>Many people believe that being opposed to the HPV vaccine means that you are some kind of a religious fanatic: “Conservative elements and religious institutions have often opposed it for the same reasons they oppose birth control education in schools—that these measures will somehow encourage young people to have sex.” I, however, oppose it on feminist grounds.
We keep hearing that the female body is diseased, inherently wrong, and in need of constant policing and control. This control is often carried out through the attempts to “repair” the female body medically. Women are constantly told that somehow they simply cannot exist unless their bodies are continuously modified through some form of medication. Hormone replacement therapy, HPV vaccine, PMS medication, Mydol. The idea behind all this is that female body is one huge mistake of nature, which can finally be stabilized through the benevolent ministrations of pharmaceutical companies. The HPV vaccine is supposed to “only work” when administered to teenagers. Obviously, the goal is to start convincing women as early as possible that the very fact of being female equals being damaged and in need of a cure.
For me, all these efforts to present women as perennial invalids who need to be cured of their painful and problematic sex are the modern equivalent of foot-binding.
Clarissa's Blog 
>Yes, Exactly! I was horrified a year or so ago when a quite enlightened woman I know asked her 18 year old daughter to promise never to have sex until she had had the HPV vaccine. It is so pervasive.Of course, I am skeptical about lots of vaccines. I think the Salk Polio vaccine was a good idea, and the smallpox one, but I never take flu vaccines.
LikeLike
>You're right. The advertising is horrible, even though man carry and spread it as much as women that half of the equation is ignored, and you're right that there is a seriously bad tendency in the medical establishment to unnecessarily and erroneously treat being female (I had one grandmother die from it) and in some ways this is one more example.But I can't help but wonder if you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater? My mother taught me "better living through chemistry" and for me this is one example of that. Cervical cancer runs in my family, and I'm glad for some protection. I'm glad to have one more thing not to worry about in the event that I am even raped. I pretty much feel the same way about hormones: I'm on the pill, and it makes me very glad that I don't have to worry about getting pregnant (99.99%). I am on the pill also because prior to it, my cramps were so bad I'd miss days of school alternating between vomiting on the bathroom floor (from pain) and passing out. So hormones definitely increase my quality of life. I'm only one example, of course, but I don't think I'm unique. I do think there are good reasons to prescribe a lot of the things you mention. That doesn't excuse the advertisers or the bad prescriptions, but I think it's worth remembering.
LikeLike
>The ads may suck, but the vaccine itself addresses a real problem. In my opinion, boys ought to be getting it as well. Men do get HPV-related cancers. Why start at a young age? The ideal is to have immunity at first sexual contact. Some HPV types can regress. Some HPV types have a tendency to integrate into the host DNA, and these viruses are harder to get rid of. Most cervical cancer is due to the integrative life cycle HPV types.Of course, the HPV viral group can adapt to the new situation, and when the population incidence of types 16 and 18 is reduced, some other type will become prevalent. The real beneficiaries should be women in less-developed nations, especially rural women, because the infrastructure for cancer screening isn't in place. Even before the HIV epidemic, the most common cancer in African women was cervical cancer (for both incidence and mortality). In the United States, if the vaccine is not mandated and paid for by the government, the people who will get the vaccine are the people who undergo screening on a regular basis and not the poor girls who may well grow up to be poor women who would rather eat or have heat than spend money and time on screening. These poor women are the ones who get the worst cervical cancer and who die from it at disproportionate rates. The privately insured middle class women may lose fertility because of treatment of early cancer, but rarely dies from cervical cancer.In the U.S., government-mandated vaccines can be refused by non-military personnel and parents of children for religious reasons or for medical reasons. In an opt-out system where the cost is very low or nil, most people will have their child immunized. It is too much trouble to fight with the public schools over requirements for vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, tetanus, H.influenzae, polio. Medical certification of relative immunodeficiency or proof of membership in the Christian Science Church must be provided.Armed Forces recruits are required to accept vaccination for meningococcus (not common, but a killer of young people living in crowded settings). Depending on deployment, there may be other required vaccines.
LikeLike
>Don't miss the HPV Vaccine Controversy book- It is excellent and highly recommended by public and professionals
LikeLike
>This is a dangerous and misguided stance. I agree with you about pms, hormones and other natural states that are not in need of a "fix". I think deuching also falls into this category. However, hpv is the most commonly *transmitted* STD according to the center for disease control. HPV can cause cervical cancer, genital warts, and other complications. Everything else you cite is not *transmissible*.A proven, tested method to reduce the health risks of a transmissible virus like hpv is to innoculate as much of the population as possible.Advocating against vaccination is a danger to society in my opinion.
LikeLike
>I don't see how cancer is an acceptable part of the female human body, or any human body, as long as we can find a way to avoid it.
LikeLike
>My gut feeling goes with Clarissa. I'm not against medication etc. and I HOPE they'll let me have hormone replacement therapy one day. BUT the idea that one should vaccinate oneself so that one can then be sexually available to infected men.I often think is the subtext from the medical establishment has a sort of 1960s Playboy Bunny idea of women — one should want to service men sexually, so one should make it easy for both the infected ones and the ones you might sleep with after the infected ones.
LikeLike
>I agree with you that pathologizing the female body — especially in its sexual and reproductive functions — is a serious problem in our culture.But I don't think a vaccine against human papillomavirus is an instance of that trend, so much as a step toward making sex safer for everyone.(At the time that I am writing this comment, which is some months after your post, I see ads on TV for HPV vaccinations that work for both sexes. I also remember that, even though the vaccine was originally just for girls/women, the goal was to make it available to everyone. Which makes the most sense from an immunity standpoint — if everyone is immunized, eventually the virus will just drop out of circulation, like measles virus has most places).Also, you do not have to be a teenager to get the vaccine! I got it when I was in my mid-20s. What they want is for you to be "naive" to the virus — unexposed. If you've already been exposed, the shot won't work, and might actually cause you to have a flareup of symptoms, i.e. genital warts. So how old you can be when you get it is a function of whether you've had intercourse or not.I see the weird subtext in targeting girls/women first, but here's the rationale as I understand it: HPV causes genital warts in both sexes, but in women it can also cause cervical cancer. It can cause cancer in men, too, but none of those HPV-linked cancers are as common as cervical cancer in women. So I think they prioritized a vaccine for women because more women get cervical cancer from HPV than men get cancer of the penis, anus or mouth from it. But, again, the vaccine is now recommended for both men and women. That seems like it should mitigate your worries about women's bodies being seen as diseased where men's are not.Hope that helps!
LikeLike
The concept that it “only works” when administered to teenagers is an oversimplification that the public health community has committed to persuade people to vaccinate before someone becomes sexually active. The biological truth is that it only works before someone has been exposed to the strains of HPV that can cause cancers. Because HPV is something that most sexually active people are exposed to, it isn’t so strange to say that it only works for people who are not yet sexually active.
The trouble is that many Americans are unwilling to admit that to reach most people before they are sexually active means to reach them before they are in high school. Instead we get the euphemism that it only works when administered to teenagers. I wouldn’t say it’s pathologizing the female body so much as it’s pathologizing teen sexuality.
LikeLike
I am currently pregnant, and have gotten into countless arguments with other pregnant women about the fact that I continue to enjoy wine with dinner on occasion. I feel that the prohibition on alcohol while pregnant is utterly senseless and sexist. There is no medical or scientific evidence that having 1-2 units of alcohol a week produces negative effects, and I believe it’s sexist to provide pregnant women with scare tactics (your baby will be damaged!) rather than real information (limit your alcohol consumption to 1-2 units per week, and drink them slowly). I see it as another hysteria, the assumption that pregnant women are too stupid or unpredictable to enjoy alcohol in moderation.
Why did I open with alcohol and pregnancy? Because I want to let you know that my views are based on scientific evidence and a strong conviction that women are as able to make scientific, rational choices, as men. This is why I would like to state that I see your stance against the HPV vaccine as neither scientific, nor rational. I agree that hormone replacement therapy is sexist in the absence of true disease, and menopause is NOT a disease. PMS is not a disease. You are absolutely correct. Cancer, however, IS a disease. Menopause and PMS do not kill. Cancer kills. I am a biologist who has worked in medicine, including virology. This doesn’t make me an expert, but it does make me aware of the medical harm viruses, especially those that cause cancer, can wreck. The HPV virus does not cause only cervical cancer–it is not a “sexist” virus. HPV is also responsible for a large portion of throat cancers and anal cancers in both genders, and especially in men who have sex with men. The association with cervical cancer is simply more common because while not all men engage in sexual behaviors that would repeatedly expose the throat and rectum to infection (male ejaculation is the most efficient way of passing on the virus, just like HIV), most women do engage in activity exposing them to male ejaculate. There is also a reluctance to discuss male-male disease transmission, and if you think conservatives are upset about something they think encourages girls to have sex… ho ho! just imagine if this vaccine were presented as something to make homosexual sex safer! Which, by the way, it would. The only thing I find sexist about this vaccine is it is offered to girls and not also young boys. Preventing throat and anal cancer should be considered equally as important as preventing cervical cancer. These diseases devastate patients and families worldwide.
Also, the vaccine does not only “work” in girls before they have sex. The reason it is recommended before girls engage in sexual activity is this virus is extremely common in both men and women. If a young girl becomes infected at her first sexual encounter (which is quite likely) then receiving a subsequent vaccine is pointless.
LikeLike
Would you say that the following statement about HPV is correct: “Practically everyone who has sex gets it at some point, mostly asymptomatic and it often disappears or goes dormant without anyone being aware.”?
LikeLike
http://www.eschatonblog.com/
I see we are responding to one blog with another blog?
No, “Practically everyone who has sex gets it at some point” is incorrect. Approximately 50% of people may be infected with any given strain of HPV at some point during their lifetime. This is not even technically a majority of people. The overall HPV prevalence at a given time is approximately 27% for women 14-59 years of age, and the majority of these infections are not the strains covered by the vaccine. The vaccine has been designed for specific cancer-causing strains. The vaccine does not prevent every type of HPV infection, of which there are over 200. The majority of these types do not cause cancer, thus there is no real reason to vaccinate against them. No one is advocating vaccination against viruses that cause no medical harm. The vaccine protects against 4 specific strains known to cause cancer.
Approximately 5% of new cancer diagnoses are attributable to HPV infection. In addition to the ~12,000 women who get HPV associated cervical cancer, each year, there are…
1,500 women who get HPV-associated vulvar cancer
500 women who get HPV-associated vaginal cancer
400 men who get HPV-associated penile cancer
2,700 women and 1,500 men who get HPV-associated anal cancer
1,500 women and 5,600 men who get HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers (cancers of the back of throat including base of tongue and tonsils)
Vaccinating against these specific strains of HPV still leaves people open to the approximately 196 other strains, so don’t worry! People will still be carrying HPV! The difference is they will be protected from the strains that cause devastating cancers.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/8/813.full
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
LikeLike
“I see we are responding to one blog with another blog? “Vaccinating against these specific strains of HPV still leaves people open to the approximately 196 other strains, so don’t worry! People will still be carrying HPV!”
-I just asked a question. Why are you getting so angry? I simply wanted to know if it was true because it appeared in my blogroll and I didn’t know, that’s all.
LikeLike
lol that wasn’t anger. that was my attempt at humor.
And lots of people read blogs, so it’s important to get accurate information out there. It could save lives. 🙂
LikeLike
That wasn’t anger. That was my attempt at humor. 🙂
Also, a lot of people read blogs, so it’s important to share accurate information. The HPV vaccine is a way of saving lives and preventing cancer in both men and women. It doesn’t prevent all the hundreds of types of HPV, only 4 of those known to cause cancer. Just wanted to share that.
LikeLike
…ps I am aware that HPV virus is redundant. it’s a slip into colloquial sloppiness.
LikeLike
***also, studies show that in fact antibody titers following vaccination ARE higher in girls under 12 than older teenagers and adult women. It is certainly more practical to vaccinate girls before puberty in order to ensure protection once they reach sexual maturity, but that isn’t the only reason. The vaccine recommendations are based on immune response as measured by antibodies in the blood following vaccination. A strong immune response is associated with greater protection against infection.
LikeLike
We aren’t saying that you’r body is in anyway inferior because you have a cervix, we’re just saying that the presence of the cervix really increases the chance of getting cervical cancer in comparison to someone (i.e. a male) who lacks a cervix.
The Vaccine isn’t misogynistic or patriarchal, its just that we really don’t want anyone to get cervical cancer. Giving males the vaccine would be similar (though I admit, not identical to), giving women some form of drug that combats testicular cancer.
LikeLike
couldn’t agree more, except to say that giving boys the vaccine would protect them against cancer. In my comments above is a list of cancers associated with HPV, and they include 5,600 oropharyneal (throat/tongue/tonsils) cancer cases in men each year. Men also get HPV associated anal and penile cancer.
LikeLike
With all due respect, it isn’t your place to “want” anything in other people’s bodies. In terms of cancer specifically, the official medicine hasn’t found a way to cure it. Everybody who had cancer in my family and went the non-official way, is alive and happy years, in two cases, decades after. Everybody who went the official way is dead.
Anybody should feel free to believe in the magic pill. Their bodies, their right. I, however, am profoundly opposed to the American pill-gulping philosophy. In my world-view, all diseases are psychosomatic in nature. A disease- especially a terminal one like cancer- is the body’s way of signaling that the way one is conducting one’s life has become so intolerable that the body has decided to self-destruct. Once again, this is my worldview, I’m happy with it, it fulfills its purposes for me.
LikeLike
Well, I am no fan of taking pills for absolutely every minor aliment either. But just on a technical level there is a difference between a pill or a vaccine; a pill or something along that vein deals with the cure of a disease, and as you say some of these probably don’t need to be taken (i.e taking antibiotics for every cold and sneeze, which only makes the bacteria evolve to resist our medicine more quickly). A vaccine is fundamentally different, a vaccine makes the body immune to diseases or viruses before you ever contract them; in the case of the HPV vaccine, a virus that can lead to the development of cancer.
Quite simply put, vaccines and inoculations have saved more lives than anything else since the practice was discovered by Jenner in the mid 1700s and yet has been attacked for just as long.
You’re more than welcome not to take any drug or vaccine that you don’t want to take, just don’t misrepresent a programme interested in nothing more than preventing caner and saving lives as an agent of patriarchy.
LikeLike
*Everybody who had cancer in my family and went the non-official way, is alive and happy years, in two cases, decades after*
If you believe it works, why don’t you share? May be it could help somebody and I am sincerely curious. (Some of my relatives died from cancer.)
LikeLike
Everybody finds their own way of dealing with their disease. All I can say that if I got cancer, I would immediately go into very intensive psychoanalysis and prepare to change my life completely.
LikeLike
“In my world-view, all diseases are psychosomatic in nature.”
I understand now. Thank you for making that clear.
LikeLike