Misplaced priorities

With a tip 'o the keyboard to gansta_ho_bag...

Did you know cervical cancer kills over a quarter million per year worldwide?* Did you know that two strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) are responsible for most cervical cancers? Well now you can rejoice! It seems that there's a vaccine which is apparently 100% effective against those two virus strains. Hundreds of thousands of lives can be saved every year. Millions in medical costs can be saved for the women who get cervical cancer and don't die.

There's a catch, though. It seems that the vaccine is most effective if administered to women before adolescence. That shouldn't be too bad, but apparently some people are OK with women dying because that's better than risking those girls having under-age sex.


Still, the article didn't mention who the critics were. It's kind of like "experts say". Did they only find one and blow it out of proportion? I want to know who those critics are. Did they only speak under condition of anonymity. Why even mention it then? Who the hell could be so evil that they're OK with women dying when it's so easily preventable? I can only wonder if the BBC is exaggerating a bit.

* celibot: only women get cervical cancer. Don't start panicking on me now.
  • Current Mood: pissed off pissed off
And now, I have that song "I enjoy being a girl" going through my head...

Yeah, it's helluv awesome to have your body be the apex of a political/moral/social argument...
Gee, I was thinking it looked like a dildo. I can't make claims that I've met a person with proportions like that.
Stuff like that is why I hate people. We have a way to prevent women from dying before they should but oops! It might encourage people who would already have underage sex to have underage sex.
If they are that insane about it, just include it with the group of shots you need to get before you start kindergarten. 6yr oldsaren't going to run out and hop into the first orgy they see and by the time they hit sex age they probably will have forgotten they had it.
So... I read the article.

Other than the one glib statement about "critics fear this could encourage under-age sex", I see nothing other than praise for the clinical trials.

Granted, there were comments about the best protection being regular checkups. However, I don't see this as promoting "women dying".
Ranting ...
against the ubiquitous 'they' ... I would demand to know just who proferred the criticism before I layered my arteries with plaque and raised my blood pressure to no purpose. A vague reference to an amorphous entity isn't enough to raise even my eyebrow for.
your mood icon looks like an "evil" peep.Even though i think all peeps are evil.. bleh..
any how yes i agree with ya on the cervical cancer.they are about the same way with endomitriosis.the only thing most doc's do is wait till it gets bad enough then give people hysterectomy's.INCLUDING 15 yr old girls ..can you imagine? a 15 yr old having to be on hormone's the rest of her life and never having a chance to have kids of her own.makes me sick!
In typical Internet fashion, I will comment without reading the article.

I'm guessing the opposition's experts are in here in the great nation US of A since we'd rather push abstinence with no health education what so ever, because you know, kids won't have sex that way.

Anyhow, I would guess this vaccine would be most effective in developing countries were cervical cancer is not detected at an early stage. Cervical cancer has an exceptionally high (99%) recovery rate as long as it's found in a reasonable time frame. So I guess my point is it's ok if it's not so bad if it's not administered in the US because it would be more effective in developing countries with little health care/ family planning options.

PS. One in 5 Americans over the age of 15 have HPV, which is commonly symptomless. Think of how many people you know that have HPV cooties!!!!!