Human papilomavirus is the most common sexually transmitted disease. It
is also the number one cause of cervical cancer in the world. A recent New York Times article reported that the vaccine which prevents the virus and has
proved to be spectacularly effective world wide has resulted in a 50% drop in
cases of the virus among teenage girls in the United States.
Why just a 50% drop in the United States if the vaccine is so effective?
Because 44% of American parents refuse to get their daughters
vaccinated because they are afraid it will lead to them having sex.
Obviously it is parents who have a
distorted and damaging and perhaps unrealistic view of sex filled with false beliefs along with a bizarre view of morality that is behind the 44% who won't vaccinate
their daughters because of their fears that it would lead to sex.
Whether it is a segment of adults with a distorted view of sex or some other bizarre reason, these American parents are
deciding not to give their children, daughters in particular what is at it's
most basic, an anti-cancer vaccine, because the virus that causes the cancer is contracted through sex. Which, it seems, in the minds of these parents, is worse than
having cancer. Which says a lot about what their own crazy ideas about sex might
be. And how irrational people can be.
The vaccine requires 3 doses for maximum protection but while about half the teenage girls in the United States have had some form of the vaccine, only 33% of girls in the U.S. have had the three doses. Outside the U.S. in countries like Denmark and Britain 80% of girls have had the 3 dose vaccination.
The estimate is, at it's current levels in the United States, the vaccine will prevent about 45, 000 cases of cervical cancer and 14,000 deaths among teenage girls 13 and younger over their lifetimes. The number of people in the U.S..infected with HPV is staggering - the estimate is 79 million men and women. The virus causes 19,000 cancers a year in women and 8,000 in men. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer for women caused by the virus, throat cancer for men. Recently Michael Douglas revealed his throat cancer was caused by getting the virus by performing oral sex on someone who was infected . The revelation brought a lot of snickers and laughs in some and disbelief in others. It's no joke.
The estimate is, at it's current levels in the United States, the vaccine will prevent about 45, 000 cases of cervical cancer and 14,000 deaths among teenage girls 13 and younger over their lifetimes. The number of people in the U.S..infected with HPV is staggering - the estimate is 79 million men and women. The virus causes 19,000 cancers a year in women and 8,000 in men. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer for women caused by the virus, throat cancer for men. Recently Michael Douglas revealed his throat cancer was caused by getting the virus by performing oral sex on someone who was infected . The revelation brought a lot of snickers and laughs in some and disbelief in others. It's no joke.
Doctors say children, boys as well as girls, should receive the vaccine
long before they can be exposed to the virus, at ages under 13 years before they are likely to be sexually active. But there is
still the 44% of American parents resistant to giving their children the vaccine
simply because of its relationship to sex and that the cancer it prevents
(cervical and throat) is caused by a sexually transmitted disease.
Which also says something about how sex is treated in the United States on
many levels, politically as well as in the media, in both cases on a level that is less than adolescent and more pandering to false beliefs and myths than reality as opposed to other countries around the world which takes a more mature and realistic and honest approach to sex and suggests that when it comes to sex
it might be a good idea for a lot of people to grow up so that tens
of thousands of children can do the same.
Posts
11 comments:
I have vaccinated my daughters who are 13 and 16 and just like with every other vaccine they've received, neither one of them ever even questioned me as to why they were getting it. I didn't explain the reasons for the chicken pox vaccine, Rabies, Pertussis, Small pox or any other either. They know they are being vaccinated to protect their health. And they also both know that their father and I don't condone sexual activity at their age. If people don't want their children to be sexually active, they should tell them that and teach them those values. And you can easily get HPV within the context of a loving, adult relationship. This rationale for avoiding the vaccine is hysterical and irrational.
"Because 44% of American parents refuse to get their daughters vaccinated because they are afraid it will lead to them having sex."
You really need to stop swallowing whole the unsupported assertions of the media. The hack at the NYT stated: "A study published in the journal Pediatrics in March found that 44 percent of parents in 2010 said they did not intend to vaccinate their daughters, up from 40 percent in 2008." She then states : "Some parents worry it promotes promiscuity." There's a little problem with this statement : there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Pediatrics article about fear of promiscuity. The hack at the NYT pulled this nonsense out of her ass (and then apparently handed it to you for your credulous enjoyment).
Why do Americans accept what the media says as though it's Holy Writ without even a critical glance?
"...there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Pediatrics article about fear of promiscuity. The hack at the NYT pulled this nonsense out of her ass.."
Have any proof of this or did you pull it out of your own ass?
" There's a little problem with this statement : there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Pediatrics article about fear of promiscuity. The hack at the NYT pulled this nonsense out of her ass (and then apparently handed it to you for your credulous enjoyment).
After double checking the article it looks like the hack is YOU. Not to mention that your reading comprehension is a joke.
In the first place the entire article was NOT about the 44% but about the effectivness of the vaccine. The information about the 44% included a link to the Pediatric study that found the number at 44%. And to show just what a hack you are, and that you cant read what's in front of your face, the Pediatric article you refer to stated clearly and unequivocally in the RESULTS section of the study, that the primary reason most given by parents for not vaccinating their children is their belief that they are not sexually active.
The article simply gave statistical results. It didnt bother to go deeper,or to examine parental attitudes further, but even on a superficial level you didnt get it. Another sure sign of a hack.
"...the Pediatric article you refer to stated clearly and unequivocally in the RESULTS section of the study, that the primary reason most given by parents for not vaccinating their children is their belief that they are not sexually active."
Well, duh. You're so proud of stating the obvious. Do you understand the difference between lack of necessity (sexual inactivity) and fear of unintended consequences (promiscuity)? Apparently, not. Neither does the NYT hack. Let me try to demonstrate the difference in a very broad example which you might be able to grasp. Suppose an American parent is offered a vaccine for a parasite found only in streams in rural India. Suppose that such parent refuses the vaccine and checks the "lack of necessity" box. Would you conclude that the parent is afraid that the vaccine will make their child more likely to run away to India? Apparently, you would.
"The article simply gave statistical results. It didnt bother to go deeper,or to examine parental attitudes further, but even on a superficial level you didnt get it."
Again, duh. If you understand that the Pediatrics article said nothing about parental attitudes, where did you get the basis for this statement :
"Because 44% of American parents refuse to get their daughters vaccinated because they are afraid it will lead to them having sex."
You got this statement from the NYT article with its bogus reference to an article which supported no such statement. Your ONLY basis for this statement is you uncritical reading of the NYT article. Don't be a media stooge. Think for yourself.
"Do you understand the difference between lack of necessity (sexual inactivity) and fear of unintended consequences (promiscuity)?"
You sound like one of the irrational parents trying to justify your irrationality.You again demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension.And no ability to apply logic. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in content between a parent giving "not sexually active", "not neccessary" and "not needed" as reasons for not having their teenage daughters vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer. All three say exactly the same thing -- these parents (of which you seem to be one) not only believe their teenage daughters are not having sex but that they won't in the future.
The fact that in your mind you define "unintended consequences" as having sex, while getting a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cancer doesn't fall into that category, just re-enforces and proves the point, and shows that voodoo logic is at work. The same kind of self delusion you used in assuming without any knowledge or proof that the NY Times reporter who reported on the study made it up out of her head when she wrote that "some parents worry that it promotes promiscuity".
You assume she spoke to no one and just invented it without any proof to back it up, just like all your other assumptions.
The irrationality that you seem to share is that if these parents believe that their teenage daughters are not having sex now, and are vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer, somehow the vaccination is either an admission their daughters are having sex, or will, in your words, "lead to unintended consequences" of having sex.
Seeing those "consequences" - having sex - as something equal to or worse than having cancer only re-enforces the whole point of the piece for which I thank you.
"There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in content between a parent giving "not sexually active", "not neccessary" and "not needed" as reasons for not having their teenage daughters vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer. All three say exactly the same thing -- these parents (of which you seem to be one) not only believe their teenage daughters are not having sex but that they won't in the future."
Yes, but they don't mean that these parents believe that the vaccine will make their children BECOME sexually active. How do you get from "My child is not sexually active" to "The vaccine will make my child sexually active"? You certainly don't get there on the basis of the Pediatrics article because it doesn't mention fear of promiscuity. Saying that "not necessary" means the same as "not needed" shows that you don't even understand the issue. As far as not knowing whether the NYT hack spoke to some unidentified source (perhaps someone from her yoga class?), that may be true, but it doesn't justify you claiming that 44% (you actually gave a percentage!) of parents prefer cancer over sexual activity for their child on the basis of some conversation that a reporter may or may not have had with some unknown person. Is that your standard for evaluating "fact" in a newspaper article, a blind faith that the reporter has an undisclosed basis for her statements, i.e., if it's in the newspaper, it must be true?
It makes you want to weep.
Reasons for not getting innoculated against small pox? Not necessary - as I do not plan on getting small pox.
How is this difference from a reason for not getting innoculated against HPV? Not necessary - as my daughter is not going to have sex.
In either case, the "not necessary" reason is pretty much just denying reality.
For HPV, the most frequent reasons included those for the other vaccines as well as 4 others, including “Not sexually active” and “Safety concerns/Side effects.”
Not sexually active is not the same thing as no plan to EVER be sexually active? I may be an over-protective father, but I'm not naive. My daughters will ONE DAY become sexually active. Why not vaccinate them BEFORE that day occurs?
The idea that vaccinating them against a STD will therefore cause them to become sexually active BEFORE such time that they would have become sexually active without the vaccination is ludicrous.
And THAT was the point of the original post.
I think all girls should get this vaccine and I have absolutely no moral ties to my thoughts about sex, at any age. However, this article is poorly written and jumps to many unfair conclusions. For instance, I was never vaccinated when younger because growing up we didn't have the money for it. Not because my parents thought it would lead to promiscuity. The article takes a complicated matter that includes the way our nation handles healthcare as well as gender and sexuality, and boils it down to 'parents would rather their kids have cancer than sex'. Which, once again is not even a statement that makes sense. I understand that the statement may not be meant to be literal, but still, either sex or cancer was never the option. To get HPV one would still have to have had sex, you wouldn't just contract it. Not an excuse for parents not having their children vaccinated, just a poorly written article.
The issue at hand is NOT whether the vaccine should be given; it almost certainly should.
The issue at hand is NOT whether the vaccine causes promiscuity; it almost certainly does not.
The issue at hand is whether the statement "44% of American parents would rather their daughters have cancer than have sex", a despicable and disturbing statement, is supported by the Pediatrics article. Anyone who thinks that almost half of American parents have the same mindset as those parents who would subject their daughters to "honor killings" to prevent them from being sexually active must have a profound contempt for his fellow citizens. American parents would prefer their daughters to have cancer? Really?
Post a Comment