Why we should support the HPV vaccine
info
Format for printing
Pirate modeDarkSyde has a terrible story about cervical cancer.
Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3305/xIBXfVwJ/
Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Friday, November 04, 2005
Comments:
What would Jesus do?
Withhold treatment that could prevent a disease like cervical cancer? I don't think so.
Oh, and Dustin: Republicans are not a monolith. Many, probably even most of them would be very happy to see the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson follow Pat Buchanan's example, and get the hell out of their party. It's rather like the Democrats with Lyndon LaRouche.
Question: by what vector do men contract HPV? I support the vaccine.
Many, probably even most of them would be very happy to see the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson follow Pat Buchanan's example, and get the hell out of their party.
Though not enough to actually change the way they vote for their anointed candidates.
"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson
It is incredible and unconscionable to not make this vaccine easily available.
Once again, the Moral Majority is revealed to be neither moral nor a majority.
And yet - these are the ones who would tell us all what's moral.
I have some objections, from mild to severe:
"They age, more gracefully than men,"
That is not the common opinion. Instead they age slower.
"Clinical trials indicate the vaccine is, get this, One-hundred Percent effective in preventing cervical malignancies!"
Not necessarily; it prevents expression but perhaps not spread. And if it doesn't eradicate the virus I am not satisfied:
"Among the women who received the vaccine, four contracted HPV, but none of them developed any of the diseases associated with the virus. Overall, the researchers found that the experimental vaccine led to approximately 90% fewer cases of persistent infection or disease due to HPV types 16 and 18, which cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases, or types 6 and 11, which cause about 90% of all cases of genital warts, "
I also have a question:
I recently learned that the practise of foreskin removal is not only an amputation but an amputation of a working organ. Apparently the foreskin moves antigenes and presents them to the immune system.
The amputation is god if you are only interested in autoimmune diseases like HIV, but bad if you are interested in fertility and preventing common diseases.
So is the frequency of HPV larger in US there foreskin amputation is popular?
That should be 'amputation is good' and 'in US where'.
What would Jesus do?
Withhold treatment that could prevent a disease like cervical cancer? I don't think so.
Withholding treatment because of a moral code certainly offends Christian principles: see Luke 13-14, where the Pharisees get rebuked for objecting to healing on the Sabbath. The theocons are like the worst caricatures of the Pharisees that come out of the NT - merciless, bound to upholding the letter of their moral code even where it causes harm, putting on a show of righteousness for everyone to admire.
I do not know anyone personally who is or has been afflicted by HPV, but it burns me up to see politicized objections to drugs that may benefit women (and maybe men) on pretenses of morality. The first order of morality ought to be preventing human suffering, and only then worry about behavioral issues.
John C. Randolph: LaRouche is not part of the Democratic Party. He just pretends to be and pretends that we will have anything to do with him. That's a little different than when the President consults with Dobson and his ilk on Supreme Court nominations.
Ah, yes...the favorite fundie argument..."If you (distribute condoms, support sex education, make HPV vaccine available), it will cause (segment of the population) to have casual, promiscuous sex!" Apparently what we're supposed to do is keep the little darlings ignorant and scared, and if they go out and have sex anyway, well, whatever happens is God's punishment. Or Satan's. Or something.
Fundie scumbags...
no question, aye for the vaccine here. but the deeper problem and question are why religious conservatives wield so much political power.
they are distinctive, by their devotion and zealousness.
they project certainty and self-assuredness.
they are often quaint.
by having a restrictive lifestyle and outlook in a wider community and culture that values openness and inclusiveness and being flexible, all they need to do is call for "unity", be it political or religious, and automatically the mean it on and at their side of the spectrum.
moreover, by having a restrictive lifestyle and outlook, what they are is easier to package and communicate, much easier than whatever comes of "Be yourself". it appeals that they have a formula which they advertise to be The Answer to Life, justified or not. all they need to do to convince most folks of the plausibility of their viewpoint is to remain in the minority, ultimately appealing to the argument, "Well, most people have problems because they haven't tried our way".
the weakness we have faced with their onslaught is that we are tolerant and inclusive. the strength that we have is that they are so characterizable in a marketing sense that they are susceptible to being carefully studied, like critters in the zoo and, if that's done, with time, the fiction of their supposedly superior lifestyle might be laid bare.
the faster way might be to do "60 Minutes"-style profiles of some of the horrors resulting from repressive attitudes of parents towards sexuality. but i don't think there's much chance of that with media being so sensitive to what it will do to their profits from selling soap.
sorry, some words got dropped somehow ... "automatically the mean it on and at their side of the spectrum" should read "automatically the mean ends up at their side of the spectrum".
I can see the argument for being anti-choice, out of some moral view, though I think it's wrong. However, I can't for the death of me understand people who wants to withheld a vaccination because tehy believe it just might lead to something that they morally disapprove off. That's sick.
John, thanks for pointing out a specific biblical reference.
Many, probably even most of them would be very happy to see the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson follow Pat Buchanan's example, and get the hell out of their party. It's rather like the Democrats with Lyndon LaRouche.
John, according to CNN exit polls 23% of the electorate was fundie, and they were Bush's strongest deme, breaking for him 78%. Without this 18% bone-stupid segment giving its support to the Republican machine there would be no national republican party. And to claim equivalence to LaRouche is disengenuous since Bush, Frist, and others pander quite often to the religious nutcases, eg. the Schiavo kabuki show and support for intelligent-design.
Withholding treatment because of a moral code certainly offends Christian principles
LOL. That's one exegesis. That's the beauty of religion, you can twist and tease its teachings to reach nearly whatever position you want.
DrLaniac: Until the democratic party institutes a process for expelling people , Larouche is a democrat if he says he is. The republicans had a similar problem with David Duke.
The lesson to be drawn from both of these whackos is that too little attention is paid to primaries in state and local level elections. It really doesn't take very many people to get a whacko on a major party ticket (Even on the national level: George McGovern springs to mind; the party really wanted Ed Muskie), and we would all do well to be vigilant.
Troy: I contend that if the Republicans lost the fundies, they would in fact be stronger than they are today. The fundies get their vote out, but they also drive at least as many people away from the Republicans. Likewise, the Democrats would be far better off if they bounced racist hypocrites like Jesse Jackson and Robert Byrd out of their organization.
-jcr
The lesson to be drawn from both of these whackos is that too little attention is paid to primaries in state and local level elections. It really doesn't take very many people to get a whacko on a major party ticket (Even on the national level: George McGovern springs to mind; the party really wanted Ed Muskie), and we would all do well to be vigilant.
Way to move the goalposts. When was the last time LaRouche was on a presidential ticket? Or a gubernatorial ticket? Or had an actual Democratic lawmaker or executive consult him for his advice? Or got national press?
And of course, Randolph then follows up with the racist canard about Byrd and Jackson. I'm no fan of Jackson, more so (though not much) of Byrd, but actions speak louder than words, and Byrd has buried his decades-past mistake. Near as I can tell, Jackson represents a lot of the black community -- he certainly doesn't have much say in Democratic party policy making. To compare Jackson with, say Dobson or Bauer or Robertson is entirely false.
The fundies get their vote out, but they also drive at least as many people away from the Republicans.
I agree to some extent, but 18% of the electorate? You do know that only ~13% of the country is atheist? The fundies may oppose abortion @ 60%, while the rest of the population is not anti-choice at 70-80%, but it remains to be seen how many people are driven away from the (R)s over this particular issue when the chips are down. I don't think many men will be, especially if more (R) tax-cutting is in play. Looking at the exit-polling data it's clear to me they've *already* lost the female 18-40 militantly pro-choice bloc, which is about 9% of the electorate.
So far, the Republicans have done an excellent job giving the fundies what they want, eg. "moral" judges, pro-life bs, faith-based bs, piety in the public square bs, and soon a conservative catholic majority on the SCOTUS (these 5 catholics were assembled kinda like Voltron, huh?), without being overt about it. I do not see the Dems either overtly or covertly supporting anything Larouche says, or his insane supporters.
To address your point further, due to the structure of the Senate it pays to pander to the rural states, and the more rural a region is, the stronger the fundies are. Same thing with the House in rural districts. A consolidated 18% voting bloc will put the most publically pious candidate into power in many, many districts.
Likewise, the Democrats would be far better off if they bounced racist hypocrites like Jesse Jackson and Robert Byrd out of their organization.
Jackson, perhaps, (same thing could be said about Al Sharpton) but your slam on Byrd is just republican talking-point bs, unless you are so gone into your cups as to believe opposition the Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, and Condi were due to latent racism.
Didn't Byrd say atheists should just leave the USA in 2002?
Alon:
"Can it be that we, too, are ready to embrace the foul concepts of atheism? Somebody is tampering with America's soul, I leave it to you who that somebody is." -- Robert Byrd, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's verdict in Engle v. Vitale (barring school-sponsored prayer), quoted from Robert E. Nordlander, "Madalyn Murray O'Hair: The Making of a Modern Myth" (Freethought Today, November, 1988)
Ah, I guess he is an asshat of some stripe. He voted yes on Roberts, and says this about Alito: "People should have the right to express their views of religion.".
thing is, "tossing" Byrd out of the party wouldn't exactly work towards retaking the Senate, now, would it? West Virginia is going to elect an idiot regardless who we can get to run. I'd rather have the Senate (and House!) in 2008 than the presidency.
Apropos to the heart of the party, Reid is a pro-life Mormon yet voted no on Roberts. My respect for him is like 1000x greater than Byrd, even though Byrd heroically offers anti-war pissing into the wind occasionally. If the Republicans had their moderates in leadership positions I would have a lot more respect for them. They do not, and I do not.
... Bush, Frist, and others pander quite often to the religious nutcases, eg. the Schiavo kabuki show and support for intelligent-design.this reminds me a lot of politics in Israel, with major parties having representation in the electorate pretty much balanced between them. as a result, the "nutcase" religious parties are the kingmakers and dictate to the major parties what they want, completely out of scale with their actual representation.
Withholding treatment because of a moral code certainly offends Christian principles: see Luke 13-14, where the Pharisees get rebuked for objecting to healing on the Sabbath.
True enough, but any halfway-informed rabbi of the day would have rebuked these pharisees for offending Jewish principles (presumably what J. was rebuking them for, BTW, 'Christian principles' not having been a usual concept in his day). I welcome correction from Alon Levy if I have got the terminology wrong, but my understanding is that under the Jewish legal principle of pikuach nefesh, an observant Jew is not merely permitted but obligated to break the Sabbath rules if the life or health of another is in question.
Of course, it would be begging the question to claim that the sort of people we are talking about are interested in upholding Christian principles at all. Now, accusations of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy are legitimate criticism from the non-religious. But as among believers, sometimes one has no further choice but to say אתם לא עמי.
Some of the HIV Denialists like Peter Duesberg are also "skeptical" of the role of HPV in cervical cancer.
HPV does not follow the Duesberg Guidelines of Correct Behaviour for Viruses.
He has remained silent about the latest vaccine study results. Will he hope that nobody remembers what he said?
Chris Noble
Next entry: Old Movie Friday
Previous entry: A question of scientific ethics
That HPV vaccine "debate" had me seeing red. It isn't nearly as bad as this:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_torture_1
I am so very pissed right now, I could really punch the next uppity Republican who crosses my path in the teeth.