widely used vaginal spermicide, nonoxynol-9 (N-9), greatly increased susceptibility to infection. In contrast, carrageenan, a polysaccharide present in some vaginal lubricants, prevented infection even in the presence of N-9, suggesting that carrageenan might serve as an effective topical HPV microbicide.

@ 12 Philly, where is this trial being done?

But the people in Texas opposing mandatory vaccines were using religion as their logic.

Wow, all of 'em, huh? Very well then, I withdraw my argument.

But Judah, shouldn't everyone get a choice? That is to say, aren't people who oppose allowing the vaccine to be administered at all in the wrong just as much as those who want it to be mandatory right now? Both groups deny personal choice.

While only prescribed for cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine protects against anal, throat and oral cancer as well. Tobacco companies rejoice - more people get throat cancer from oral sex than chaw!

Judah,

So in your version of rhetoric you can assume that because Dan and all those wacky liberals object to the fundamentalists' reasons for opposing the vaccine that they also object to thorough clinical trials, etc.?
Just as in your original post you're eliding two issues and ascribing a non-existent opinion based on the elision.
Rhetoric? Sounds like sophistry to me.

p.s. Newpapers are for suckaz. I get my news for free on teh interwebs.

Dan, if the ass-mouth chafing gets bad, Burt's Bees makes a lovely product that will clear it right up.

I've heard about the opposition to HPV vaccination in Texas since the vaccination program was first announced. For about the first week or so, all I heard was "we don't want to be telling our 10 year old girls that it is ok to have sex now". I thought it was odd that I didn't hear anything about safety concerns until later.

I live in Texas, I am opposed to the HPV vaccine. Most of us who are opposed to making it mandatory are not opposed because of religious grounds. I do not want my young daughter to be a test subject for Merck. I can also tell you why "I've heard about the opposition to HPV vaccination in Texas since the vaccination program was first announced. For about the first week or so, all I heard was "we don't want to be telling our 10 year old girls that it is ok to have sex now". I thought it was odd that I didn't hear anything about safety concerns until later." is because the nuts who think that are so much better on television than us normal folks who look normal, who talk normal,and have a normal agrument. It's better to have that crazy lady who thinks the 10 year old will have sex now that she has a vaccine against HPV. Heck I didn't know what HPV was!! It wasn't one of those that I was scared of getting. HIV yes, HPV nope.

wait. why would a father put his virus-laden fingernails anywhere that would cause his daughter to get hpv? from diaper changes i've done in the past, there's no penetration. dan must do diaper changes a little differently,.

Jen -- babies suck on fingers all the time. Whoopsy - now the virus has access to the baby's system. Or, perhaps, consider a father preparing his child's (as both boys and girls can get HPV) bottle and touching the "nipple" when screwing the top on or testing the liquid's temperature. Instant possible contamination. Get your mind out of the gutter.

@21: The problem is that the primary individuals affected (the children) don't have a choice either way - either it's made for them by the state, or by their parents. I fail to see why the latter is inherently better than the former.

Also, @7: Thalidomide was never FDA approved, precisely because the company was unable to prove its safety. Gardasil, on the other hand, has received FDA approval, on the basis of extensive trials for safety. Also, it does not contain mercury, so even if the mercury-containing vaccine-autism link has something to it, it doesn't apply here.