It's one thing to have reframing in political discourse where blind partisanship reigns. It is an entirely different matter when reframing starts affecting medical information presented to patients. The recent acclaim for the cervical cancer vaccine is one such case of reframing a debate gone drastically wrong.
One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents is Human PapillomaVirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, fewer people got drunk and before driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.
Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.
In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.
If the government is going to require children to congregate in schools, it has the obligation to make sure that those children do so in an environment that is healthy. This should not be confused with free license for the government to usurp the medical decision-making rights of parents.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Luke
What a disingenuous post. Of course the cervical cancer vaccine prevents cervical cancer, albeit not directly. If science developed an HIV vaccine you would correctly conclude that the vaccine prevents AIDS, since HIV directly leads to AIDS in most cases. If they had called it a "HPV Vaccine" most people would not know why the vaccine was useful since most people are not familiar with HPV.
The issue of whether the vaccine should be required for school-aged children is a seperate one, but you weaken your argument by wrongly attacking the integrity of the medical professionals who developed the treatment.
2 - synecdoche
HPV CAN be a sexually transmitted disease, however it is not the only way to contract it. Hpv is ubiquitous in the environment, and can be acquired even by , of all things , inserting or removing a tampon if the virus is under one's finger nail. The vaccine will protect women from a devastating disease which is caused by HPV 60% of the time. Make sure you have your medical information correct when trying to reframe the question about a public health decision into one on a referendum on the teaching (or non-teaching) of sex education in the classroom.
3 - Bliffle
"Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences."
Oh. That's the point: don't have sex. Those that do deserve to die.
4 - JP
Bliffle, you hit that right on the mark--I was willing to read this article until the author decided to advocate legislating morality.
5 - Bryan McKay
Citations, please. You can't make such a broadly sweeping claim of "proof" without backing it up with some peer-reviewed research or other verifiable data.
And no matter how well it works, some kids are always going to have sex anyway. Wouldn't you rather them know how to do it safely and responsibly?
The whole point of a vaccination, BTW, is to be used before the patient is exposed to the virus. If we wait until the children are old enough to be having sex and have become sexually active, it's too damn late!
6 - Bliffle
Abstinence may work, but abstinence promises don't: rates of pregnancy and STBs are much higher among promise-breakers than among those who frankly admit their promiscuity.
7 - John Bambenek
Exactly what legislation do I propose?
The only think I propose is that they call this vaccine what it really is... an HPV vaccine.
8 - lori
But it *is* a cervical cancer vaccine. Were it not for the causal link between certain strains of HPV and cervical cancer, this drug would not exist. The intent of the vaccine is to decrease the number of cases of cervical cancer. Preventing a few strains of HPV is the tactic being used to do that.
9 - Lisa McKay
John, a very quick Google search indicates that the National Cancer Institute calls it exactly that, as do the authors of the article that reports the research. Where do you get your information from, exactly? Clearly not from the source material.
10 - John Bambenek
Lori-
It's an HPV vaccine, pure and simple. It attacks four strains of HPV, the ones that CAN cause cervical cancer.
Lisa-
Originally, I heard the use of "CC Vaccine" from media reports sitting in an airport (see Google search). This terminology seems to be encouraged by the FDA.
Lastly, the advocates lobbying to make this a mandatory vaccination for all 12 year olds as a condition to get into school are calling it a CC vaccine (at least during their interviews on TV).
It wasn't until the concept of vaccinated in schools being mandatory came about that there has been a shift in terminology to make it more digestable.
11 - RJ Elliott
I don't believe this vaccine should be a "requirement" for preteen girls in order to attend school...but it still is a GOOD THING and a wise option for all involved.
Millions of people have HPV. Therefore, millions of people (well, at least the females) have an increased risk of getting a potentially-fatal disease. This vaccine would help to greatly reduce the incidence of HPV, and therefore the sometimes-deadly disease (cervical cancer) in question.
How in the hell can anyone seriously oppose this wonderful medical advance?
If a safe vaccine for all of the various strains of HIV was invented, would anyone seriously oppose its widespread use? Sadly, the answer seems to be "yes"...
12 - John Bambenek
Maybe something is unclear here, so let me clarify.
I am not against this vaccine. I am not against parents having their children get this vaccine.
I am for calling the vaccine what it is, an HPV vaccine.
I am for letting parents decide whether they want their children to have it or not.
The schools have enough on their plates, they don't need to be clearinghouses of public health concerns also (with the narrow case of those public health concerns that are relevant to the situations in schools, i.e. the spread of airborne communicable diseases).
13 - John Bambenek
Oh, and one last point, some literature indicates that this vaccine has not been adequately tested to see if there are sideeffects in young girls.
On that point, I'll leave it to the medical community to figure it out (or by extension greedy trial lawyers), but that there isn't consensus on the safety is something that raised an eyebrow.
14 - lori
John, two of the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine was found to be 100% effective in protecting against those two strains. That's extremely significant cancer protection and it makes the direct connection between the vaccine and cancer beyond obvious.
Plus, the vaccine also protects against vaginal and vulvar cancers, which are also linked to HPV.
If HPV was a benign infection, there would be no need for the vaccine. It's the CANCER that caused the vaccine to be developed.
You just have your panties in a wad because HPV is sexually transmitted. If it wasn't, if it grew spontaneously somehow or was easily picked up by sitting on a public toilet, would you have given it a second thought?
Further, nobody is hiding the HPV connection -- as Lisa pointed out, the articles and literature specify HPV and it's link to cervical cancer, as does a TV commercial I saw the other night -- but the important thing for parents to take away from the information about the vaccine is that the goal is to prevent cancer later in life. If they don't know the link between HPV and cervical cancer, and they're told it's just an HPV vaccine, then they will likely not see the point.
Every article I've read on it (I'm writing an article about it for my publication) talks about what it does and does not protect against, reinforcing that it doesn't immunize women against all HPV strains or absolve them of taking other protective measures when having sex.
Oh, and btw, HPV has been linked to penis cancer and other problems in men. Thus far, only young females have been included in the clinical trials, but young males will eventually be studied as well, and then the vaccine may or may not be recommended for them, too. It all depends upon the results.
15 - John Bambenek
The vaccine wasn't found to be 100% effective, but that's irrelevant.
The vaccine attacks the HPV virus, as a consequence that virus can cause cervical cancer. We have never called vaccines by the secondary consequences of an infection, we've called them by the disease they directly treat.
You could call the flu vaccine a fever vaccine, but we don't.
You could call the polio vaccine a paralysis vaccine, but we don't.
I'm not saying it doesn't protect, by extension, forms of cancer. However, that is not the convention by which we name vaccines, and the medical literature you point to proves the very point I'm making.
Because you continue to attack me PERSONALLY, it is clear that you are an ideologue, not a rational actor in this debate. The point is simple...
It is an HPV vaccine, we'd like it called such. The professional medical community even calls it an HPV vaccine, it wasn't until the prospect of making it mandatory in schools was present that the name started to change. (I pointed references to this, which apparently you haven't read). The FDA, the MSM, and the school vaccination advocates are calling it a CC vaccine. I believe that this transformation is intentional. The honest people are calling it exactly what it is, an HPV vaccine.
The only protective measure against HPV strains (of the sexual variety) is chastity in both partners. Condoms offer nominal (at best) protection.
16 - Lisa McKay
John, the very first sentence in the FDA link YOU provided reads as follows:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced the approval of Gardasil, the first vaccine developed to prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions and genital warts due to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16 and 18.
It seems to me that they're pretty up front about the fact that the vaccine is against HPV. What you don't seem to get is that the importance of the vaccine is its relevance to the prevention of cervical cancer. As Lori has already explained, the main reason why anyone would want the vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer, not to prevent HPV in and of itself.
Secondly, I'm not sure which study you're referring to when you state that the vaccine isn't 100% effective, but the original study (the one I cited above) reports otherwise. All of the cases of cervical cancer that arose in that clinical trial were in women who received the placebo.
I quite agree with your point that the vaccine should not be a mandatory requirement for school attendance. I, too, would prefer to see such decisions in the hands of parents.
17 - lori
Lisa, I also agree that the vaccine shouldn't be mandatory.
John, it's very clear that the FDA, medical professionals, and the media are trying to link the value of the vaccine (cancer prevention) with the infection that causes the problem in the first place (HPV). It makes perfect sense to frame it to the public this way so that they understand *why* they should consider this vaccine for their daughters or themselves.
The vaccine wasn't found to be 100% effective, but that's irrelevant.
I said the vaccine was found to be 100% effective in preventing against the two strains that cause cervical cancer. I misspoke, because that's not exactly what's been stated. But the precise truth is even better.
The vaccine was found to be 100% effective in preventing CANCER related to those two strains.
It was 99% effective in preventing genital warts, which are caused by the other other two strains covered in the vaccine.
It was 95% effective in preventing pre-cancerous changes to the cervix.
We have never called vaccines by the secondary consequences of an infection, we've called them by the disease they directly treat.
Did it ever occur to you that everyone knew what polio caused, because the disease and its effects were so common, that all that you needed to say was polio vaccine? Or measles vaccine? Everyone knew what those were and how dangerous they were.
HPV is not nearly as known or understood among the general populace as the flu or polio or measles.
Because you continue to attack me PERSONALLY, it is clear that you are an ideologue, not a rational actor in this debate. The point is simple...
"Your panties are in a wad" constitutes a personal attack to you? And a continuing one? Good god, lighten up.
And regarding the ideologue charge: pot and kettle. This statement from your post says it all: "Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences."
This is the living definition of an ideological, cement shoes reaction to the issue.
The professional medical community even calls it an HPV vaccine, it wasn't until the prospect of making it mandatory in schools was present that the name started to change.
The story about the vaccine has been around for a while now, and I have long been seeing it described as a cancer vaccine or "the first cancer vaccine" within the health-care provider community. They're professionals, and they're honest.
(I pointed references to this, which apparently you haven't read).
You pointed to an article by the FDA which talks about the vaccine and to a google search. Neither of those back up your assertion that the vaccine started being called a cancer vaccine only when the prospect of mandatory vaccinations was brought up. Let's see the timeline.
18 - John Bambenek
Saying the HPV vaccine will help in the fight to prevent cervical cancer is one thing, calling it a cervical cancer vaccine is another (as it has been in the MSM).
The vaccine targets strains of HPV that are known to lead to cervical cancer. The vaccine is thus being touted by some as a "cancer vaccine." The problem is that it only prevents about 70% of cancer-causing HPV strains, and its effectiveness is in such doubt that Janet Gilsdorf, Chair of the HPV Working Group for the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices says an 11 or 12 year old girl receiving the vaccine will hace her chance of getting cervical cancer decreased by 20-66%.
I'm trying to get a web link for that.
19 - John Bambenek
Anyone who calls this vaccine a cancer vaccine is a liar, not a professional, and a sham artist.
It is an HPV vaccine, period.
There exists no intelligent argument whatsoever to call it otherwise.
20 - lori
Okay, John, whatever.
21 - John Bambenek
Glad you concede the point.
22 - Doug
In order to increase the safety of the nation's roads and highways, the federal government re-affirmed the need for all motor vehicle occupants, including children, to wear seat belts. Citing numerous studies, officials said wearing seat belts is an effective means of preventing injury and death. Officials plan to launch a new program that will encourage parents to buckle up their children at all times.
Critics say, however, that seat belt use doesn't make people safer drivers, nor is it 100% effective, it merely reduces the harmful effects of rapid deceleration in some instances. By characterizing this as a traffic safety initiative, the government program is deceptively appealing, critics say. "Instead of taming careless driving behavior to deal with the risk of car-based commuting, government elites promote a secondary remedy so careless driving can continue without consequences...It's an attempt to downplay the significance of traffic accident rates" John Bambenek, an anti-enlightenment throwback, said. "Furthermore," continued Mr. Bambenek, "this provocation against the authority of parents shows a bureaucracy not focusing on what it was designed to do, but instead bent on expanding its power over children and families. Just who is serving whom?"
23 - lori
For the record, I concede no points to you.
Your dogmatic, irrational statements speak for themselves, so I'm not going to bother with this topic any more.
24 - Dave Nalle
JB, calling the HPV vaccine a cervical cancer vaccine is exactly the same thing as calling Viagra an erectile dysfunction drug. Viagra is a heart medication which happens to help keep you stiff and at attention as a side effect. But people are buying it for ED, not for their hearts. This ARE what we call them.
And for the record, this entire article goes way beyond your usual level of ideologically blind craziness.
Dave
25 - John Bambenek
I challenge everyone here to name ONE VACCINE anywhere in the world that is called anything other than the virus it attacks.