NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Definitely good news for young women, but could start another "culture war" over cost and "religious" objections.


U.S. Approves Use of Vaccine
for Cervical Cancer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/health/09vaccine.html?th&emc=th)


By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 8 — Federal drug officials on Thursday announced the approval of a vaccine against cervical cancer that could eventually save thousands of lives each year in the United States and hundreds of thousands in the rest of the world.

The vaccine, called Gardasil, guards against cancer and genital warts caused by the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease. It is the culmination of a 15-year effort that began at the National Cancer Institute and a research center in Australia, and health officials described the vaccine as a landmark.

Federal vaccine experts are widely expected to recommend that all 11- to 12-year-old girls get the vaccine, but its reach could be limited by its high price and religious objections to its use.

Merck, Gardasil's maker, said a full, three-shot course would cost $360, making Gardasil among the most expensive vaccines ever made.

"This is a huge advance," said Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of the Food and Drug Administration's biologics center. "It demonstrates that vaccines can work beyond childhood diseases to protect the health of adults."

The vaccine prevents lasting infections with two human papillomavirus strains that cause 70 percent of cancers and another two strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts. But if girls have already been exposed to those strains, the vaccine has no effect, so health experts want the vaccine given before girls have sex. The median age at which girls have sex is 15.

A Merck spokeswoman said Gardasil, which was approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26, would be available in doctors' offices by the end of June.

The vaccine is not approved for use in boys, although Merck hopes one day to change that. If the company is successful, analysts expect that sales could surpass $4 billion by 2010.

Cervical cancer is the second-leading cause of death in women across the globe, affecting an estimated 470,000 women and killing 233,000 each year. Widespread use of Pap smears has reduced its toll in richer nations. In the United States, about 9,710 women contract cervical cancer each year, and some 3,700 die.

Private health insurers are likely to cover the vaccine for 11- and 12-year-old girls, although older women may have to pay for it themselves.

Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective medical interventions available. But Gardasil's price could put it out of reach for most women in poor countries and some in the United States who lack private insurance.

A federal program is expected to provide the vaccine to 45 percent of the children in the United States for whom it is recommended. But state programs that cover other children are having trouble buying other expensive vaccines.

North Carolina, for instance, spends $11 million annually to provide every child with seven vaccines. Gardasil alone would probably cost at least another $10 million.

"Increasingly, states are asked to make a Sophie's choice about which diseases they will allow children to be hospitalized or killed by," said Dr. Paul Offit, director of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Liberals in Congress and elsewhere have warned that the Bush administration and religious groups should not interfere with Gardasil's approval or required use.In response, many conservative groups have made statements supporting the vaccine.

"Despite rumors to the contrary, our organization doesn't oppose the vaccine and we have taken no position regarding mandatory laws," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, a conservative group based in Washington.

Some groups support the vaccine but oppose mandatory vaccinations because cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

"We can prevent it by the best public health method, and that's not having sex before marriage," said Linda Klepacki of Focus on the Family, a Christian advocacy organization based in Colorado Springs.

But scientific and budgetary issues are much more likely to determine Gardasil's uptake. Three shots must be given over six months. Such a schedule is routine among infants, but preteens are tougher to corral into doctors' offices.

An independent panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is scheduled to decide June 29 who should get the vaccine.

The panel is expected to recommend vaccinations for all 11- to 12-year-old girls, while agreeing that girls as young as 9 or women as old as 26 can get the vaccine if they wish. It is also expected to suggest that states make vaccinations mandatory.

Many states will not have the money to do much more, said Dr. Leah Devlin, state health director for North Carolina and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

[ Read the rest of this two-page article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/health/09vaccine.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th) ]

Healthcare is on budget.
How much do you spend on one new group -
and which old group gets its healthcare cut off to pay for that?

Healthcare is on budget. How much do you spend on one new group - and which old group gets its healthcare cut off to pay for that?
I seriously doubt you would shrug this off if your wife or daughter was one of those who could be saved by this drug. IMHO, cost-benefit analysis doesn't really apply when thousands of lives are at stake.

I seriously doubt you would shrug this off if your wife or daughter was one of those who could be saved by this drug. IMHO, cost-benefit analysis doesn't really apply when thousands of lives are at stake.


I'm thinking we're putting something like 80 Billion pounds sterling into the NHS.
There are limits to what we actually can do, you know?
The idea is that we dispense as much benefit as possible in general - and we wont get that result if we play favouritism.

EDIT: what I'm saying is: the life of every Briton is at stake, all the time.

Definitely good news for young women, but could start another "culture war" over cost and "religious" objections.

Not where I live. :)

Anyway, preventing cancer is cheaper than treating cancer. So, this should actually save tonnes of money. Again, short term loss, for tremendous long term gain - I can't believe they're even considering cost as an issue, but, then again, if religion is an issue, other idiocy is bound to follow...

I humbly apologize for the views I previously expressed on this issue. I was unaware as to the nature of HPV and the difficulty in detection and prevention of the disease. I retract all of my previous statements and hereby agree with the majority that paying for the treatment is the right thing to do, no matter the costs.

I can't believe they're even considering cost as an issue, but, then again, if religion is an issue, other idiocy is bound to follow...

In view of Saipea's answer, I proclaim myself NS psychic. It's nice to be proved right.

Absolutely not. Never never never.

There is no way in hell I'd be willing to pay double the current cost of health care for a drug that combats easily preventable diseases.
Yeah, provided you never have sex and that you never come in contact with some one with HPV (which is assuming the same of them, and on and on and on) - condoms provide less protection against HPV than other STDs due to its nature.

Nor would I condone injecting my children with that crap when they don't even need it (unless they turn out to be completely irresponsible sluts – and I mean that with no disrespect toward responsible sluts.)
I would say "I hope one of your kids contracts this, and you know, dies" but I'm not a fucking asshole and wouldn't wish this on them, unlike yourself.

EDIT: This is, of course, only concerning cervical cancer that is contracted due to negligence. Combating cancer that is contracted due to bad fortune is completely admirable, laudable, and worth paying for. (Although still not worth doubling a state's health budget on it alone.)
Because of course cancer should only be treated if it is gotten a certain way. Or we shouldn't prevent cancer that, you know, kills people because that is their fault for being sluts. :rolleyes:

In view of Saipea's answer, I proclaim myself NS psychic.


*seconds the motion*

*seconds the motion*

Seriously. Not only is his stance deeply, deeply unethical and shamelessly immoral, it boggles the mind how any sort of thinking, no matter how warped, managed to produce such a ridiculous opinion.

I wasn't frivolous either.

My view is that the health-care system has a duty to all - and that it has no excuse for favouritism.
It's that simple.

Absolutely not. Never never never.

There is no way in hell I'd be willing to pay double the current cost of health care for a drug that combats easily preventable diseases. Nor would I condone injecting my children with that crap when they don't even need it (unless they turn out to be completely irresponsible sluts – and I mean that with no disrespect toward responsible sluts.)

I am so sick of this resurgence in caring about STDs. You know why the media and people stopped caring? Because the people who contracted it brought it upon themselves! Because it's nature's natural way of population control! Because if anything, it's a good thing!

Go ahead, call me sick. At least I'm not so stupid, horny, and blasé about sex that I'm willing to risk contracting a disease that can kill me.

EDIT: This is, of course, only concerning cervical cancer that is contracted due to negligence. Combating cancer that is contracted due to bad fortune is completely admirable, laudable, and worth paying for. (Although still not worth doubling a state's health budget on it alone.)

So no grandchildren for you then, huh?

Because, you know, or your precious daughters would eventually have to have *gasp* sex, which would, obviously, make them - how did you put it? Ah yes, irresponsible sluts.


That post just make me break a self-imposed 2-month NS hiatus, I hope you're happy.

So no grandchildren for you then, huh?

Because, you know, or your precious daughters would eventually have to have *gasp* sex, which would, obviously, make them - how did you put it? Ah yes, irresponsible sluts.
He didn't say they couldn't have sex. He said they shouldn't be sleeping around.

If you only sleep with one person, and neither of you have STD's, then neither of you catch STD's. It's quite simple.

Cervical cancer, however, is not an STD, if I remember correctly. It can be caused by sexual activity, but the sex acts more as a 'stimulant' to the causes. In other words, even if you are faithful all your life you can still get cervical cancer.

That post just make me break a self-imposed 2-month NS hiatus, I hope you're happy.
Why'd you stop posting?

I wasn't frivolous either.

My view is that the health-care system has a duty to all - and that it has no excuse for favouritism.
It's that simple.

This will save money - it's a budgetary no-brainer, so this cost "issue" is ludicrous. All that cancer morbidity, for which we already pay in one way or another, costs much, much more than this vaccine programme. This is probably why private insurers will cover the vaccine - it makes sense for them to prevent the costs that cancer treatment (whose costs keep spiralling upwards with each new development) entails. And it makes the same sense for the government.

Absolutely not. Never never never.

There is no way in hell I'd be willing to pay double the current cost of health care for a drug that combats easily preventable diseases. Nor would I condone injecting my children with that crap when they don't even need it (unless they turn out to be completely irresponsible sluts – and I mean that with no disrespect toward responsible sluts.)

I am so sick of this resurgence in caring about STDs. You know why the media and people stopped caring? Because the people who contracted it brought it upon themselves! Because it's nature's natural way of population control! Because if anything, it's a good thing!

Go ahead, call me sick. At least I'm not so stupid, horny, and blasé about sex that I'm willing to risk contracting a disease that can kill me.

EDIT: This is, of course, only concerning cervical cancer that is contracted due to negligence. Combating cancer that is contracted due to bad fortune is completely admirable, laudable, and worth paying for. (Although still not worth doubling a state's health budget on it alone.)

Your attitude to the health of your daughters shows much of how you are a parent. It saddens me deeply that you would put such idiotic views over a way of protecting your children from such a devestating disease.

This will save money - it's a budgetary no-brainer, so this cost "issue" is ludicrous. All that cancer morbidity, for which we already pay in one way or another, costs much, much more than this vaccine programme. This is probably why private insurers will cover the vaccine - it makes sense for them to prevent the costs that cancer treatment (whose costs keep spiralling upwards with each new development) entails. And it makes the same sense for the government.


The NHS is run on a yearly budget.
( I'm sure other countries have their own ways. )

One of the drawbacks of having the yearly system is that the mechanisms are unable to cope with measures that save money in the future.

( We're sort of trying to incorporate some 'forward'-sense, but the mess is becoming untolerable. )

Aren't vaccines like almost everything else? Buy loads and each one gets cheaper? Sounds like a vaccine programme for something as big as the US would buy quite a few.

In Britain I'm pretty sure there's a limit to the amount of profiteering companies can do at the expense of the NHS, and when the patents run out you can make generic versions anyway.

The NHS is run on a yearly budget.
( I'm sure other countries have their own ways. )

One of the drawbacks of having the yearly system is that the mechanisms are unable to cope with measures that save money in the future.

( We're sort of trying to incorporate some 'forward'-sense, but the mess is becoming untolerable. )

Hopefully the untenability of the situation will make it change and people finally understand that prevention makes sense.

Hopefully the untenability of the situation will make it change and people finally understand that prevention makes sense.

I wish. They'll probably just hire another level of administrators...

He didn't say they couldn't have sex. He said they shouldn't be sleeping around.

If you only sleep with one person, and neither of you have STD's, then neither of you catch STD's. It's quite simple.
No, as a matter of fact, it is not.

Says Wiki: "However, most HPV types that infect the genitals tend not to cause noticeable symptoms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus). So, what, you think you get the second leading cause of death in women because all women are sluts? Well, think again: "Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus). Also: "Although condoms are highly effective for preventing the transmission of other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), recent studies have concluded that condoms only offer limited protection against the transmission of genital HPVs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus).

So, all you guys on NS, how can any one of you be so unbearably, smugly sure that he himself is miraculously free of a no-symptoms causing virus? Anybody want to guess how many of the 75% of women get infected by their oh-so-loving and ostensibly STD-free husband? Nah, that wouldn't make for such convenient, moronic condemnations, would it?

To anticipate The Nazz' comment: If this was a vaccine against prostate cancer, you bet these arguments wouldn't have come up.

It's the second leading cause of death in women. Unless your mothers, sisters, daughters, and, yes, wives are somehow miraculously immune by virtue of your self-righteous indignation, I'd really like to talk to you again when one of them is diagnosed.

Oh, but what am I saying? In that case, I'm sure, it would be one of the 30% of cases caused by something innocent and virtuous. Silly me.

-snip-
:) Thank you for ignoring the part of what I said that didn't suit with your 'speak out against sex and you're evil' agenda.

:) Thank you for ignoring the part of what I said that didn't suit with your 'speak out against sex and you're evil' agenda.

Not necessarily evil, but ill-informed. Abstinence has never worked, and will never work, for the simple reason that people are not going to be abstinent. That's why condoms are much more effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy, and why this vaccine, if it works as it should, will be as well.

Yeah, provided you never have sex and that you never come in contact with some one with HPV (which is assuming the same of them, and on and on and on) - condoms provide less protection against HPV than other STDs due to its nature.

My apologies, but I was under the impression that this disease was contracted due to people a) not checking on their partners' health b) not using prophylactics c) who were generally, for lack of a more tasteful term, being irresponsible "sluts"

And you guys really need to read sigs before you jump to labels of whatever collective political views you think I might have.

My apologies, but I was under the impression that this disease was contracted due to people a) not checking on their partners' health b) not using prophylactics c) who were generally, for lack of a more tasteful term, were being irresponsible "sluts".

Seeing as you were wrong on all your assumptions, your apology is well suited. Imagine if you had gotten informed before forming an opinion? Novel idea, I know. Perhaps you should think about it in the future.

:) Thank you for ignoring the part of what I said that didn't suit with your 'speak out against sex and you're evil' agenda.
Thing is that many STDs can be transferred by means other than sex. Herpes and HIV for instance.

Also, even if person X never has sex before marriage, how do they guarantee their husband/wife Y doesn't before they even meet them?

Seeing as you were wrong on all your assumptions, your apology is well suited.

Explain then. This article said that cervical cancer is contracted by an STD. And unless I'm mistaken, STDs are detectable diseases that are easily preventable if you take the logical safe precautions.

:) Thank you for ignoring the part of what I said that didn't suit with your 'speak out against sex and you're evil' agenda.
Huh, I didn't know I had any agenda.

And I thought about tacking the last sentence of your post In other words, even if you are faithful all your life you can still get cervical cancer. at the end of mine with a "ditto", but I figured that was obvious.

Also, my post was addressed to the poster you were referring to and others who might think like him, so apologies if you felt attacked.

Alright, so it's hard to visibly detect.
But is it medically undetectable?

Huh, I didn't know I had any agenda.

And I thought about tacking the last sentence of your post at the end of mine with a "ditto", but I figured that was obvious.

Also, my post was addressed to the poster you were referring to and others who might think like him, so apologies if you felt attacked.
No problem. :)

COMMENTARY: Definitely good news for young women, but could start another "culture war" over cost and "religious" objections.

Remember, everybody, that in Pro-Life America a woman is considered better off having cancer than having multiple sex partners.

Aren't vaccines like almost everything else? Buy loads and each one gets cheaper? Sounds like a vaccine programme for something as big as the US would buy quite a few.

In Britain I'm pretty sure there's a limit to the amount of profiteering companies can do at the expense of the NHS, and when the patents run out you can make generic versions anyway.
In the US, drug companies are practically paid to profiteer.

Alright, so it's hard to visibly detect.
But is it medically undetectable?
I could be wrong, but I think it is in men.

Explain then. This article said that cervical cancer is contracted by an STD. And unless I'm mistaken, STDs are detectable diseases that are easily preventable if you take the logical safe precautions.

Condoms are not very effective against HPV as the virus is so incredibly virulent. Most HPV-infections with the pertinent cancer-causing strains of the virus are not detectable, and do not give symptoms until you've developed cellular atypia and/or cancer in situ.

As Whereyouthink... said, this didn't become the number two cause for death in women for nothing or being easily avoidable - it's a very insidious infection. Most people end up getting infected by it. That its cancer-causing strains are mainly sexually transmitted makes it in no way different from any other infection out there - its mode of transmission should have no bearing at all on how willing we are to combat it or how we aid the people who have been afflicted, and it is quite reprehensible to suggest otherwise.

Seriously, do read up on a subject before you form an opinion next time.

Remember, everybody, that in Pro-Life America a woman is considered better off having cancer than having multiple sex partners.
Obviously; a slow and painful death is just punishment to those who sleep around, and prevents those who don't from succumbing to the temptation!

Alright, so it's hard to visibly detect.
But is it medically undetectable?

Do you know how to take a pap smear and do cytological examinations? Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis? Colposcopy? Or something so unimpressive as a basic gynaecological exam based on a history of mittelschmerzen and occasional middle bleeds?

Unless you do, you will not "medically detect" it. Not until it has caused cancer and you start having symptoms from that.

And even when you do detect it, there is no way of curing the infection.

A thought occurs to me:

Assume that all these anti-sex religious nutters continue to oppose vaccines against STDs. In a generation or two, a WWJD bracelet will become like a typhoid Mary sign! We'll have public service announcements about how sex with religious people is a "high-risk" practice. Soon, having anal sex with a bunch of total strangers in a gay bar will be considered more safe than having a brief fumbling encounter with the non-inocculated daughter of your Jeebus-loving nextdoor neighbor.

And, at long last, the anti-sex nutters won't have to worry about telling their kids to abstain from sex, because nobody will want to get with their disease-riddled offspring anyhow.

Remember, everybody, that in Pro-Life America a woman is considered better off having cancer than having multiple sex partners.

What was the difference between the US and the Middle East again?

A thought occurs to me:

Assume that all these anti-sex religious nutters continue to oppose vaccines against STDs. In a generation or two, a WWJD bracelet will become like a typhoid Mary sign! We'll have public service announcements about how sex with religious people is a "high-risk" practice. Soon, having anal sex with a bunch of total strangers in a gay bar will be considered more safe than having a brief fumbling encounter with the non-inocculated daughter of your Jeebus-loving nextdoor neighbor.

And, at long last, the anti-sex nutters won't have to worry about telling their kids to abstain from sex, because nobody will want to get with their disease-riddled offspring anyhow.

Hmmm. This is an interesting idea. You also reminded me of a short story I read that was basically like this. Now, if only I could remember what it was called...or what book it was in...

Obviously; a slow and painful death is just punishment to those who sleep around, and prevents those who don't from succumbing to the temptation!
Well geez, I mean, we keep TELLING women that they become worthless as soon as somebody breaks the plastic wrap over their vagina, but the silly bitches still seem to think they get to have sex if they want to! As if they were autonimous human beings, or something!

Fuck it, let's just tell them that sex will kill them outright, and make sure that we block them from accessing any of the medical treatments that might save them from horrible, agonizing deaths. Hell, let's just inject them with HPV at birth, to teach them a lesson for being born with the taint of Eve's hideous femaleness.

What was the difference between the US and the Middle East again?
Different hats.

Do you know how to take a pap smears and do cytological examinations? Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis? Colposcopy? Or something so unimpressive as a basic gynaecological exam based on a history of mittelschmerzen and occasional middle bleeds?

How long after contracting the disease would it take one of those exams to detect it?
And by the way, those exams are pretty routine (for someone who cares about their health.)

Different hats.

Oh yeah.

How people soon forget that old adage, 'Prevention is better than Curing'

Oh yeah.

How people soon forget that old adage, 'Prevention is better than Curing'
You're forgetting the rest of that phrase:

"Prevention is better than a cure, except when we're talking about dirty sluts who had Teh Sex and therefore deserve to die in the gutter like the trash they are."

You're forgetting the rest of that phrase:

"Prevention is better than a cure, except when we're talking about dirty sluts who had Teh Sex and therefore deserve to die in the gutter like the trash they are."

Halleujah, Brother Bottle! Repent, sluts! REPENT!

How long after contracting the disease would it take one of those exams to detect it?

Pap smear? That depends on how much it takes for the virus to cause the cellular atypia one is looking for. For most people, that probably means several years, if not decades.

And by the way, those exams are pretty routine (for someone who cares about their health.)

The exams are done for screening purposes - they do not actually do anything about the virus. In fact, most except PCR detect the damage the virus causes and not the virus itself, so they just basically let you detect the cancer early, and do nothing to prevent it.

Seriously, you need to learn about this before you make an opinion of the sort you formed. Then you need to learn not to form that sort of opinion in any case.

We need more population control, this cure's gonna throw everything out of whack. =P

"Prevention is better than a cure, except when we're talking about dirty sluts who had Teh Sex and therefore deserve to die in the gutter like the trash they are."
Of course, we could commit that immortal sin against liberalism and say that *gasp* perhaps not having sex left right and centre is a brilliant idea, while still caring for those who are unfortunate enough to catch an STD.

This 'responsibility-free' attitude, that leads people to say 'of course I should sleep with anyone I want, when I want to, and anyone who disagrees is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!", is reckless. People need to realise that some actions have consequences, and it is better to avoid those consequences than have to deal with them.

We need more population control, this cure's gonna throw everything out of whack. =P

Population control through use of contraceptives is highly effective. This will change nothing in that area, just like curing polio didn't mean more people drowned because they didn't stay away from water.

Of course, we could commit that immortal sin against liberalism and say that *gasp* perhaps not having sex left right and centre is a brilliant idea, while still caring for those who are unfortunate enough to catch an STD.

This 'responsibility-free' attitude, that leads people to say 'of course I should sleep with anyone I want, when I want to, and anyone who disagrees is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!", is reckless. People need to realise that some actions have consequences, and it is better to avoid those consequences than have to deal with them.

Screw that. If I want to have sex with more than one person, I will. There's no law against it, and I'll take the consequences. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from not having this preventative aid, since this shit can affect even people having sex with a single person.

Pap smear? That depends on how much it takes for the virus to cause the cellular atypia one is looking for. For most people, that probably means several years.

There we go. No normal person would wait several years before having sex again. I'll shall publicly apologize in big bold letters straight away.

Seriously, do read up on a subject before you form an opinion next time.

The summary Etrusca posted seemed to indicate that it was simply a particularly virulent STD; it gave no indication that condoms had little effect on deterring it or that detection took several years.

I also admit that I jumped when I saw it was an STD. I have strong beliefs about STDs and negligence and have a chip on my back to prove my opinions about it. I'm really sorry.

Of course, we could commit that immortal sin against liberalism and say that *gasp* perhaps not having sex left right and centre is a brilliant idea, while still caring for those who are unfortunate enough to catch an STD.

Judging people, again, has never worked. All it does is make them reticent in seeking help when they do need it.

This 'responsibility-free' attitude, that leads people to say 'of course I should sleep with anyone I want, when I want to, and anyone who disagrees is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!", is reckless. People need to realise that some actions have consequences, and it is better to avoid those consequences than have to deal with them.

And this vaccine is a very responsible (and actually feasible as opposed to abstinence) way to avoid at least one major consequence. You should be lauding this, oh, thou proclaimer of "responsible behaviour." Or, would you have stood at pools and called all those children who caught polio "irresponsible" for swimming?

Screw that. If I want to have sex with more than one person, I will. There's no law against it, and I'll take the consequences. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from not having this preventative aid, since this shit can affect even people having sex with a single person.
I didn't say we shouldn't help people who have STDs. I said we should treat sex with a bit more respect; if people choose to ignore that advice, well, that's up to them.

I'd rather we told our children that it's not essential for them to have had sex with ten different people by time they're 14 to be 'cool'. Much better to let them grow into it naturally, and then have them take a bit more responsibility with who they choose to entrust their health to.

Of course, we could commit that immortal sin against liberalism and say that *gasp* perhaps not having sex left right and centre is a brilliant idea, while still caring for those who are unfortunate enough to catch an STD.

I'd say we should care for anybody with an STD to the best of our abilities, and we should work to help prevent STD infection in everybody regardless of their sexual behaviors.

Nobody here is arguing that we should encourage unsafe promiscuous sex, so I don't know why you feel like punching that straw man.


This 'responsibility-free' attitude, that leads people to say 'of course I should sleep with anyone I want, when I want to, and anyone who disagrees is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!", is reckless. People need to realise that some actions have consequences, and it is better to avoid those consequences than have to deal with them.
Um, yes, so wouldn't PREVENTING infection with HPV fit under the heading of "taking responsibility"?

Remember, a wedding ring does not protect you against HPV. Abstaining from sex only protects you for as long as you are abstaining...the moment you have sex, you're running the same risk as anybody else. Keep in mind that the fastest growing population of new HIV patients is married women who are 100% faithful to their husbands...why the fuck are we wasting time telling people to quit slutting around, when that's not the point and NEVER HAS BEEN?

I didn't say we shouldn't help people who have STDs. I said we should treat sex with a bit more respect; if people choose to ignore that advice, well, that's up to them.

I'd rather we told our children that it's not essential for them to have had sex with ten different people by time they're 14 to be 'cool'. Much better to let them grow into it naturally, and then have them take a bit more responsibility with who they choose to entrust their health to.

Okay. So why can't they have this new injection to decrease their chances of getting cervical cancer?

And this vaccine is a very responsible (and actually feasible as opposed to abstinence) way to avoid at least one major consequence. You should be lauding this, oh, thou proclaimer of "responsible behaviour." Or, would you have stood at pools and called all those children who caught polio "irresponsible" for swimming?
I'm sure he'd also sit in emergency rooms and yell at kids who come in with broken legs because they fell off their bike. They shouldn't have been riding their bike so much in the first place! Why didn't they take some personal responsibility?

I humbly apologize for the views I previously expressed on this issue. I was unaware as to the nature of HPV and the difficulty in detection and prevention of the disease. I retract all of my previous statements and hereby agree with the majority that paying for the treatment is the right thing to do, no matter the costs.

I'd like to further add the argument that this is not being medically selective with resources when it's an issue of this enormity.

Judging people, again, has never worked. All it does is make them reticent in seeking help when they do need it.
I didn't suggest judging anyone.

And this vaccine is a very responsible (and actually feasible as opposed to abstinence) way to avoid at least one major consequence. You should be lauding this, oh, thou proclaimer of "responsible behaviour." Or, would you have stood at pools and called all those children who caught polio "irresponsible" for swimming?
I also didn't suggest not giving this vaccine. What I am saying is that this black and white attidude, where you're 'either for sex or against it', is absurd. What we should be doing is taking a middle approach, and encouraging responsibility within sexual freedom.

I humbly apologize for the views I previously expressed on this issue. I was unaware as to the nature of HPV and the difficulty in detection and prevention of the disease. I retract all of my previous statements and hereby agree with the majority that paying for the treatment is the right thing to do, no matter the costs.

I'd like to further add the argument that this is not being medically selective with resources when it's an issue of this enormity.
Waitaminute.

You mean, somebody came into a thread with a particular opinion, was presented with facts that contradicted their assumptions, and therefore decided to alter their stance on the subject in question?

Dude, that's totally not how it works around here. You're supposed to get mad and call us Satanic faggot abortion doctors. Or maybe figure out some way to link us with Islamunistic terrorists.

Okay. So why can't they have this new injection to decrease their chances of getting cervical cancer?
No where did I suggest such a thing.

It is interesting that is the response coming out from all of you, however. "OMG!!!!111!!!! He's saying that people shouldn't walk around with their trousers permenantly around their ankles!!! That is like, so bad!!!"

Come on guys, you can do better than this.

No where did I suggest such a thing.

It is interesting that is the response coming out from all of you, however. "OMG!!!!111!!!! He's saying that people shouldn't walk around with their trousers permenantly around their ankles!!! That is like, so bad!!!"

Come on guys, you can do better than this.

Considering you walked in and started yelling about 'liberalism' and attacking other posters, this is hardly expected.

Dude, that's totally not how it works around here. You're supposed to get mad and call us Satanic faggot abortion doctors. Or maybe figure out some way to link us with Islamunistic terrorists.

Well, it doesn't stop me from ragging on you for not reading my sig and realizing that I'm a liberal-libertarian atheist who constantly changes his opinions.

Considering you walked in and started yelling about 'liberalism' and attacking other posters, this is hardly expected.
Actually, I came in this thread and pointed out that this wasn't an issue to do with STDs.

I didn't suggest judging anyone.

Sure you did. You implied that sex with "too many" people (however many that might be) is a bad thing, and that people who have "too much" sex are behaving irresponsibly.


I also didn't suggest not giving this vaccine. What I am saying is that this black and white attidude, where you're 'either for sex or against it', is absurd.

It is, yes. Happily, nobody is advancing that theory (except you), so we have nothing to debate about.


What we should be doing is taking a middle approach, and encouraging responsibility within sexual freedom.
Responsibility does not automatically correlate with the number of sex partners a person has. It is perfectly possible to be very promiscuous and also responsible. It is perfectly possible to be utterly sexually irresponsible and have had only one partner. Hell, there are plenty of sexually irresponsible VIRGINS out there. You make a dangerous mistake when you equate number of sex partners with personal responsibility.

I didn't suggest judging anyone.

You were just doing it.

I also didn't suggest not giving this vaccine. What I am saying is that this black and white attidude, where you're 'either for sex or against it', is absurd. What we should be doing is taking a middle approach, and encouraging responsibility within sexual freedom.

I have never heard anyone who wasn't a supporter of responsibility, and the responsible thing to do is to get this vaccine for your children, just like it is responsible to get other preventative measures for them. And the responsible thing about sex is to use contraceptives and protection, no matter how you do or do not fuck around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500809.html

"A 2001 Guttmacher Institute report, drawing on data from 30 countries in Western and Eastern Europe, concluded: "Societal acceptance of sexual activity among young people, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention childbearing and STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] within teenage relationships, are hallmarks of countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs." The study cited Sweden as the "clearest of the case-study countries in viewing sexuality among young people as natural and good."

Cecilia Ekéus, a nurse midwife with a PhD in public international health who works with the Institute of Women and Child Health at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, says Swedish society teaches that sex should occur in a committed relationship "and also that teenagers should use contraceptives, be informed and take responsibility. But in general we are open and positive and think that it's okay."

Fucking around in and of itself is not irresponsible - it is doing so without taking precautions that is the bigger issue. Judging them for having sex is not going to change anything.

Actually, I came in this thread and pointed out that this wasn't an issue to do with STDs.
So you came into a thread about a vaccine against an STD to point out that this topic isn't to do with STDs?

I wish. They'll probably just hire another level of administrators...


Let's try to be a bit optimistic... ;)

You make a dangerous mistake when you equate number of sex partners with personal responsibility.

Ya, I'm guilty of that on occasion. :(

Well, it doesn't stop me from ragging on you for not reading my sig and realizing that I'm a liberal-libertarian atheist who constantly changes his opinions.

Most people probably have sigs turned off, as is the default on the fora. I do.

No, as a matter of fact, it is not.

Says Wiki: "However, most HPV types that infect the genitals tend not to cause noticeable symptoms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus). So, what, you think you get the second leading cause of death in women because all women are sluts? Well, think again: "Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus). Also: "Although condoms are highly effective for preventing the transmission of other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), recent studies have concluded that condoms only offer limited protection against the transmission of genital HPVs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus).

So, all you guys on NS, how can any one of you be so unbearably, smugly sure that he himself is miraculously free of a no-symptoms causing virus? Anybody want to guess how many of the 75% of women get infected by their oh-so-loving and ostensibly STD-free husband? Nah, that wouldn't make for such convenient, moronic condemnations, would it?

To anticipate The Nazz' comment: If this was a vaccine against prostate cancer, you bet these arguments wouldn't have come up.

It's the second leading cause of death in women. Unless your mothers, sisters, daughters, and, yes, wives are somehow miraculously immune by virtue of your self-righteous indignation, I'd really like to talk to you again when one of them is diagnosed.

Oh, but what am I saying? In that case, I'm sure, it would be one of the 30% of cases caused by something innocent and virtuous. Silly me.
[ Applauds ] :)

Apology
If only those in power were so willing to admit their failures and change their opinions when prevented with facts, on this and any other subject. Well done :)

Ya, I'm guilty of that on occasion. :(
It's hard not to, in our present culture. Particularly in the case of women/girls, since so many people still cling to the notion that a woman's value is somehow reduced once she has sex. She's dirty, used up, not nearly as precious and pure and wonderful as she was before her vagina was defiled. If you function under that assumption, it's easy to see how having sex with more than one person is automatically "irresponsible," because a girl who does that is automatically reducing her value as a human being. She's being used, she's being dirtied, and with every successive partner her worth is further debased.

Sure you did. You implied that sex with "too many" people (however many that might be) is a bad thing, and that people who have "too much" sex are behaving irresponsibly.
The more partners you have sex with, the higher your risk of catching an STD. If one in ten people have an STD, then sleep with one person and you have a 10% chance of catching one. If you sleep with 10, you have a 100%.

Please don't try to tie me up on those 'statistics', it's just a way of illustrating the point.

It is, yes. Happily, nobody is advancing that theory (except you), so we have nothing to debate about.
You were attacking the idea that it is good to promote a sexually responsible attitude as 'only religious nutters do it' and 'these people think that if you ho catch an STD you should be left in the gutter.' So actually, you did advance that theory.

If you're going to try and say I am implying 'judging', you'll have to face up to your own implications.

Responsibility does not automatically correlate with the number of sex partners a person has. It is perfectly possible to be very promiscuous and also responsible. It is perfectly possible to be utterly sexually irresponsible and have had only one partner. Hell, there are plenty of sexually irresponsible VIRGINS out there. You make a dangerous mistake when you equate number of sex partners with personal responsibility.
And you make a dangerous mistake when you try to totally remove any link between being promiscuous and STDs. I am not denying your point; I simply do not accept it fully. There is no need to sleep with every person you meet, and it's time to stop indoctrinating children with the idea that if they're not, they're somehow weird.

So you came into a thread about a vaccine against an STD to point out that this topic isn't to do with STDs?
Indeed. I would say that is quite a logical thing to do.

Indeed. I would say that is quite a logical thing to do.


*confuddled and befused*

You were just doing it.
If you think I was judging there, then I'm not sure how you'd cope when you see me really judging.


I have never heard anyone who wasn't a supporter of responsibility, and the responsible thing to do is to get this vaccine for your children, just like it is responsible to get other preventative measures for them. And the responsible thing about sex is to use contraceptives and protection, no matter how you do or do not fuck around.

Fucking around in and of itself is not irresponsible - it is doing so without taking precautions that is the bigger issue. Judging them for having sex is not going to change anything.
You can get preventative measures for them and say 'it's best if you don't sleep around too much'. Sexual freedom does not equal sexual immortality, which is what it seems to have become. Like everything, the pendulum in this case has swung back from one extreme and it now heading too far in the other direction; hence the reason we have an STD explosion.

SNIP
Sexual freedom does not equal sexual immortality, which is what it seems to have become. Like everything, the pendulum in this case has swung back from one extreme and it now heading too far in one direction; hence the reason we have an STD explosion.

Freedom to do good is difficult to grant without granting freedom to do bad.
Which is why I'm no great proponent of freedom in general.

If you think I was judging there, then I'm not sure how you'd cope when you see me really judging.

I'm not coping with you doing that - I'm dismissing you in doing it.

You can get preventative measures for them and say 'it's best if you don't sleep around too much'. Sexual freedom does not equal sexual immortality, which is what it seems to have become.

And being sanctimonious about it with a "they should blame themselves" rhetoric just doesn't work.

Like everything, the pendulum in this case has swung back from one extreme and it now heading too far in the other direction; hence the reason we have an STD explosion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/051606/teensex.html

"We" don't have an STD explosion at all. States with failed sexual education programmes, such as "abstinence only," do.

I'm not coping with you doing that - I'm dismissing you in doing it.
You've dismissed most of things we've ever discussed. I live with it.

And being sanctimonious about it with a "they should blame themselves" rhetoric just doesn't work.
Again, you are assigning the blame element. Is it really so controversial to say to children 'don't feel you have to have sex'?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/051606/teensex.html

"We" don't have an STD explosion at all. States with failed sexual education programmes, such as "abstinence only," do.
Britain has no abstinence only laws whatsoever; we have a relatively well developed sex education programme, and yet we have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. And, again, I have to point out I didn't say 'abstinence only'; I have been saying 'caution only'. There is quite a big difference.

The more partners you have sex with, the higher your risk of catching an STD.

Not necessarily, no.


If one in ten people have an STD, then sleep with one person and you have a 10% chance of catching one. If you sleep with 10, you have a 100%.

Wrong. If one in ten people has an STD, and you sleep with that one person, you run the same chance of catching the STD no matter how many other people you've slept with.

And, if I sleep with the nine out of ten people who DON'T have the STD, and you sleep with the one person who does have it, then I run zero risk while you run the full risk.

You were attacking the idea that it is good to promote a sexually responsible attitude as 'only religious nutters do it' and 'these people think that if you ho catch an STD you should be left in the gutter.' So actually, you did advance that theory.

No, I was attacking the idea that a "sexually responsible attitude" must include a belief that promiscuity is wrong.


If you're going to try and say I am implying 'judging', you'll have to face up to your own implications.

No, if I'm going to try to say you are judging then the only thing I need to do is show that you are judging people. My own beliefs don't impact whether or not you were judging people.


There is no need to sleep with every person you meet, and it's time to stop indoctrinating children with the idea that if they're not, they're somehow weird.
Dude, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING THAT.

You've dismissed most of things we've ever discussed. I live with it.

Nice of you to notice, though.

Again, you are assigning the blame element. Is it really so controversial to say to children 'don't feel you have to have sex'?

It is if that means you're going to beat them over the head with it or use it to vilify sexuality. The thing being that no one has opposed "you don't have to feel you have to have sex."

Britain has no abstinence only laws whatsoever; we have a relatively well developed sex education programme, and yet we have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. And, again, I have to point out I didn't say 'abstinence only'; I have been saying 'caution only'. There is quite a big difference.

"If you only sleep with one person, and neither of you have STD's, then neither of you catch STD's. It's quite simple."

Dude, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING THAT.
Society is advocating that. Sex is everywhere, and carries the implication that you should be doing it. I'm not sure how you missed this; did you just skip over your teenage years?

*confuddled and befused*
It's a pretty twisted attitude, really. A vaccine for a disease isn't about the DISEASE, it's about all the reasons why certain people deserve to get sick because they made "irresponsible" choices. And instead of focusing on how to get treatment or preventative measures out to the public, we should spend our time telling people they're bad for making the wrong choices.

It's like how when there's a car accident, we worry first about telling the victims that they shouldn't have made the irresponsible decision to drive a car. And when somebody breaks their leg skiing, we don't worry about getting them a cast and some painkillers, we worry about how we can get the message to kids that skiing is irresponsible and dangerous.

Society is advocating that. Sex is everywhere, and carries the implication that you should be doing it. I'm not sure how you missed this; did you just skip over your teenage years?

Oh yes. Society is forcing children to have sex. Putting a gun to their head and pulling down their pants. Indeed.

Nice of you to notice, though.
It's generally quite difficult to not notice you. :rolleyes:

It is if that means you're going to beat them over the head with it or use it to vilify sexuality. The thing being that no one has opposed "you don't have to feel you have to have sex."
If you are so insecure in your sexual freedoms as to think that someone promoting responsibility is vilifying sex, then perhaps it is best you are never left in charge of designing a sex education programme.

"If you only sleep with one person, and neither of you have STD's, then neither of you catch STD's. It's quite simple."
I said that in the posters defence. He said 'don't be promiscuous' and got a barrage of abuse from people claiming he'd said 'never have sex'.

Oh yes. Society is forcing children to have sex. Putting a gun to their head and pulling down their pants. Indeed.

Your sarcasm is precise. I've never gotten the message from society that I should fuck around, and I did it anyway. The difference being I got the message to "wear a condom" and that did me more good than any "don't have sex, sex is bad and evil!" message ever would have.

Society is advocating that. Sex is everywhere, and carries the implication that you should be doing it. I'm not sure how you missed this; did you just skip over your teenage years?
What the fuck society do you live in?!

Dude, I'm a member of the AIDS generation. We have been getting the anti-promiscuity message since preschool. Yes, it's true, some of us have watched MTV from time to time, and some of us may even have lost our virginity before getting married, but WE ARE NOT MORONS. We've endured entire years of health class in which the only lesson is, "don't have sex, don't listen to The Media, don't give in to peer pressure." We know. We got the memo.

What the fuck society do you live in?!

Dude, I'm a member of the AIDS generation. We have been getting the anti-promiscuity message since preschool. Yes, it's true, some of us have watched MTV from time to time, and some of us may even have lost our virginity before getting married, but WE ARE NOT MORONS. We've endured entire years of health class in which the only lesson is, "don't have sex, don't listen to The Media, don't give in to peer pressure." We know. We got the memo.


You got the memo.
Yet MTV was STILL available.
Bad Mistake.

Oh yes. Society is forcing children to have sex. Putting a gun to their head and pulling down their pants. Indeed.
You take the process to an extreme, but it is actually not so far from the truth.

Kids see "SEX SEX SEX!" as the cultural norm.
Kids think "SEX SEX SEX is the norm, therefore it's what I MUST be doing to be normal!"
Kids have SEX SEX SEX!

And we end up with teenage pregnancies and STDs.

It's generally quite difficult to not notice you. :rolleyes:

My wonderful personality has to be shared with the world, so one does do one's best.

If you are so insecure in your sexual freedoms as to think that someone promoting responsibility is vilifying sex, then perhaps it is best you are never left in charge of designing a sex education programme.

I've yet to see anyone advocating irresponsibility.

I said that in the posters defence. He said 'don't be promiscuous' and got a barrage of abuse from people claiming he'd said 'never have sex'.

The point being that "don't be promiscuous" is not the answer. The answer is "the risk is higher with promiscuity, but should you choose to be promiscuous, condoms and contraceptives are going to alleviate it." Making judgemental statements about promiscuity will get you nowhere - kids being as they are, you'll probably lead them into more of it.

You take the process to an extreme, but it is actually not so far from the truth.

Kids see "SEX SEX SEX!" as the cultural norm.
Kids think "SEX SEX SEX is the norm, therefore it's what I MUST be doing to be normal!"
Kids have SEX SEX SEX!

And we end up with teenage pregnancies and STDs.

Fascinating. I'm 19 years old, and have a wide grouping of friends. Around thirty in all, all the same age as me, give or take a year. I'd say around half of them have had sex, and we've talked candidly about it. Not one of them has stated it was because of so-called 'Social Pressures'. It was because they loved each other. One or two were due to alchohol, but that can hardly be blamed on society.

Your sarcasm is precise. I've never gotten the message from society that I should fuck around, and I did it anyway. The difference being I got the message to "wear a condom" and it that did me more good than any "don't have sex, sex is bad and evil!" message ever would have.

Wow. Fass saying my sarcasm is precise. I'm rather proud of that.

Wow. Fass saying my sarcasm is precise. I'm rather proud of that.

Precise as in being correct. I made no comment on its style.

The more partners you have sex with, the higher your risk of catching an STD. If one in ten people have an STD, then sleep with one person and you have a 10% chance of catching one. If you sleep with 10, you have a 100%.

Please don't try to tie me up on those 'statistics', it's just a way of illustrating the point.
Well illustrate it using proper mathematics at least :P
Assuming independant events, if p is the probability of x occuring for one event, then for n successive events the probability of x occuring at least once is 1 - ((1-p)^n) .

So, for p=0.1 as your example, for n=10 the probability of catching an STD (assuming transmission is certain after a single sexual event) is:
1 - (0.9^10) = 0.6513215599

So about 65.1%. Higher than the original 10%, but certainly not 100%.
Incidentally, I think it's estimated that 1/9 of people in Britain have some form of STD.

My wonderful personality has to be shared with the world, so one does do one's best.
The forum just wouldn't be the same without you.

I've yet to see anyone advocating irresponsibility.
The poster who argued that promiscuity wasn't a good thing got a torrent of abuse about how 'evil religious people and their children will catch STDs'. I understand that they didn't exactly make their point in the most tactful way, but I still object to the implication that you cannot encourage responsible sexual behaviour without being someone 'anti-sex'.

The point being that "don't be promiscuous" is not the answer. The answer is "the risk is higher with promiscuity, but should you choose to be promiscuous, condoms and contraceptives are going to alleviate it." Making judgemental statements about promiscuity will get you nowhere - kids being as they are, you'll probably lead them into more of it.
All I suggest is that you take your statement
the risk is higher with promiscuity, but should you choose to be promiscuous, condoms and contraceptives are going to alleviate it
and stress the first part as much as the second. I am not saying 'don't have sex or you'll automatically go to hell/catch an STD/get pregnant.

Well illustrate it using proper mathematics at least :P
Assuming independant events, if p is the probability of x occuring for one event, then for n successive events the probability of x occuring at least once is 1 - ((1-p)^n) .

So, for p=0.1 as your example, for n=10 the probability of catching an STD (assuming transmission is certain after a single sexual event) is:
1 - (0.9^10) = 0.6513215599

So about 65.1%. Higher than the original 10%, but certainly not 100%.
Incidentally, I think it's estimated that 1/9 of people in Britain have some form of STD.
:eek:

I can't believe you worked that out.

But thanks anyway. :p

Fascinating. I'm 19 years old, and have a wide grouping of friends. Around thirty in all, all the same age as me, give or take a year. I'd say around half of them have had sex, and we've talked candidly about it. Not one of them has stated it was because of so-called 'Social Pressures'. It was because they loved each other. One or two were due to alchohol, but that can hardly be blamed on society.
:rolleyes:

Because I trust 19 year olds to even know what 'social pressures' are, let alone identify them.

:eek:

I can't believe you worked that out.

But thanks anyway. :p


Hold it, hold it!

Those who already have STD are more likely to be sexually active than those who don't! ( Monks are unlikely to have either sexual activity nor STD's )

So the sum doesn't work that way.

Hold it, hold it!

Those who already have STD are more likely to be sexually active than those who don't! ( Monks are unlikely to have either sexual activity nor STD's )

So the sum doesn't work that way.
Probability theory's nice, and gives you good indications, but it does require assumptions are made. Your indications will only be as good as the assumptions and the statistics they're based on.

:rolleyes:

Because I trust 19 year olds to even know what 'social pressures' are, let alone identify them.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have avoided growing up from the years of 13-18. How remiss of me. My friends must have as well. Thank-you very much for pointing that out.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have avoided growing up from the years of 13-18. How remiss of me. My friends must have as well. Thank-you very much for pointing that out.
:p

Calm down, calm down. I was only teasing.

Fascinating. I'm 19 years old, and have a wide grouping of friends. Around thirty in all, all the same age as me, give or take a year. I'd say around half of them have had sex, and we've talked candidly about it. Not one of them has stated it was because of so-called 'Social Pressures'. It was because they loved each other. One or two were due to alchohol, but that can hardly be blamed on society.
Frankly, in my experience kids are more likely to have sex if they believe "society" doesn't want them to do it. I know that I never had sex to please society, but I've gotten a lot of joy from knowing that my healthy, active, non-marital sex life pisses off the anti-sex culture in which I live. :)

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-sex advocates were ever teenagers themselves, or if they just sprang fully-formed from some kind of pod.

Remember, everybody, that in Pro-Life America a woman is considered better off having cancer than having multiple sex partners.


So multiple sex partners is the cure for cancer now?

It's hard not to, in our present culture. Particularly in the case of women/girls, since so many people still cling to the notion that a woman's value is somehow reduced once she has sex. She's dirty, used up, not nearly as precious and pure and wonderful as she was before her vagina was defiled. If you function under that assumption, it's easy to see how having sex with more than one person is automatically "irresponsible," because a girl who does that is automatically reducing her value as a human being. She's being used, she's being dirtied, and with every successive partner her worth is further debased.

Not to grave-dig, but I did not mean that comment in that way at all.
My comment was with respect to both men and women, with the presumption behind it that if you're having unprotected sex with more than x people a year, you're living life a bit too much to the fullest.

Don't have sex until you're married? How hard is that? That and the claim that most girls have sex at age 15. What are we, a bunch of animals?

Don't have sex until you're married? How hard is that?

For people who actually can get laid, very hard.

COMMENTARY: Definitely good news for young women, but could start another "culture war" over cost and "religious" objections.


U.S. Approves Use of Vaccine
for Cervical Cancer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/health/09vaccine.html?th&emc=th)


By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 8 — Federal drug officials on Thursday announced the approval of a vaccine against cervical cancer that could eventually save thousands of lives each year in the United States and hundreds of thousands in the rest of the world.

The vaccine, called Gardasil, guards against cancer and genital warts caused by the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease. It is the culmination of a 15-year effort that began at the National Cancer Institute and a research center in Australia, and health officials described the vaccine as a landmark.

Federal vaccine experts are widely expected to recommend that all 11- to 12-year-old girls get the vaccine, but its reach could be limited by its high price and religious objections to its use.

Merck, Gardasil's maker, said a full, three-shot course would cost $360, making Gardasil among the most expensive vaccines ever made.

"This is a huge advance," said Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of the Food and Drug Administration's biologics center. "It demonstrates that vaccines can work beyond childhood diseases to protect the health of adults."

The vaccine prevents lasting infections with two human papillomavirus strains that cause 70 percent of cancers and another two strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts. But if girls have already been exposed to those strains, the vaccine has no effect, so health experts want the vaccine given before girls have sex. The median age at which girls have sex is 15.

A Merck spokeswoman said Gardasil, which was approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26, would be available in doctors' offices by the end of June.

The vaccine is not approved for use in boys, although Merck hopes one day to change that. If the company is successful, analysts expect that sales could surpass $4 billion by 2010.

Cervical cancer is the second-leading cause of death in women across the globe, affecting an estimated 470,000 women and killing 233,000 each year. Widespread use of Pap smears has reduced its toll in richer nations. In the United States, about 9,710 women contract cervical cancer each year, and some 3,700 die.

Private health insurers are likely to cover the vaccine for 11- and 12-year-old girls, although older women may have to pay for it themselves.

Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective medical interventions available. But Gardasil's price could put it out of reach for most women in poor countries and some in the United States who lack private insurance.

A federal program is expected to provide the vaccine to 45 percent of the children in the United States for whom it is recommended. But state programs that cover other children are having trouble buying other expensive vaccines.

North Carolina, for instance, spends $11 million annually to provide every child with seven vaccines. Gardasil alone would probably cost at least another $10 million.

"Increasingly, states are asked to make a Sophie's choice about which diseases they will allow children to be hospitalized or killed by," said Dr. Paul Offit, director of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Liberals in Congress and elsewhere have warned that the Bush administration and religious groups should not interfere with Gardasil's approval or required use.In response, many conservative groups have made statements supporting the vaccine.

"Despite rumors to the contrary, our organization doesn't oppose the vaccine and we have taken no position regarding mandatory laws," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America, a conservative group based in Washington.

Some groups support the vaccine but oppose mandatory vaccinations because cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

"We can prevent it by the best public health method, and that's not having sex before marriage," said Linda Klepacki of Focus on the Family, a Christian advocacy organization based in Colorado Springs.

But scientific and budgetary issues are much more likely to determine Gardasil's uptake. Three shots must be given over six months. Such a schedule is routine among infants, but preteens are tougher to corral into doctors' offices.

An independent panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is scheduled to decide June 29 who should get the vaccine.

The panel is expected to recommend vaccinations for all 11- to 12-year-old girls, while agreeing that girls as young as 9 or women as old as 26 can get the vaccine if they wish. It is also expected to suggest that states make vaccinations mandatory.

Many states will not have the money to do much more, said Dr. Leah Devlin, state health director for North Carolina and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

[ Read the rest of this two-page article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/health/09vaccine.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th) ]
Though my political views on fiscal matters are slightly in odds over it, I am personally in full support of funding this. This is a vaccine for a type of CANCER! CANCER! Don't you guys realize what this means?! It means we're getting closer and closer to actually curing this fucking stuff for once! It's an incredible medical achievement, and if any religious FUCKHOLE gets in the way of it I will take them down quicker than you can say *insert religious chant of your choice here*.

Don't have sex until you're married? How hard is that? That and the claim that most girls have sex at age 15. What are we, a bunch of animals?

Yes.

For most people the sex drive starts to kick in, what, between 10 and 13? And then we tell these people that are considered too immature to deal with driving, alcohol, or even holding down a job that they should completely ignore that sex drive? A group of people specifically known for having little life experience and poor judgement are asked to overcome a major survival drive, and keep doing it for years. Having sex at 15 wouldn't be a problem if people were getting married at 15, but no, you shouldn't get married until you finish high school, get a job, and settle down. Very few people get married in their teens, so we are asking teenagers to suppress their sex drives for nearly a decade. If you are going to say no sex until marriage, and no marriage until you are much, much older, something has got to give.

There is a possible answer, but it isn't one people bring up much: Promote masturbation. Masturbation is fantastic. The physical sensations are comparable to those of sexual intercourse, with none of the risk or awkward fumbling. Some people even claim that the purely physical sensations are slightly better with masturbation, but the psychological and emotional experience can be much better (or much worse) with sex. The problem with teenagers having sex is that they have sex with other teenagers, and neither of them know what they are doing. A guy requires an average of 4 minutes of appropriate physical stimulation to reach orgasm, a chick requires an average of 8 minutes of physical stimulation to reach orgasm, that's twice as much!!! Given that most teenage boys don't know this (and might not care) I very much doubt that the teenage girls are getting their fair share of the orgasms.

You don't have to shave your legs to masturbate. You don't have to worry about performance anxiety when you masturbate. It doesn't matter if you have knobby knees or cottage cheese thighs. Masturbation is da bomb.

Masturbation keeps the muscles and organs of the reproductive system toned up and ready for action. Your body knows this, so if you don't masturbate you'll probably end up with messy nocturnal emissions instead. Better to masturbate when you are awake, and able to appropriately direct any mess than to wake up with sticky sheets. Girls don't have as much trouble with nocturnal emissions, but toning up those pelvic floor muscles will be handy for later.

I'm not saying church youth groups should have circle jerks, public masturbation is as inappropriate as any other sexual activity in public, but we really need to take away the stigma of masturbation. As it is, masturbation is often perceived as being almost as bad as having sex. Sometimes it's even seen as worse. With sex you can claim to get "swept away" in the moment :rolleyes: but masturbation is pretty deliberate so you can't pretend it "just happened". No, no circle jerks. And lessons in masturbation probably won't work either. But giving your teenage daughter one of those little external vibrators and written instructions on how to use it? That could help. Boys are pretty good are figuring out masturbation on their own, but girls sometimes don't get it. Despite what romance novels and porn might have you believe, simply inserting an object into the appropriate slot isn't instant bliss. So the curious girl attempts inserting an object, usually a wildly inappropriate object like a cold curling iron, the handle of a hairbrush, or a vaguely phallic food item, and is surprised when doesn't feel particularly good. D'oh! Nobody told her to focus on the clitoris, not the vaginal canal. Some girls take up masturbation and don't realize that it is masturbation because it is nothing like how they picture sex, hand held shower heads are practically famous for this. Sure, giving a girl a vibrator, even a small external one that isn't particularly phallic, is going to be awkward. But she can't get it herself, can she? Most places that sell vibrators are off-limits to people under 18, and even if they weren't, many of them are seedy places you wouldn't want a teenage girl going into. Ok, you can get a big honking vibrating back massager from any Walmart, but those things are imprecise and may even be dangerous to use in masturbation (for example, the kinds that plug into the wall usually don't like getting wet, which can make it difficult to keep clean). I went into a "sex shop" for the first time when I was 20, and I was amazed at all the different shapes, sizes, and colours. I expected them all to be sort of like a penis, except vibrating, but most of them look nothing like a penis.


* * *


Vaccines are good. Apparently HPV affects 50% of sexually active adults at some time in their lives. http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=health_home&articleID=2286748 You don't have to be promiscuous to catch it. The strains of HPV that cause genital warts and cervical cancer are closely related to the virus that causes regular warts, and you know how easily regular warts spread. That means that even if you fully intend to be totally monogamous with one person for your entire life, if either of you messes up even once you have a not insignificant chance of catching this virus. Most people that carry HPV have no visible symptoms, and despite carrying the highly infectious virus they won't be counted among those affected by a STD until they are diagnosed, which may never happen if they don't develop obvious symptoms like genital warts or cervical cancer. Many people who look like they are clean, respectable people carry this virus, you can't tell just by looking at them.

I don't think there will be much opposition to this vaccine on religious grounds, once people have time to think about it. The evangelical Christian sects should be in favor of it, because they are evangelical and actively recruiting. That really enthusiastic guy that was saved when he was 22 and is way more excited about being a Christian than any of the kids who grew up in the church? There is a pretty good chance that he carries this virus and doesn't even know it. And he's going to marry somebody's daughter. Even born again Christians have pasts.

Woah... I did a few sums with how many US female there are, how many of them die of cervical cancer... if the vaccine is 100% effective then it'd cost about $180,000 for every life it saves. That really is expensive. Here's to hoping that it's cost decreases dramatically as it continues to get used.

Woah... I did a few sums with how many US female there are, how many of them die of cervical cancer... if the vaccine is 100% effective then it'd cost about $180,000 for every life it saves. That really is expensive. Here's to hoping that it's cost decreases dramatically as it continues to get used.
How much do you think is spent on people who die from cervical cancer, never mind those who survive it?

How much do you think is spent on people who die from cervical cancer, never mind those who survive it?I don't know. Do you? I just find $180,000 to be a lot of money. And I just wonder about all the other ways that the money could be spent helping people. I mean $180,000 is more than a lifetimes income for some people.

Don't have sex until you're married? How hard is that?

It doesn't matter how "hard" it is to remain a virgin until marriage, especially since many people (myself included) believe that, generally speaking, it is totally and utterly irresponsible to get married when one is still a virgin.


That and the claim that most girls have sex at age 15. What are we, a bunch of animals?
Well, yes, we are animals. But, beyond that, what is so terrifying about girls having sex at age 15? That's actually LATER than the average across most of human history! The way it has worked for centuries is that girls are married off as soon as they hit puberty, and begin breeding right away.

The only difference now is that we have added in some crazy new notions about female autonomy. Like, that women should be allowed to enjoy sex, even if they aren't getting knocked up. Or that women should be the ones who pick who they marry, rather than being sold to a man three times their age.

So multiple sex partners is the cure for cancer now?
Wow. Words fail me.

I don't know. Do you? I just find $180,000 to be a lot of money. And I just wonder about all the other ways that the money could be spent helping people. I mean $180,000 is more than a lifetimes income for some people.
A person's life is worth about 1 million USD for insurance purposes. For females, it's worth it. Cancer costs at least 200k to treat.

"We can prevent it by the best public health method, and that's not having sex before marriage," said Linda Klepacki of Focus


Sorry if anyone's already posted this, but I'll admit I'm very lazy. but that's just wrong. Marriage does not cure STDs.

Sorry if anyone's already posted this, but I'll admit I'm very lazy. but that's just wrong. Marriage does not cure STDs.
Yeah, I just can't believe people keep trying to claim that. For crying out loud, people, the fastest growing population of STD patients is married women who are faithful to their husbands!!!! A wedding band doesn't protect you against the clap!

And I just wonder about all the other ways that the money could be spent helping people.
Yeah, it could be spent on research to cure cancer!

A person's life is worth about 1 million USD for insurance purposes. For females, it's worth it. Cancer costs at least 200k to treat.Hmm, well it that case it's easily worth it, because it would save and time of all those people who would have got the cancer and successfully had it treated. Though hopefully the cost can come down from $360 per vaccine.

Woah... I did a few sums with how many US female there are, how many of them die of cervical cancer... if the vaccine is 100% effective then it'd cost about $180,000 for every life it saves. That really is expensive. Here's to hoping that it's cost decreases dramatically as it continues to get used.
well its not like it is all going to be spent at once. i know that i would pay the money to get my daughter vaccinated (if i had a daughter) and be happy to do so.

in the united states, a vaccine company has to figure in the cost of huge lawsuits that occur when what seems safe now is found to have a rare but bizarre side effect that will result in billions of dollars in judgements

well its not like it is all going to be spent at once. i know that i would pay the money to get my daughter vaccinated (if i had a daughter) and be happy to do so.

in the united states, a vaccine company has to figure in the cost of huge lawsuits that occur when what seems safe now is found to have a rare but bizarre side effect that will result in billions of dollars in judgementsWell it would be a constant expense, vaccinating the girls that turn 12 each year.

But if you're going to take money away from people to save the lives of people they don't know then I think the money should be employed in the best way. $360 for a vaccine or a less than $1 for a sachet of sugar and salt and clean water. Diarrhea, my example, kills so many people each year, but the deaths are easily preventable if you have access to salt, sugar and clean water.

If I had children then I could easily see myself foregoing luxury expenses until I'd saved up enough for the vaccine.

Well it would be a constant expense, vaccinating the girls that turn 12 each year.

But if you're going to take money away from people to save the lives of people they don't know then I think the money should be employed in the best way. $360 for a vaccine or a less than $1 for a sachet of sugar and salt and clean water. Diarrhea, my example, kills so many people each year, but the deaths are easily preventable if you have access to salt, sugar and clean water.

If I had children then I could easily see myself foregoing luxury expenses until I'd saved up enough for the vaccine.
you know thats not the way it works. no developed country ever chooses between the health of its own people and the health of the people in undeveloped countries.

the only question is does it take too many resources away from more pressing needs in countries with government run health care systems.

I don't know. Do you? I just find $180,000 to be a lot of money. And I just wonder about all the other ways that the money could be spent helping people. I mean $180,000 is more than a lifetimes income for some people.
Yeah, in the 3rd world. Dying from cancer is extremely expensive. Makes $180,000 look like a crazy bargain.