Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 158

Thread: HPV: WHO calls for countries to suspend vaccination of boys

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,769
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,743
    Rep Power
    51

    HPV: WHO calls for countries to suspend vaccination of boys

    The chokehold of the colonial white supremacist misogynist cisheteropatriarchy is slipping. They've allowed themselves to be called out for boys deriving a benefit from vaccines!

    https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6765

    The World Health Organization is calling on countries that are vaccinating boys against the human papillomavirus (HPV) to suspend these programmes until all girls who need the vaccine can get it.
    The recommendations from WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunisation (SAGE), come just months after the UK began immunising boys aged 12-13 against the virus.
    “SAGE was deeply concerned that the current HPV vaccine shortage could result in failure to introduce or sustain programmes in some countries, particularly those with a high burden of cervical cancer,” the group said in WHO’s Weekly Epidemiological Record of 22 November.1
    HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer and the vaccine, first introduced in the US in 2006, has proven so effective that WHO says it could, in combination with screening, eliminate cervical cancer worldwide by the end of the century.
    But global demand has soared in recent years and MSD, which produces Gardasil, and GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, have been unable to keep up. 2018 saw a shortfall of 6% and that is expected to rise to 32% by 2022.
    MSD and GSK say that they are investing in increasing their manufacturing capacity, but the process of making vaccines is complex and WHO predicts supply will not meet demand before 2024.

    MSD says half of all doses are going to lower and middle income countries and that should increase to 60% by the end of this year.
    Yet of the 115 countries which have begun immunisation programmes (the richest paying as much as $154 (£119; €140) per dose) only 13 low income countries have introduced the vaccine (some paying as little as $4.50 per dose) despite having some of the highest rates of cervical cancer.
    Meanwhile, countries that can afford to (including Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Serbia, the UK, and the US) have begun “gender neutral” immunisation programmes and programmes for older girls and women based on growing evidence this improves protection not just against cervical cancer but cancers of the genital areas, throat, neck, head, and mouth.
    In the context of a limited supply of HPV vaccine “all countries should temporarily pause implementation of gender neutral, older age group, and multi-age cohort HPV vaccination strategies until supply allows equitable access by all countries,” SAGE said. It is also recommending several strategies for making existing supplies of the vaccine go further.
    Asked whether it would consider suspending the UK programme for boys, the Department of Health and Social Care was unable to comment because of purdah ahead of national elections. The recommendations should be considered at the next meeting of the joint committee on immunisation and vaccination in February 2020.
    Modelling produced by the University of Warwick estimates that by 2058 in the UK the HPV vaccine programme currently being used (vaccinating both girls and boys) may have prevented up to 64 138 HPV related cervical cancers and 49 649 other HPV related cancers.

    Since the launch of the programme for boys in the UK in September, there have been growing calls from patient organisations and websites like jabsfortheboys.uk, which is funded by MSD, for older cohorts of boys to be included in the national programme.

    “There are lots of calls for boys to be vaccinated. Those arguments make perfect sense if you’re in a world where there is enough for everyone,” said Mark Jit, professor of vaccine epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who conducted some of the work to inform SAGE’s recommendations.
    “People making decisions in countries about who to vaccinate need to become more aware that there is currently not enough for all the girls who need it.”


  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,771
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,244
    Rep Power
    100
    You poor thing.

  3. Top | #3
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,463
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,149
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    You poor thing.
    Should not both boys and girls get the vaccine? It is ridiculous that the positions supposed "progressives" espouse is to privilege women and girls in everything, and that boys and men are an afterthought in public health.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,850
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,793
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    You poor thing.
    Should not both boys and girls get the vaccine? It is ridiculous that the positions supposed "progressives" espouse is to privilege women and girls in everything, and that boys and men are an afterthought in public health.
    If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,463
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,149
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.
    WHO is arguing that until ALL girls can get vaccinated, NO boys should be. That is incredibly sexist.
    It's like the argument that if there aren't enough life boats, all men should just be chivalrous and drown.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,343
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,787
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.
    WHO is arguing that until ALL girls can get vaccinated, NO boys should be. That is incredibly sexist.
    It's like the argument that if there aren't enough life boats, all men should just be chivalrous and drown.
    HPV doesn't effect men and women the same. Or am I wrong about that? It's prone to causing cervical cancer bin women, not testicular cancer in men. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't you want girls to get this vaccine before boys do? HPV is relatively harmless to boys.

    I wonder if trans girls are still included for the vaccine.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,769
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,743
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    If you bothered to read the OP, the issue is that there is not enough of the vaccine for everyone at this time. If HPV has a higher rate of serious health issues in one gender compared to the other, it is possible from a medical (not ethical) point of view to think that the vaccines should be targeted towards the group(s) who are more affected.
    WHO is arguing that until ALL girls can get vaccinated, NO boys should be. That is incredibly sexist.
    It's like the argument that if there aren't enough life boats, all men should just be chivalrous and drown.
    HPV doesn't effect men and women the same. Or am I wrong about that? It's prone to causing cervical cancer bin women, not testicular cancer in men. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't you want girls to get this vaccine before boys do? HPV is relatively harmless to boys.

    I wonder if trans girls are still included for the vaccine.
    HPV is linked to several cancers in men

    https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditi.../hpv-virus-men

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,463
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,149
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    HPV doesn't effect men and women the same. Or am I wrong about that? It's prone to causing cervical cancer bin women, not testicular cancer in men. Is that correct? If so, then why wouldn't you want girls to get this vaccine before boys do? HPV is relatively harmless to boys.
    Well obviously men don't have the uterine cervix, but HPV can cause throat cancer.
    HPV and Oropharyngeal Cancer
    So HPV is hardly harmless to boys and men. Why should countries like UK eschew vaccinating their boys if there are girls anywhere in the world who don't have access? Why should boys be sacrificed?

    I wonder if trans girls are still included for the vaccine.
    Easy, or you'll get some heads exploding trying to calculate privilege point distribution.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,803
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,600
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    MSD says half of all doses are going to lower and middle income countries and that should increase to 60% by the end of this year.
    Yet of the 115 countries which have begun immunisation programmes (the richest paying as much as $154 (£119; €140) per dose) only 13 low income countries have introduced the vaccine (some paying as little as $4.50 per dose) despite having some of the highest rates of cervical cancer.
    Meanwhile, countries that can afford to (including Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Serbia, the UK, and the US) have begun “gender neutral” immunisation programmes and programmes for older girls and women based on growing evidence this improves protection not just against cervical cancer but cancers of the genital areas, throat, neck, head, and mouth.
    In the context of a limited supply of HPV vaccine “all countries should temporarily pause implementation of gender neutral, older age group, and multi-age cohort HPV vaccination strategies until supply allows equitable access by all countries,” SAGE said. It is also recommending several strategies for making existing supplies of the vaccine go further.
    Sounds like the more $154 doses you sell the more you incentivize manufacturers to increase production. Sounds like with the revenue from a $154 dose you can subsidize a lot of $4.50 doses. Cutting back on sales in rich countries and excluding boys sounds like a formula for preventing more cancers in the next few years at the cost of preventing fewer cancers in the long run.

  10. Top | #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    n/a
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Why should countries like UK eschew vaccinating their boys if there are girls anywhere in the world who don't have access? Why should boys be sacrificed?
    Not everyone can be vaccinated under current production limitations. Someone will be "sacrificed" (to use your comically dramatic language). You can ask why the boys should be "sacrificed", but anyone else can just as easily ask why the girls in lower income countries should be "sacrificed".

    The response to why boys should be given lower prioritization, boys (particularly in higher income countries) are in the lower risk category from hr-HPV-linked cancer and from fatality as a result of such cancer.

    If I ask you why the girls in lower income countries should be given lower prioritization, what say you? Why should they be "sacrificed" (and potentially in higher numbers due to higher known risk)?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •