Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Froufrou

The boys are free to get the shots, as well.

It would be wise for them to do so, even though they personally suffer no ill effects from the virus.


49 posted on 02/05/2007 7:52:09 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: MeanWestTexan

No ill effects except for penile cancer and genital warts...


88 posted on 02/05/2007 9:11:14 AM PST by DalcoTX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: MeanWestTexan
The boys are free to get the shots, as well.

I'm not certain about this. The FDA says that it's only approved for females aged 9-26, here. Doubtless it will eventually be available for males, but for now I think it's a girls'-only club.

It would be wise for them to do so, even though they personally suffer no ill effects from the virus.

Genital warts, penile cancer, and anal cancer -- granted, the cancers are rarer than the female versions, but still ... who wouldn't want a vaccine to reduce the chance of getting cancer in their equipment?

140 posted on 02/05/2007 11:05:58 AM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: MeanWestTexan
I think the argument that conservatives are against this because it will take away a disincentive to have unprotected sex is an enormous red herring. I think that reasonable people might have issues with this for a number of other / additional reasons -- the executive-order end run around the legislature, the seemingly cozy relationship with Merck, the fact that this seems a bit heavy handed for a virus that is not particularly easy to catch (unlike, say, polio or diphtheria, for which we do vaccinate more or less universally and thus get a good amount of "herd immunity" to guard against epidemics since vaccines are not 100% effective and not everyone gets the vaccine). Having said that, if the argument is to be made that the potential public health benefit is worth it, then boys should absolutely be getting this vaccine as well -- since not being able to spread HPV will enhance herd immunity very much. However, then Merck will not be able to market this as a way to "help women by preventing cancer" and will have to be honest and explain that this is actually a vaccine for an STD that causes about 70% of cervical cancers. BTW -- I would bet money that many people think that that stat means that 70% of women who get HPV go on to develop cervical cancer, which is of course not at all true, especially given the huge numbers of women who have had HPV.
253 posted on 02/05/2007 2:15:22 PM PST by ConservativePsychProf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson