HPV: WHO calls for countries to suspend vaccination of boys

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is? In that case I stand with Derec. This is sexist and unjust.

So based on one post, you have developed this opinion without even delving into the details? So if we said that 60% of the half million of women in lower income nations that contract HPV die, does that change your opinion?

 

[laughing dog]

It makes sense to make more damn vaccine. That's the real story here. They should be doubling down on making more if this stuff. Not setting policies to take it away from peoole who need it.

Making more vaccine is the longer run solution but it does not help during the interim.

And he's, while the shortage lasts, the existing vaccine should be provided to those most at risk. I don't know if that is as simple as saying that's girls, or if other factors are as or more important (such as who is sexually active and who isn't etc).

It is my understanding that the medical community advises the vaccine is given before people get sexually active.

 

[Gun Nut]

If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.

WHO is arguing that until ALL girls can get vaccinated, NO boys should be. That is incredibly sexist.
It's like the argument that if there aren't enough life boats, all men should just be chivalrous and drown.

You may not be familiar with HPV.. hint, it is secually transmittted... that's possibly why you never heard of it.
Men can carry and transmit it, but nothing happens to them if they have it.
Women can carry and transmit it, and it can cause cancer in women.

So the only reason to vaccinate boys is to help prevent its spread
There are two reasons to vaccinate girls - not just to help prevent its spread, but to save their lives, potentially.

It's not about being "more affected"... its about who is affected AT ALL.

 

[Playball40]

Mostly yes. HPV can cause penile cancer in boys but it's rare.

If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.

WHO is arguing that until ALL girls can get vaccinated, NO boys should be. That is incredibly sexist.
It's like the argument that if there aren't enough life boats, all men should just be chivalrous and drown.

HPV doesn't effect men and women the same. Or am I wrong about that? It's prone to causing cervical cancer bin women, not testicular cancer in men. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't you want girls to get this vaccine before boys do? HPV is relatively harmless to boys.

I wonder if trans girls are still included for the vaccine.

 

[Toni]

It makes sense to make more damn vaccine. That's the real story here. They should be doubling down on making more if this stuff. Not setting policies to take it away from peoole who need it.

Making more vaccine is the longer run solution but it does not help during the interim.

And he's, while the shortage lasts, the existing vaccine should be provided to those most at risk. I don't know if that is as simple as saying that's girls, or if other factors are as or more important (such as who is sexually active and who isn't etc).

It is my understanding that the medical community advises the vaccine is given before people get sexually active.

The vaccine needs to be given before it is likely that the individual is sexually active in order to prevent any risk of HPV infection (of those HPV viruses included in the vaccine. There are more than 100 such HP viruses and the vaccines are against strains most likely to cause serious infection and disease.). That is why the recommendation is that the vaccine be given before or in early adolescence. Viruses remain in the body and can insert their own DNA/RNA into the DNA of the human host and decades later, cause cancer from an infection that had never even been noticed by the individual. The vaccines are not protecting children during their childhood but during their adult years. For full protection and the most effective disease prevention, the vaccines need to be administered before the individual is likely to come into contact with one of the cancer causing virus strains through sexual contact.

It is obvious that the long term solution is to manufacture and administer sufficient vaccine to protect all children and adolescents. In the meantime, it seems wise, however horrifying, to direct limited resources towards those most at risk.

The unfortunate fact is that, while girls and boys are both vulnerable to infection due to sexual contact before they are old enough to give informed consent to the sex, in general girls are more likely, statistically speaking, to be the victims of sexual molestation and assault and child marriages, all of which are risk factors for contracting HPV as well as other STIs. While ultimately an HPV infection might lead to some cancers in either male or female patients, we know of more kinds of cancers which are found in females and those cancers are more likely to be deadly if untreated. There is not a zero risk to boys from any of the HPV strains. It's just somewhat less than the risk to girls.

It's a horrible, horrible, horrifying dilemma.

 

[Playball40]

I really feel for Metaphor on this. Clearly women are going to be the end of him.

Regardless, check out this link. Each year, HPV is associated with about 35,000 new cases in the US. The split is around 60-40 overall. It would appear gay men are at great risk as oropharnyx is the big cause among men, otherwise, men's risk to HPV related cancers plummets to closer to 10% or nearly a magnitude lower than women.

I don't understand your analysis here, oropharynx cancer isn't limited to gay men, indeed, the famous cases I know about are all straight men. But it seems overall HPV is associated with about 20,700 cancers in women and 14,100 cancers in men.

Of throat cancer or throat cancer from HPV? NOT all throat cancer is related to HPV - you know that right?

 

[Playball40]

It makes sense to make more damn vaccine. That's the real story here. They should be doubling down on making more if this stuff. Not setting policies to take it away from peoole who need it.

Making more vaccine is the longer run solution but it does not help during the interim.

And he's, while the shortage lasts, the existing vaccine should be provided to those most at risk. I don't know if that is as simple as saying that's girls, or if other factors are as or more important (such as who is sexually active and who isn't etc).

It is my understanding that the medical community advises the vaccine is given before people get sexually active.

Only because it has no effect if they've already been exposed to HPV.

 

[ronburgundy]

HPV doesn't effect men and women the same. Or am I wrong about that? It's prone to causing cervical cancer bin women, not testicular cancer in men. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't you want girls to get this vaccine before boys do? HPV is relatively harmless to boys.

I wonder if trans girls are still included for the vaccine.

HPV is linked to several cancers in men

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/hpv-virus-men

But more prevalent in females. And it is highly possible that in the countries where HPV is the most problematic and thus the most vaccines are needed, that young girls get it at much higher rates and/or get it at younger ages. That's especially likely given that these same countries have high levels of sexual assault and trafficking of teenage girls.
It is also very likely that there are medical models showing that patterns of transmission indicate that the total number of cases among boys and girls will go down the most if all young females are vaccinated.

What is not at all likely is your wild speculation that the WHO is making a purely non-scientific, non-medical decision to just favor girls out of some "chivalry" notion.

 

[Metaphor]

You poor thing.

Thank you Jimmy Higgins for your substantive and thoughtful contribution.

 

[Metaphor]

I really feel for Metaphor on this. Clearly women are going to be the end of him.

Thank you Jimmy Higgins for your thoughtful and substantive contribution, however your sincere expression of empathy was already conveyed in your first post.

 

[Metaphor]

Anybody here with young sons who are going to turn down a HPV vaccine for him because girls don't have enough vaccine? I'm curious.

 

[laughing dog]

You poor thing.

Thank you Jimmy Higgins for your substantive and thoughtful contribution.

Jimmy's contribution was shorter and as thoughtful and substantive as the PPW (Penile Protection Waah) OP.

 

[ronburgundy]

Anybody here with young sons who are going to turn down a HPV vaccine for him because girls don't have enough vaccine? I'm curious.

Your curious about something of zero logical relevance to the discussion?

People selfishly favor their own kin. Governments and related organization are not supposedly to give a shit about that, but act in the collective best interests of all. So, if giving all the limited vaccines to young women has the largest net impact in reducing the most serious and costly HPV-related outcomes, then that is what they should do, even if it makes misogynist right wing snowflakes angry.

 

[J842P]

I really feel for Metaphor on this. Clearly women are going to be the end of him.

Regardless, check out this link. Each year, HPV is associated with about 35,000 new cases in the US. The split is around 60-40 overall. It would appear gay men are at great risk as oropharnyx is the big cause among men, otherwise, men's risk to HPV related cancers plummets to closer to 10% or nearly a magnitude lower than women.

I don't understand your analysis here, oropharynx cancer isn't limited to gay men, indeed, the famous cases I know about are all straight men. But it seems overall HPV is associated with about 20,700 cancers in women and 14,100 cancers in men.

Of throat cancer or throat cancer from HPV? NOT all throat cancer is related to HPV - you know that right?

The famous cases related to HPV, not throat cancer generally.

I wish I had gotten the HPV shot. Too late now, almost certainly.

 

[Metaphor]

Anybody here with young sons who are going to turn down a HPV vaccine for him because girls don't have enough vaccine? I'm curious.

Your curious about something of zero logical relevance to the discussion?

People selfishly favor their own kin. Governments and related organization are not supposedly to give a shit about that, but act in the collective best interests of all. So, if giving all the limited vaccines to young women has the largest net impact in reducing the most serious and costly HPV-related outcomes, then that is what they should do, even if it makes misogynist right wing snowflakes angry.

That merely pushes back the location of the decision. Do you think a national government that provides HPV vaccines to boys will now stop providing them, and would you support and push for your own government to do so?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anybody here with young sons who are going to turn down a HPV vaccine for him because girls don't have enough vaccine? I'm curious.

Your curious about something of zero logical relevance to the discussion?

People selfishly favor their own kin. Governments and related organization are not supposedly to give a shit about that, but act in the collective best interests of all. So, if giving all the limited vaccines to young women has the largest net impact in reducing the most serious and costly HPV-related outcomes, then that is what they should do, even if it makes misogynist right wing snowflakes angry.

That merely pushes back the location of the decision. Do you think a national government that provides HPV vaccines to boys will now stop providing them, and would you support and push for your own government to do so?

How many males will die if they don't get the vaccine verses how many females will die if they don't get the vaccine? Right now, it is about 300,000 annual deaths for women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Out of touch with reality as usual.

If there were a fixed supply of vaccine they would be right--it provides a greater benefit to women, you get the maximum benefit from using the fixed number of doses on women.

However, in the real world there are two issues--consumption in first-world countries and subsidized/donated supplies for the third world. The first world consumption leads to production, vaccinating a first-world boy isn't taking it away from a third-world girl. The subsidized stuff should be going entirely to girls until that segment is saturated.

 

[Metaphor]

That merely pushes back the location of the decision. Do you think a national government that provides HPV vaccines to boys will now stop providing them, and would you support and push for your own government to do so?

How many males will die if they don't get the vaccine verses how many females will die if they don't get the vaccine? Right now, it is about 300,000 annual deaths for women.

That isn't the question I asked. Does your country or state government provide HPV vaccines to boys, and (whether it did or not, supposing for these purposes that it did) would you lobby your government to stop providing them (or even forbid them) to boys, until the HPV vaccine shortages are resolved?

ronburgundy accused me of being illogical by asking if parents would deny it to their own sons (even though I already pointed out that people in wealthy countries do similarly self-focused things all the time). I assume it means ronburgundy would not deny it to his own sons if the situation arose. But that is what WHO is asking governments to do: deny it to a nation's sons. If ronburgundy believes that that's what should happen, he should lobby his own government to forbid HPV vaccines for boys.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That merely pushes back the location of the decision. Do you think a national government that provides HPV vaccines to boys will now stop providing them, and would you support and push for your own government to do so?

How many males will die if they don't get the vaccine verses how many females will die if they don't get the vaccine? Right now, it is about 300,000 annual deaths for women.

That isn't the question I asked.

It really should be. It is the basis for the proper direction to take regarding the limited HPV vaccine. Generally the policy you were ignorantly whining about.

 

[laughing dog]

That merely pushes back the location of the decision. Do you think a national government that provides HPV vaccines to boys will now stop providing them, and would you support and push for your own government to do so?

How many males will die if they don't get the vaccine verses how many females will die if they don't get the vaccine? Right now, it is about 300,000 annual deaths for women.

That isn't the question I asked. Does your country or state government provide HPV vaccines to boys, and (whether it did or not, supposing for these purposes that it did) would you lobby your government to stop providing them (or even forbid them) to boys, until the HPV vaccine shortages are resolved?

ronburgundy accused me of being illogical by asking if parents would deny it to their own sons (even though I already pointed out that people in wealthy countries do similarly self-focused things all the time). I assume it means ronburgundy would not deny it to his own sons if the situation arose. But that is what WHO is asking governments to do: deny it to a nation's sons. If ronburgundy believes that that's what should happen, he should lobby his own government to forbid HPV vaccines for boys.

WHO is not asking to deny vaccines to a nation's sons - it is asking them to get daughters done first. It is nuanced difference that you ought to be able to appreciate.

But you'd rather implicitly advocate for "equality of vaccination access" even if it means a dramatic decline in the health of a nation's daughters compared to that of the nation's sons.