HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. So why

are young girls the only ones who will have to get a vaccine. Why not a vaccine for men?

Women are the ones who may develop cancer, but someone gives it to them.

Why doesn't a man have to get treated for HPV he can pass it on to unsuspecting women.

Am I missing something in this scenario??

With that said, I do believe it is a good vaccine and will save many lives and I am glad it exists.

It just puzzles me as to why women must take the responsibility when men pass it on to them, and they can just go on their merry way with no worries.

Isn't that enough?
</sarcasm,don'thitme>

HPV is a particular problem if you happen to have a cervix and are having promiscuous sex, thus the high risk population would be young, unmarried women, thus the first people for drug to be approved for would be the population with the high risk.

I'd expect it to be more widely available in a short amount of time.

But that's just my guess.

so why don't men have to be treated to prevent it from spreading?

Just askin.

But I'm guessing men haven't been approved for the vaccine yet.

drug companies find a vaccine for women, vs. a vaccine for men?

Why do they make it a woman's responsibility, when it is in fact spread to her from an infected man.

but I'm pretty sure that is because of the FDA. You can PM me if you'd like.

Vaccines and drugs take years to develop, usually because of the long time it takes to test the drug's safety. The highest risk for mortality due indirectly to HPV is young women, thus they'd be the first to be tested for safety, and the first to win approval.

When they find a vaccine for HIV, I'd expect the first people to be approved for the drug would be young sexually active men and women, particularly in the sub-saharan african world. And then later in the elderly and in children.

There's two forces at work here- scientists who want to make the vaccine, and sexist bastards who want to stop the vaccine. Don't confuse the motives of one over the other.

In fact, you don't even need to be having any sex at all to get it.

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/std/hpv.htm

--unless your partner is also a virgin. Of course, the number of sexual partners (for both) increases the risk.

"Promiscuous" = Not having accepted the "serial monogamy" norm of our culture.

Is "promiscuous sex" defined as having any sex? I'll agree with the statement "HPV is a particular problem if you happen to have a cervix" ... all it takes is penetration by one man that is infected ... be it a husband ...whomever. Promiscuity is NOT a requisite behavior.

:evilgrin:

women are the ones who will end up with cancer so it's of more importance to them to take a vaccine. Just the way women are the one's who get pregnant and most birth control (except for condoms and vasectomies) are women's responsibility.

the problem is not nearly so common as with women.

It would seem to make sense to make the vaccine widely available.

LEARN ABOUT HPV > Fast Facts

There are over 100 HPV types.

About 30 of these types are sexually transmitted and cause genital HPV.

Genital HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact, not through an exchange of bodily fluid.

Genital HPV cannot be entirely prevented by condom use

About 20 million people -- men and women -- are thought to have an active HPV infection at any given time.

Nearly three out of four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV in their life

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_fastfacts.cfm

be available everywhere, I'm sure.

NT

last paragraph:

Merck had originally hoped to get the vaccine approved for use in boys. But although women have routinely allowed swabs to be taken of their vaginal cells, the company found that men rebelled against the use of emery boards to collect cells from their penises. Researchers eventually discovered that jeweler's-grade emery paper effectively removed cells without alarming men and were able to complete their studies.

My guess is that the refined boards probably came into the study too late. I'm sure it will get its approval in time, if effective for men.

with no testing prior.

Remember these are girls who have not had sex.

So boys would not have to be tested either.

Which was, the testing phase. Clinical trials. If enough men could not/would not participate to make up a good size sample ...

They could get a guy to do it if they paid him enough.

But it will take longer. I've no down clinical trials are going on right now.

counting on men to get the vaccine?

It may not seem fair, but until it is approved for both, the alternative would be worse.

that they want it to become a vaccine for all 12 yo girls to take(or whatever the age is) like they do now for MMR and other vaccines.

And I agree they should get it. I would get it for my daughter.

But if all girls are going to have to take it, why not make one first for the men who are the ones who pass it on. A woman can't get it all by herself.

approval and recommendations. That's pretty standard procedure. I suspect the guidelines will be broadened as data comes in. It seems logical that approval would follow the Hep B vaccine time line - which in CA is now routinely provided to school age adolescents, male and female.

"The researchers' model is represented by a flow chart in which susceptible women acquire an HPV infection that, in most cases, is cleared by their immune system. In some women, persistent infection induces precancerous lesions that can progress to invasive cervical cancer, regress spontaneously, or be screened and treated. HPV infection in men is represented by a simpler flow chart—they simply become infected and then develop immunity."

"The model predicts that vaccinating both men and women will be little better than vaccinating women alone, irrespective of whether vaccine coverage is high or low."

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030202

that can possibly take their life. Don't they have a responsibility to be tested and treated.

This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

on edit:

What about prevention. I know that is what the vaccine for women will do. But why are men off the hook. Why don't they have to prevent and treat.

"The model predicts that vaccinating both men and women will be little better than vaccinating women alone, irrespective of whether vaccine coverage is high or low."

So are we supposed to spend all the extra cost, which will make little to no difference, just so we can say its "fair" and people in women's studies classes have one less thing to call sexist?

And women wouldn't have to get vaccinated. I guess that is one of the points I am trying to make.

And HPV vanishing overnight. It doesn't work that way.

to rid the world of the ugly disease if you gave it to just woman or just men.

But it would take the same amount of time.

and gets the vaccine, then hypothetically she'd never have to worry about getting cervical cancer from HPV.

If a woman doesn't get the vaccine then she'd have to hope that every man she ever has sex with, consensual or otherwise, has had the vaccine.

Why is it her responsibility only. If I knew I could possibly pass on a virus that would kill someone I would hope that there would be treatment for me. So I didn't end up infecting someone.

I am a proponent for the vaccine. I am not debating that, except to say that the problem could be fixed if men were vaccinated.

If we forced all men to get the vaccine then no women would ever have to worry about getting cervical cancer from HPV.

It works both ways.

It's an issue of effective use of resources. If cervical cancer is the main concern, and there's no significant benefit to immunizing both men and women, it makes far more sense from a resource allocation point of view to focus the testing on women, so that the vaccine will be available sooner.

If you had the option of getting the vaccine out sooner to men or to women, you're saying that the researchers should have focused on getting it to men sooner?

of most men too. Not necesarily those who don't enjoy women.. but it will come. Now the big debate is what age to immunize children.

Isn't it?

They developed this vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer, not to prevent HPV. I see your point though, that preventing HPV in males and females would make more sense, than just preventing it in females.

is the woman's fault. Don't you know that by now?

and I think that they have pushed HPV as something bad girls (Promiscuous) get.

Why men are left out of this is a good question that deserves and answer. They will continue to be carriers.

they are considering it for boys as well. and hope they just hit em all.

Since the research so far has concentrated on cervical cancer, its on-label use may currently only be for females; but that wouldn't stop a concerned man from getting it off-label. And since HPV can also cause penile cancer and gender-neutral head and neck cancers, vaccinating everybody against it may not be a bad idea.

As a survivor of oral squamous cell carcinoma, one of the cancers that HPV can cause, I'd trade seven weeks of radiation for a quick shot anyday...

Tucker