…and this is a 
What it takes to sway the religious right
Category:
Posted on: May 13, 2008 10:00 AM, by PZ Myers
The fundagelicals were all up in arms over the human papilloma vaccine — it was recommended for all girls to prevent the sexual transmission of a virus that can lead to cancers of the female reproductive tract. They were agin' it; it might give their womenfolk the idea that sex is not a punishment, and a few thousand dead girls is a small price to pay for sin.
That might change now, though. Clinical testing has revealed that HPV can cause oral cancers in men, and they are recommending that all adolescents, not just girls, should consider getting the vaccine.
Now the religious right is going to face a dilemma. Shall they encourage this vaccination to protect their precious boy-children, or will it be sufficient to scream against the sin of heterosexual oral sex from the pulpit? And can they even bear to talk about such 'bizarre' sexual practices in church?
(via Saneblog)
Comments
I can hear the tires screeching as they do a 180
Posted by: Dennis N | May 13, 2008 10:03 AM
The poll question has been extended to "Do you agree with the board member?"
Posted by: T L Holaday | May 13, 2008 10:05 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Real Christian Men (TM) don't perform oral sex.
Posted by: Narc | May 13, 2008 10:11 AM
Like any of them would stoop to pleasing their womenfolk during sex.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:11 AM
Oh, they can bear talking about it. They love talking about it. They are obsessed with talking about it. Its probably just how they cope with having the world's most repressed sex life.
Posted by: Robert | May 13, 2008 10:18 AM
Normally, I'd assume that once the males were at risk for getting a disease from sex, they would be more sympathetic than if it was just females at risk, because of the natural double-standards reinforced in their mind through their holy book. But, because males can only get it through orally pleasuring their mate, I get the impression that they won't care. Real men don't go down on their women, anything but the missionary position is an abomination, etc. etc.
Posted by: Asylum Seeker | May 13, 2008 10:19 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Real Christian Men (TM) don't perform oral sex.
No, but they do borrow their wives' dildos for the wetsuit ritual.
Posted by: aiabx | May 13, 2008 10:21 AM
"Of an estimated 28,900 cases of oral cancer a year, 18,550 are in men."
Fascinating. They speculate that an increase in oral cancer, "might be a result of changing sexual behaviors.", which I assume is an increase in cunnilingus. But slightly more than a third of the cases are in women, so let's just blame all oral sex.
It seems inevitable that oral HPV will also be associated with kissing, for which the fundies will have a hard time justifying a death sentence. But then again maybe not, since they're nuts.
We should always have advocated vaccinating both sexes anyway since it takes two to tango.
Posted by: C Barr | May 13, 2008 10:25 AM
"No, but they do borrow their wives' dildos for the wetsuit ritual."
Shiver...
Posted by: Josh | May 13, 2008 10:25 AM
Bwahaha!
To quote the matrix:
"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."
Posted by: Ric | May 13, 2008 10:26 AM
BUT WAIT! Don't vaccines cause autism?
/sarcasm
Posted by: Copache | May 13, 2008 10:27 AM
I can hear the fundies saying, "Wait, how could a virus that affects women--uh, you know where--be transmitted to a boy's mouth?"
This controversy at least provides an educational opportunity, hopefully to the benefit of women's health and pleasure.
Posted by: Tosser | May 13, 2008 10:28 AM
Baa-zing!
hahaha...
Remember: it's important to dress in layers.
Posted by: Dan | May 13, 2008 10:29 AM
well there goes another monitor.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:29 AM
Jeebus, I'll be dead tomorrow.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 13, 2008 10:34 AM
RE #6 "males can only get it through orally pleasuring their mate"
The HPV vaccine has become such an issue because the virus can cause fatal cervical cancers. But women are receiving the virus through heterosexual vaginal sex. Search Google Images for "genital warts". Seems that even the most hardened misogynist would shrink at the thought of aquiring this infection.
Posted by: C Barr | May 13, 2008 10:35 AM
My tweenage son as well as my teenage daughter have received the HPV vaccine. My son was in the national study. Now I'm glad to find out it will not just protect his future partners, but him as well.
Posted by: Debbie | May 13, 2008 10:37 AM
Tosser @12
First the Lewinsky affair, now this - they can't catch a break.
Posted by: J | May 13, 2008 10:39 AM
#3- "Don't be ridiculous. Real Christian Men (TM) don't perform oral sex."
Excepting, of course, the demonic pull of the airport men's room.
I'd amend your statement to include...."on women".
Posted by: Rick R | May 13, 2008 10:40 AM
Debbie, thank you for helping the study! My daughter will get the vaccine as well as soon as it's indicated.
Posted by: Aegis | May 13, 2008 10:40 AM
About real xian heterosexual men not doing oral sex. Maybe we can ask Republican Senator Vitter about it.
Posted by: bernarda | May 13, 2008 10:43 AM
Actually, this is old news--the HPVs that this vaccine attacks are involved in a lot of cancers.
So I wanted my teenage boy to get it. Asked his doctor.
No way, he said. It's for g-i-i-i-r-l-s!. You'd have thought I was making the kid wear a tutu in public.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | May 13, 2008 10:43 AM
On fundies performing oral sex, #19 said, "I'd amend your statement to include....'on women'. Yeah, maybe we should start flooding the fundies with godless books like The Low Down On Going Down. Unfortunately I don't think this study will sway the Religious Right any. They already believe women are expendable. Is there any reason to think they wouldn't believe the same about the small number of men among them who are willing to perform oral sex?
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | May 13, 2008 10:45 AM
I'm just excited that now I can pressure my guy-friends to get the vaccine too. Vaccinating only 1/2 of the susceptible population only helps the vaccinated. If both genders are vaccinated, there will be less threat even to the stubborn who chose to remain susceptible.
Posted by: tlowe | May 13, 2008 10:45 AM
"No way, he said. It's for g-i-i-i-r-l-s!. "
This is crazy. Vaccinating males helps break the chain of transmission.
Posted by: C Barr | May 13, 2008 10:48 AM
Well you know, if HPV was designed by God to cause human cancer, why should we stop it?
True, we prevent any number of other diseases designed by God. However, STDs are special to God, sort of his chosen micro-organisms.
Then again, there was some actual logic to the idea that anything "designed by God" ought not to be thwarted by humans, none in the hodgepodge of conflicting "design" ideas of the IDists. So we could end up with some people who think all prevention of disease is wrong.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 13, 2008 10:48 AM
I don't see why this would change their original argument at all; it's the same as the one they use for abstinence-only sex ed instead of teaching about condoms:
Sex is a sin and has bad consequences. Anything that mitigates some of the bad consequences is going to encourage more people to sin and is therefore bad.
Posted by: Dan | May 13, 2008 10:53 AM
Christian Scientists don't do anything to prevent disease (Prayer doesn't count for anything).
Posted by: Dennis N | May 13, 2008 10:55 AM
If it's not bizarre you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Jer | May 13, 2008 10:58 AM
No, but they do borrow their wives' dildos for the wetsuit ritual.
I'm man enough to admit when there's a gap in my vast knowledge. Could someone explain this joke to me? TIA!
Don't be ridiculous. Real Christian Men (TM) don't perform oral sex.
Well, not on women, anyway.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | May 13, 2008 10:59 AM
Trying to stop kids having sex by not letting them have the HPV vaccine is like trying to stop folks speeding by banning seat belts.
Posted by: dph | May 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Has anyone ever commented on the fact that the fundamentalist trolls never show up on topics like this to preach how god is in favor of disease and that by developing vaccines or cures we're opposing his will?
Posted by: Hephaestus | May 13, 2008 11:02 AM
I know that it's more gratifying to get mad at the Christian right, but there was plenty of left wing opposition to the HPV vaccine too - typically, from organic health advocates, anti-Big Pharma, and outright anti-vax conspiracists, but even from some hardline feminists, the kind that blame breast cancer and surgery on misogynist patriarchal medicine. Pretty much the patchouli oil and conspiracist corners of progressivism. Some charged that it was a big medical experiment conducted on the bodies of girls for the sake of corporate profits.
Posted by: Colugo | May 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Here you go.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 11:04 AM
here you go
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 11:05 AM
My issue with the HPV vaccine has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the effort to make it mandatory.
For starters, shouldn't any public health treatment mandate be based on risk? From what I can see, the risk of cancer-caused death in this case is far below the threshold that would require vaccinating an entire generation of girls (and now boys). I mean, we're not talking about the Black Plague here.
The existing treatment model seems to be fairly effective for managing the identification and spread of the virus. Yes, there are some deaths, but what are the long-term ramifications of vaccinating an entire population of children?
Merck, the maker of the vaccine, is being sued left and right for the Vioxx debacle and a Medicaid drug pricing scandal. Further, they have been accused of bribing state officials to push legislation on the HPV vaccine.
Isn't it possible that Merck's advocacy of mandatory vaccination with Gardasil has more to do with recouping their losses from the sloppy science behind Vioxx and their own greed that led to the Medicaid lawsuit? Do we really want to set a precedent where any drug company with deep pockets can make the administration of any drug mandatory?
Anyone with a modicum of drug-science knowledge knows that there is no such thing as a 100 percent safe drug -- that the efficacy of a drug inevitably falls as the user population increases -- it's the law of unintended consequences in action. Do we really want to go down this path, just to help Merck out of the financial jam that Merck caused?
Cervical cancer is a far bigger problem in third world countries. Let Merck demonstrate their altruism by making Gardasil affordable and available in those countries, where it will do the most good. As for the US, make the drug available, but not mandatory. Merck should spend less money on ex-cheerleaders turned drug reps to sway gullible doctors, and more money on an honest education campaign about cervical cancer, Gardasil, and the real nature of the risk.
For the record, I'm pro women's rights, anti-ignorance (religion), and definitely, pro oral.
Posted by: Richard | May 13, 2008 11:08 AM
For Dan, #27
I have seen reports that show circumcised men are far less likely to get HIV. When are we going to see a fundie movement to keep men intact?
Posted by: Britomart | May 13, 2008 11:14 AM
From what I can see, the risk of cancer-caused death in this case is far below the threshold that would require vaccinating an entire generation of girls (and now boys).
There's also a very low probability of having phenylketonuria, but every child is tested for it because it is so devastating for that small percentage to have it and not know. It's not just the possibility of having the disease that is taken into account, but how severe the disease is for those who get it.
Posted by: Carlie | May 13, 2008 11:15 AM
Well...
Since oral sex is considered Sodomy (remember all those sodomy laws that the SCotUS thankfully tossed out), I will assume that they will continue to preach the abstinence only mantra and against sodomy. Heck it might give them a new rallying cry to try and impose new sodomy laws.
Posted by: BD | May 13, 2008 11:17 AM
There was a post a while back about HPV and measles viruses association with lung cancer. Reported in the journal Nature.
http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2008/04/a_vaccine_against_lung_cancer.php
Posted by: stillwaggon | May 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Can't remember where I read this:
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
Pretty much sums up the situation, right?
Posted by: A.N.Onymous | May 13, 2008 11:24 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | May 13, 2008 11:26 AM
I saw a short segment on the Today Show about the vaccine when the firt bills to make it mandatory were appearing. As I recall, one of the participants questioned the wisdom of this not on religious grounds or based on a wild conspiracy theory, but because the studies that had been done to that point on younger girls were small-N (it may have only been a single study). Of course, being the Today Show, they cut off the discussion after about 30 seconds, so little information on that front was forthcoming. I did read a good discussion of the matter in either Harriet Washington's (great) Medical Apartheid or Soniah Shah's The Body Hunters - I can't remember which.
I do think it's reasonable to be cautious about this sort of thing in terms of social policy, particularly when drug companies are writing proposed legislation that would swell their own profits.
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 11:28 AM
I'm not a biologist but isn't HPV a virus? I suspect how you get it (oral or otherwise) has little to do with where the cancer occurs.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | May 13, 2008 11:33 AM
I KNEW IT! Vaccinate those boys. HPV is probably also responsible for many penile cancers (icky), besides the fact that women contract HPV from infected men. Try doing a PubMed search for HPV and PENILE. To quote PMC1477576, "HPV-related cancers are a pandemic venereal disease, and the penis is the primary vector of this viral carcinogen."
The HPV vaccine should be just another childhood shot that EVERYONE gets.
Posted by: M1 | May 13, 2008 11:34 AM
#3
Judging by Ted Haggart et al, not on women anyway!
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | May 13, 2008 11:34 AM
The problem with vaccines is that for them to be effective at eradicating a disease, a substantial portion of the population needs to be vaccinated. Even a small portion of unvaccinated people can create pools where the disease is preserved and where epidemics can arise.
An example of this is polio. Every child in the US should receive a round of polio vaccinations as part of their normal childhood prophylaxis. A reasonable question to ask would be "Why? How many people get polio in the United States?" The answer is that very few do, but there are parts of the world where it is still endemic (small parts, fortunately), and enough cases make it out of these regions and into the rest of the world that it still represents a threat.
In the case of HPV, the consequences of the disease are very severe, much like polio, so it is worth the small, but finite, risk of the vaccine to reduce the potential pool of carriers.
Posted by: Hephaestus | May 13, 2008 11:45 AM
Does this mean that HPV was on Noah's Ark? Just curious.
Posted by: sf atheist | May 13, 2008 11:47 AM
Let's ship 'em off to Saudi Arabia - they'd fit right in.
As for wOOt - you post boobies but don't post tits?
Posted by: Katharine | May 13, 2008 11:47 AM
Not only did my son get the vaccination when it first was available, our insurance paid for it - which rather surprised me. I was all set to pay for it myself.
Posted by: Becca | May 13, 2008 11:47 AM
Like fundagelicals know how to go down on a woman...
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
I never understood why boys were not going to be vaccinated against HPV, it would surely protect everyone better. I don't buy the argument that they have to personally benefit from it, we vaccinate kids against diseases they may never encounter too. I would think that many young men would gladly be vaccinated to protect their partners, they, or their parents should at least have been offered the option.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
As a taxpayer -- and therefore one of the ones who will be paying for someone's medical treatment if they get sick -- I'd rather my money was being spent on inexpensive prevention measures than expensive cures anyday.
I'd also like to point out that I don't begrudge the NHS a single penny -- the alternative would be far, far worse. I just wish more was spent on front line staff and less on the various levels of management and bureaucracy.
Posted by: AJS | May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
How nice. Could you have made your point without stigmatizing the speakers of non-standard dialects? I'm starting to wonder why I bother to read your blog.
"They were agin' it; it might give their womenfolk..."
Posted by: Jacob | May 13, 2008 11:50 AM
SIWOTI alert: #44
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2008 11:50 AM
Richard's comments notwithstanding, one of the issues surrounding the HPV vaccination issue is one of cost: the cost of vaccinating every girl vs. treating cervical cancer, since cervical cancer is easily caught and treated. That said, I'd personally err on the side of prophylaxis.
In any case, as someone who works in cancer surveillance, I'm gonna take this opportunity to gently remind the female readers here that they should be getting regular pap tests. And guys, get your prostates checked out, or ideally removed. Those things are like ticking time bombs! And skin! Don't even get me started on skin! Find yourself a good dermatologist, and abraid that shit down to the bone! Seriously, one mole gone wild and boom! Stupid, good-for-nothing, death-trap organs....
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 13, 2008 11:52 AM
#44 -
HPV is a virus, but it causes infection where it is contracted. Do you know what herpes is?
Posted by: Katharine | May 13, 2008 11:53 AM
"As I recall, one of the participants questioned the wisdom of this not on religious grounds or based on a wild conspiracy theory, but because the studies that had been done to that point on younger girls were small-N (it may have only been a single study)."
The HPV vaccine is most effective if given before exposure to any of the various HPV's around. Hence why it is given to girls before (hopefully) they have become sexually active.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 11:57 AM
"Anyone with a modicum of drug-science knowledge knows that there is no such thing as a 100 percent safe drug -- that the efficacy of a drug inevitably falls as the user population increases -- it's the law of unintended consequences in action."
Research smallpox.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 12:00 PM
"HPV is a virus, but it causes infection where it is contracted. Do you know what herpes is?"
Of course the conditions inside the mouth and inside the vagina and cervix are not dissimilar.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 12:01 PM
"Anyone with a modicum of drug-science knowledge knows that there is no such thing as a 100 percent safe drug -- that the efficacy of a drug inevitably falls as the user population increases -- it's the law of unintended consequences in action."
So the more people who take aspirin as an anti-clotting agent the less effective it is an such an agent ?
How does the aspirin pill taken by a person know that too many have been prescribe and it is no longer allowed to work ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 12:03 PM
I don't see how this is a gender issue, apart from the fact that HPV was being recommended to girls. I've seen nothing (although I can't rule out a few nutcases who think so) to suggest that fundies would object less to preventative measures against STDs applied to men as opposed to women.
I don't buy the feminist idea that HPV is symptomatic of the churches oppression of womens sexuality. I think it's symptomatic of the churches denial of sexuality in general. The churches viewpoint is not that sex education, for example, will encourage their daughters to be promiscuous - but the boys can go get educated, fine. They have a problem with encouraging promiscuity in all children.
And lets face it, to have contracted HPV, someone in a given relationship was being promiscuous (even if it was just making out with someone else). I don't think it's suggested that you can get it by sharing teacups. So rather than mess around protecting people against STDs, let's teach our kids not to be promiscuous. It's worked so well up to now! Let's keep at it!
Posted by: Confused | May 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Claiming that kids shouldn't get the HPV vaccine because it might encourage them to have sex is like saying that if we developed a vaccine against dental caries, we shouldn't use it because it might encourage kids to eat too many sweets.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | May 13, 2008 12:18 PM
#47: "The problem with vaccines is that for them to be effective at eradicating a disease, a substantial portion of the population needs to be vaccinated."
You are, of course, correct, but your comment assumes that Gardasil lives up to the hype, but can we be reasonably certain of this?
At this point, I'm not sure. Consider this:
1. Merck develops the drug.
2. Merck writes the legislation.
3. Merck pushes the drug at the state level using cold hard cash as an incentive.
4. Whereas available information about the efficacy of the drug is minimal due to either small studies (and possibly, short-term studies). For instance, Merck reportedly can't say for how long the drug's effect lasts.
Imagine this:
A church crafts some legislation, say, a law requiring mandatory prayer to the God du jour. The church then tries to bribe state governors to route around the legislative process and the people to make morning prayer to an imaginary fairy, mandatory for all children. If such a thing were attempted, reasonable people would be up in arms. And yet, because of the magic word 'science,' too many smart people simply have accepted Merck at their word.
A simple Google of "Merck" and "lawsuit" should provide sufficient evidence to warrant against taking Merck at their word for anything. Why the push to make Gardasil mandatory so fast? Where are the long term studies? Where's the science?
Too often, we confuse science with business. Gardasil, if it proves to be as effective over the long term as advertised, is science. Merck's attempt to cram it down our throats, absent comprehensive long-term testing, is business.
Posted by: Richard | May 13, 2008 12:19 PM
#61--
"So the more people who take aspirin as an anti-clotting agent the less effective it is as such an agent ?"
it's very simple, matt.
you see, the clots build up a *resistance* to the aspirin.
the clots that are sensitive to aspirin are destroyed by it, whereas any clots that, by random mutation, happen to be immune to aspirin's anti-clotting powers, are more likely to multiply and breed.
and then *your* aspirin-resistant clots can infect *me* with aspirin-resistant clots, and pretty soon we're all coming down with arcs, i.e. aspirin-resistant-clot-syndrome.
and pretty soon there are vast, dumpster-sized clots waltzing down the avenues of our cities, terrorizing small pets and their law-abiding owners, while the police crouch behind the doors of their squad cars firing off round after round from their puny, impotent aspirin-guns.
yeah, okay, richard said a lot of stupid things in #36.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 13, 2008 12:19 PM
About the safety of HPV.
It's been tested on ~11,000 women, with no significant side effects. That doesn't sound like small number statistics to me.
Posted by: John Parejko | May 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Er, no. Vertical transmission.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | May 13, 2008 12:25 PM
#59
Do you mean where they hunted down the carriers as opposed to simply trying to vaccinate the world? Vaccines were a necessary part of the effort, but it was removing the human sources that sealed the deal.
As you move away from the sources of the disease the public health benefits of vaccines and other treatments diminish. Malaria vaccines aren't popular in Minnesota or Northern Canada for a reason.
Posted by: bill r | May 13, 2008 12:29 PM
Brownian (#56) wrote: "And guys, get your prostates checked out, or ideally removed."
Interesting. I never even knew they could be removed. Presumably it's a tricky procedure, what with the urethra running right through it?
Posted by: MH | May 13, 2008 12:30 PM
"So the more people who take aspirin as an anti-clotting agent the less effective it is an such an agent?"
No. Poor wording. My bad. What I mean is that the more widely used a drug is, the more likely one is to encounter sub-sets within the population with a higher risk of adverse outcomes. This is because it is impossible to test for every conceivable scenario, so once a drug is in the wild, that's where the real testing begins.
With good science and responsible treatment, absent the predatory marketing for which the drug industry is famous, these poor outcomes can be minimized.
The problem I see with the HPV vaccine is that too many people seem to be taking Merck (who has a vested interest in the economic success of the drug) at their word, without question.
Posted by: richard | May 13, 2008 12:31 PM
#69
it's a piece of cake compared to getting it installed again.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 13, 2008 12:32 PM
Actually #66, I've waded through the FDA approval and followup data and though the clinical trials had no significant side effects, there have been thousands of side effects in the general population. We're talking a small percentage of millions so it wasn't statistically visible until now. However, it is only going to beneficial to a smaller percentage - less than 5% of women to begin with because that's how many have persistent HPV infection that leads to cancer, but only a portion of those will benefit from the vaccine.
This vaccine was not properly tested. And it doesn't prevent HPV infection!!! Merck says so themselves!
I don't agree with the fundy logic, but I think this vaccine was premature too.
Posted by: Alicia P | May 13, 2008 12:33 PM
'"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
Pretty much sums up the situation, right?' - A.N.Onymous
As I understand it, American Men and Women support (or don't support) abortion in pretty much equal numbers (technically, men tend to support it more, but it's more or less parity). So, no, it doesn't really sum it up at all.
If there's one thing the left and right can agree on it's the pervasive evil of men. To those on the right, men support abortion because they're incapable of caring the way mothers can, and to those on the left, men don't support abortion because they hate women. Granted, the right spin it as a betrayal spearheaded by women (feminists), and the left spin it as a betrayal spear-headed by men (insert any number of names). The reality is that men are generally shouted/guilted out of the argument. It is, after all, a "woman's issue".
Like abortion, the HPV controversy is mostly an argument between special interest groups dominated by women.
Posted by: Jams | May 13, 2008 12:35 PM
"How does the aspirin pill taken by a person know that too many have been prescribe and it is no longer allowed to work ?"
Anti-homeopathy.
Posted by: Ross | May 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Transmitted to newborns during birth, children inserting their fingers into their mouths, possibly from shaking hands, using another's bathtowel or washrag, sharing cigars with our ex-president. This isn't just about sex. At least not for rational people.
"Serological studies also suggest that less than or or equal to 45% prepubertal children have acquired HPV-16"
http://www.health-science-report.com/alotek/topics1/article51/
Posted by: C Barr | May 13, 2008 12:37 PM
#61: "yeah, okay, richard said a lot of stupid things in #36."
Sir. There's nothing stupid about oral sex. /snark
Posted by: Richard | May 13, 2008 12:38 PM
If I were going to blame, I'd but the differences in rates on two forms of tobacco use. One is "smokeless" where men dip snuff and take "chaw" way disproportionately to women (it's, btw, a totally fucking nasty habit). Then I'd add-in pipe and cigar smoking, the smoke of both are (traditionally (when I was young, anyway)) generally not inhaled but kept in the mouth.
I think those two forms of tobacco use, generally not practiced much by women, would be the best explanation as prime cause for the difference. I'd also look at cigarette smoking differences across the population rather than just jumping the gun and blaming it on unknown changes in cunnilingus performance by men. I'd also like to see the data on lesbians before I jumped on that bandwagon. If they have the same proportional differential as heterosexual men, then there might be a better case for the argument.
If not, then whomever breached the suggestion should be knee-capped. We've got enough bull-shit medical speculation taken as fact out there that one more isn't needed.
Posted by: Moses | May 13, 2008 12:39 PM
The HPV vaccine is most effective if given before exposure to any of the various HPV's around. Hence why it is given to girls before (hopefully) they have become sexually active.
(and John @ #66),
That was the point she was making. It had been tested extensively on adults, but not on the population (young girls) who were going to be receiving it. Again, it was a short segment (and I can't verify that her claim was accurate at the time, although I believe I also read it elsewhere), I'm no expert on this, and I don't know what research has been conducted since then. However, we do know that these things can have different effects on children than on adults. I'm in no way advocating that girls not be immunized; just urging caution with regard to state/national legislation.
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Moses,
There is also an increased risk of mouth cancer arising from drinking alcohol, and if I recall spirits are more of a risk factor than wine, and wine more so than beer.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 12:42 PM
#61 & #65 It's always fun to read the literature: Aspirin-induced hearing loss as a model of sensorineural hearing loss
Posted by: bill r | May 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Reverend Gary Aldridge was found dead in his home in east Montgomery. He was the senior pastor at Thorington Road Baptist Church for the last 15 years.
...
An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report.
Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's two wet suits, the family newspaper chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister's rubber briefs
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/09/falwell-colleague-dies-getting-his-autoerotic-rubber-kink-on/
Read the whole thing, there's even a link to the corner's report.
Posted by: Moses | May 13, 2008 12:45 PM
oops. my error
Aspirin-induced hearing loss as a model of sensorineural hearing loss
Posted by: bill r | May 13, 2008 12:46 PM
To clarify: She was suggesting that, within the test group of 11,000 9-26 year-olds studied, the number of those who were younger - under 17 or 18 or whatever - was small. Under 500, if I recall correctly (and I may not). If anyone has any information on this (Orac? You around?), I would be very interested in learning more.
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 12:48 PM
#76--
well-played. and your #70 fully answers my #61.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 13, 2008 12:48 PM
SC,
As I understand it the trial involved over 10,000 girls. That is not a small study and is in excess of what is normally required for drug approval. I also understand that such a large scale was intentional, as this is a vaccine intended for large scale use.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 12:48 PM
The fundies will continue to deny the vaccine to their girls. They will bring their boys in to be vaccinated to protect them from "wanton women".
Their religion is misogynistic. They do not care to protect their daughters or any women. In their feeble minds, their god tells them to dominate women.
Posted by: TheRealityBased Dave | May 13, 2008 12:51 PM
You're still walking around with urinary organs?! Somebody likes living dangerously. Anyways, just ask the surgeon to rip your prostate out when he's removing your lungs (AKA 'Exploding Tumour Sacs').
Trust me, you'll feel a whole lot better when you've got a little elbow room inside you. And between you and me, I can't tell you how much easier shopping is now that I've emptied out my coin purse and turned it into a, well, coin purse.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 13, 2008 12:52 PM
"Their religion is misogynistic. They do not care to protect their daughters or any women. In their feeble minds, their god tells them to dominate women."
And don't think it is only fundamentalist religions that have trouble with the role of women. The Anglican Church of Wales recently voted against allowing women to become bishops. Those who opposed such a move cannot really avoid being considered somewhat backward when it comes to the role women can play in society. I would further point out that the Anglicans are one of those nice moderate religious groups we atheists are supposed to avoid offending. Pity they cannot return the favour and avoid offending women.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 13, 2008 12:56 PM
My daughter is going through the series right now. She's 13.
Her fundy friend, who is the same age, is not allowed near the shots.
Actually, I asked this question about the HPV shot for boys a long time ago, but not because of oral cancer. I asked because it seemed to me that males are carriers. Wouldn't you want to reduce the number of carriers?
If it turns out that males also suffer from the effects HPV can cause, that just reinforces the need for males to get the shots, but "being carriers" really should have been a good enough reason.
By the way, for those of you who don't know, these HPV shots really, really hurt, and it's a series. My daughter has had her second one, and it just kills her shoulder for days. I'm sure others can confirm this; this isn't a flu shot. This is more like the penicillin shots I had to take for a nasty infection I had a few years ago.
And yes, the fundies will still complain. "Ew, he did what??". To cough up too much information, I really, really like it. You're welcome.
Posted by: MikeM | May 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Matt Penfold @ #85,
Again, the question hinges on the definition of "girls." The CDC page says 9-26 year-olds. What was the age breakdown of that group? How many were in the age group that was to receive the vaccine?
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 12:59 PM