Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 158

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

  1. Top | #91
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,459
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,145
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    According to the CDC, females are diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV than are males on an annual basis.

    The logic seems to be that females are more at risk of cancers caused by HPV than are males.
    But the difference is not a matter of orders of magnitude. And if for example men were diagnosed with heart disease 50% more than women, would that justify only giving men preventative heart healthcare? Or would you cry "misogyny!" if that was ever proposed?

  2. Top | #92
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,951
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,661
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    According to the CDC, females are diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV than are males on an annual basis.

    The logic seems to be that females are more at risk of cancers caused by HPV than are males.
    But the difference is not a matter of orders of magnitude. And if for example men were diagnosed with heart disease 50% more than women, would that justify only giving men preventative heart healthcare? Or would you cry "misogyny!" if that was ever proposed?
    That was actually what a lot of these complaints about health care research not being sufficiently focused on women was about: the over-focus on mean for heart disease.

  3. Top | #93
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,327
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,982
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    According to the CDC, females are diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV than are males on an annual basis.

    The logic seems to be that females are more at risk of cancers caused by HPV than are males.
    But the difference is not a matter of orders of magnitude. And if for example men were diagnosed with heart disease 50% more than women, would that justify only giving men preventative heart healthcare? Or would you cry "misogyny!" if that was ever proposed?
    Actually, men ARE diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The WHO is concerned not just with the US and other well developed countries. Its concerns are across the entire globe and in this particular case, it is especially concerned with very serious risks to girls in developing/emerging nations where females die of diseases caused by HPV viruses at a much higher rate than males do in their own countries and in the US and developed countries.

    I've already said that I don't agree with the WHO suggested approach, although I do understand it. I know that it is unlikely that people in the US and apparently, Canada and Australia would be likely to forgo or postpone the vaccination of children in developed nations until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate the children in developing/emerging nations who are at the greatest risk of death. In this thread, it's been men who are outraged that boys are being asked to go without such protection for a few years (while they are not sexually active and are unlikely to be exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine) until the girls who are at a much greater risk of contracting such an infection at a much earlier age can be vaccinated.

    I think it's the wrong approach. The western world has demonstrated how little it is willing to give up in order to protect the health and lives of children in other countries and frankly gives a rats' ass about how many young girls are kept out of school, mutilated, murdered, raped and married off at too young of an age in order to assume even a tiny risk for any of their children, especially the boys.

    It's much better to do its utmost to find ways to bolster production of the vaccine and to get rich nations to cough up the money to step up production and to distribute and administer the vaccine to those most at risk.

    FWIW, I don't care what gender it is which is affected most seriously. In the US, when the vaccine was first offered, it was offered only to girls and I thought--actually I knew that was a mistake, medically, scientifically, and socially. Girls are more likely to contract a deadly disease from one of the HPV viruses, yes, but they contract the virus from males and males are also at risk of contracting a serious and deadly disease.

    It's the lifeboat scenario: if the boat only holds so many people, who gets put overboard? I say: build a bigger boat.

  4. Top | #94
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,951
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,661
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    According to the CDC, females are diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV than are males on an annual basis.

    The logic seems to be that females are more at risk of cancers caused by HPV than are males.
    But the difference is not a matter of orders of magnitude. And if for example men were diagnosed with heart disease 50% more than women, would that justify only giving men preventative heart healthcare? Or would you cry "misogyny!" if that was ever proposed?
    Actually, men ARE diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The WHO is concerned not just with the US and other well developed countries. Its concerns are across the entire globe and in this particular case, it is especially concerned with very serious risks to girls in developing/emerging nations where females die of diseases caused by HPV viruses at a much higher rate than males do in their own countries and in the US and developed countries.

    I've already said that I don't agree with the WHO suggested approach, although I do understand it. I know that it is unlikely that people in the US and apparently, Canada and Australia would be likely to forgo or postpone the vaccination of children in developed nations until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate the children in developing/emerging nations who are at the greatest risk of death. In this thread, it's been men who are outraged that boys are being asked to go without such protection for a few years (while they are not sexually active and are unlikely to be exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine) until the girls who are at a much greater risk of contracting such an infection at a much earlier age can be vaccinated.

    I think it's the wrong approach. The western world has demonstrated how little it is willing to give up in order to protect the health and lives of children in other countries and frankly gives a rats' ass about how many young girls are kept out of school, mutilated, murdered, raped and married off at too young of an age in order to assume even a tiny risk for any of their children, especially the boys.

    It's much better to do its utmost to find ways to bolster production of the vaccine and to get rich nations to cough up the money to step up production and to distribute and administer the vaccine to those most at risk.

    FWIW, I don't care what gender it is which is affected most seriously. In the US, when the vaccine was first offered, it was offered only to girls and I thought--actually I knew that was a mistake, medically, scientifically, and socially. Girls are more likely to contract a deadly disease from one of the HPV viruses, yes, but they contract the virus from males and males are also at risk of contracting a serious and deadly disease.

    It's the lifeboat scenario: if the boat only holds so many people, who gets put overboard? I say: build a bigger boat.
    I overall agree here. I can understand the WHO's perspective, but I think it isn't a realistic solution, especially since it would be pretty easy to produce more of the vaccine.

  5. Top | #95
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,847
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,790
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Actually, men ARE diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The WHO is concerned not just with the US and other well developed countries. Its concerns are across the entire globe and in this particular case, it is especially concerned with very serious risks to girls in developing/emerging nations where females die of diseases caused by HPV viruses at a much higher rate than males do in their own countries and in the US and developed countries.

    I've already said that I don't agree with the WHO suggested approach, although I do understand it. I know that it is unlikely that people in the US and apparently, Canada and Australia would be likely to forgo or postpone the vaccination of children in developed nations until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate the children in developing/emerging nations who are at the greatest risk of death. In this thread, it's been men who are outraged that boys are being asked to go without such protection for a few years (while they are not sexually active and are unlikely to be exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine) until the girls who are at a much greater risk of contracting such an infection at a much earlier age can be vaccinated.

    I think it's the wrong approach. The western world has demonstrated how little it is willing to give up in order to protect the health and lives of children in other countries and frankly gives a rats' ass about how many young girls are kept out of school, mutilated, murdered, raped and married off at too young of an age in order to assume even a tiny risk for any of their children, especially the boys.

    It's much better to do its utmost to find ways to bolster production of the vaccine and to get rich nations to cough up the money to step up production and to distribute and administer the vaccine to those most at risk.

    FWIW, I don't care what gender it is which is affected most seriously. In the US, when the vaccine was first offered, it was offered only to girls and I thought--actually I knew that was a mistake, medically, scientifically, and socially. Girls are more likely to contract a deadly disease from one of the HPV viruses, yes, but they contract the virus from males and males are also at risk of contracting a serious and deadly disease.

    It's the lifeboat scenario: if the boat only holds so many people, who gets put overboard? I say: build a bigger boat.
    I overall agree here. I can understand the WHO's perspective, but I think it isn't a realistic solution, especially since it would be pretty easy to produce more of the vaccine.
    You did not read the OP because it is not pretty easy to meet the demands for the vaccine. IN fact, according to the OP, that may occur in 2024.

  6. Top | #96
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,327
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,982
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Actually, men ARE diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The WHO is concerned not just with the US and other well developed countries. Its concerns are across the entire globe and in this particular case, it is especially concerned with very serious risks to girls in developing/emerging nations where females die of diseases caused by HPV viruses at a much higher rate than males do in their own countries and in the US and developed countries.

    I've already said that I don't agree with the WHO suggested approach, although I do understand it. I know that it is unlikely that people in the US and apparently, Canada and Australia would be likely to forgo or postpone the vaccination of children in developed nations until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate the children in developing/emerging nations who are at the greatest risk of death. In this thread, it's been men who are outraged that boys are being asked to go without such protection for a few years (while they are not sexually active and are unlikely to be exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine) until the girls who are at a much greater risk of contracting such an infection at a much earlier age can be vaccinated.

    I think it's the wrong approach. The western world has demonstrated how little it is willing to give up in order to protect the health and lives of children in other countries and frankly gives a rats' ass about how many young girls are kept out of school, mutilated, murdered, raped and married off at too young of an age in order to assume even a tiny risk for any of their children, especially the boys.

    It's much better to do its utmost to find ways to bolster production of the vaccine and to get rich nations to cough up the money to step up production and to distribute and administer the vaccine to those most at risk.

    FWIW, I don't care what gender it is which is affected most seriously. In the US, when the vaccine was first offered, it was offered only to girls and I thought--actually I knew that was a mistake, medically, scientifically, and socially. Girls are more likely to contract a deadly disease from one of the HPV viruses, yes, but they contract the virus from males and males are also at risk of contracting a serious and deadly disease.

    It's the lifeboat scenario: if the boat only holds so many people, who gets put overboard? I say: build a bigger boat.
    I overall agree here. I can understand the WHO's perspective, but I think it isn't a realistic solution, especially since it would be pretty easy to produce more of the vaccine.
    Well, producing vaccine in large quantities is not necessarily easy. We have seen shortages of other vaccines before, particularly flu vaccines where the priorities were in vaccinating children, old people and those who work with children and old people or in health care fields because the risk of exposure is greater, both to be exposed and to expose others.

  7. Top | #97
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,342
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,786
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Actually, men ARE diagnosed with approximately 50 percent more cancers caused by HPV IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The WHO is concerned not just with the US and other well developed countries. Its concerns are across the entire globe and in this particular case, it is especially concerned with very serious risks to girls in developing/emerging nations where females die of diseases caused by HPV viruses at a much higher rate than males do in their own countries and in the US and developed countries.

    I've already said that I don't agree with the WHO suggested approach, although I do understand it. I know that it is unlikely that people in the US and apparently, Canada and Australia would be likely to forgo or postpone the vaccination of children in developed nations until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate the children in developing/emerging nations who are at the greatest risk of death. In this thread, it's been men who are outraged that boys are being asked to go without such protection for a few years (while they are not sexually active and are unlikely to be exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine) until the girls who are at a much greater risk of contracting such an infection at a much earlier age can be vaccinated.

    I think it's the wrong approach. The western world has demonstrated how little it is willing to give up in order to protect the health and lives of children in other countries and frankly gives a rats' ass about how many young girls are kept out of school, mutilated, murdered, raped and married off at too young of an age in order to assume even a tiny risk for any of their children, especially the boys.

    It's much better to do its utmost to find ways to bolster production of the vaccine and to get rich nations to cough up the money to step up production and to distribute and administer the vaccine to those most at risk.

    FWIW, I don't care what gender it is which is affected most seriously. In the US, when the vaccine was first offered, it was offered only to girls and I thought--actually I knew that was a mistake, medically, scientifically, and socially. Girls are more likely to contract a deadly disease from one of the HPV viruses, yes, but they contract the virus from males and males are also at risk of contracting a serious and deadly disease.

    It's the lifeboat scenario: if the boat only holds so many people, who gets put overboard? I say: build a bigger boat.
    I overall agree here. I can understand the WHO's perspective, but I think it isn't a realistic solution, especially since it would be pretty easy to produce more of the vaccine.
    Well, producing vaccine in large quantities is not necessarily easy. We have seen shortages of other vaccines before, particularly flu vaccines where the priorities were in vaccinating children, old people and those who work with children and old people or in health care fields because the risk of exposure is greater, both to be exposed and to expose others.
    Yes it is. It's very easy. They already know how to make it. It's just a matter of proper funding.

  8. Top | #98
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,768
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,241
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Well, producing vaccine in large quantities is not necessarily easy. We have seen shortages of other vaccines before, particularly flu vaccines where the priorities were in vaccinating children, old people and those who work with children and old people or in health care fields because the risk of exposure is greater, both to be exposed and to expose others.
    Yes it is. It's very easy. They already know how to make it. It's just a matter of proper funding.
    Knowing how to make croissants doesn’t make making croissants “easy”. There are also limits to production.

  9. Top | #99
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,327
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    12,982
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Well, producing vaccine in large quantities is not necessarily easy. We have seen shortages of other vaccines before, particularly flu vaccines where the priorities were in vaccinating children, old people and those who work with children and old people or in health care fields because the risk of exposure is greater, both to be exposed and to expose others.
    Yes it is. It's very easy. They already know how to make it. It's just a matter of proper funding.
    No, it's not always that easy. Clearly, you are not experienced in the operations of laboratories or manufacturing or how vaccines are made, what quality control must be in place. Stuff can go wrong. It's not always all about funding. Although clearly more funding is needed.

  10. Top | #100
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,342
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,786
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    Well, producing vaccine in large quantities is not necessarily easy. We have seen shortages of other vaccines before, particularly flu vaccines where the priorities were in vaccinating children, old people and those who work with children and old people or in health care fields because the risk of exposure is greater, both to be exposed and to expose others.
    Yes it is. It's very easy. They already know how to make it. It's just a matter of proper funding.
    Knowing how to make croissants doesn’t make making croissants “easy”. There are also limits to production.

    If your bakery is at full capacity, it's still just a matter of budget and priority. Build another bakery.

Posting Permissions

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