National Cancer Institute says HPV causes penile and anal cancer in men.

MADem found the link and posted it in another, already very long, thread, about the HPV vaccine that's being made mandatory for girls only in Texas. Since that thread is so long and since this is new information, I'm starting a new thread.

Here's the link MADem located http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/ResPort/HPVmen.html

And here's the abstract describing the study, with two significant sentences bolded by me:

Human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted infection, is strongly associated with invasive cervical, vulvar, and anal cancers in women, and penile and anal cancers in men. Internationally, the incidence of cervical cancer varies greatly, with high rates observed in Mexico and low rates in the United States and Europe. In the United States, Hispanic women have significantly elevated rates of disease compared with non-Hispanic whites. The sexual behavior of the male partner may be as or more important than a Hispanic or Mexican woman's personal sexual behavior in predicting her risk of HPV infection and cervical disease. Little is known about the prevalence, incidence, and clearance of HPV infections in men, however, hampering efforts to control infection in both men and women.

The investigators are conducting a large, bi-national (U.S.-Mexico) prospective study of men in order to further our understanding of the natural history of HPV infection among them, so that effective programs can be developed to reduce its burden in both men and women. The aims are to:

enroll a cohort of 3,000 men who will be examined every six months for four years,
determine the incidence and persistence of type-specific penile HPV infections,
determine the humoral immune response to HPV infection, and
assess the factors independently associated with acquisition, persistence, and clearance of type-specific HPV infections in men.
The investigators hypothesize that distribution of type of HPV infection in men differs by country, most infections in men are transient, and that type-specific HPV antibody response occurs only among persistently HPV-positive men. They also hypothesize that current condom use and circumcision confer reduced risk of incident HPV infection and that other sexually acquired infections increase risk.

The study is unique because it will prospectively assess HPV infection in a large cohort of men in the United States and Mexico, representing countries of high and low risk. It also is timely because it will yield information on types of male infection and incidence of infection necessary to design vaccine efficacy studies in men. Further, the study is cost-effective, operating in Mexico with a significantly reduced cost-per-participant enrolled compared to the United States, enrolling men representative of both countries, and partnering with industry to significantly reduce HPV genotyping costs.


No matter whether you support or oppose mandatory vaccination against HPV, this abstract gives important information about what HPV does to men as well as women. Penile and anal cancers in men are certainly as undesirable as cervical, vulvar, and anal cancers in women.

I don't understand your attitude.

I'm not taking a side in the 'OMG VACCINE' wars.

nt

for penile cancer? C'mon guys, start talking!

The overall 5-year survival rate for all stages of penile cancer is about 50%. In other parts of the world, its much more common, accounting for about 10% of all cancers affecting men in many nations. Also, the most common treatment of the cancer is a partial or complete removal of the penis in addition to chemotherapy.

In cases like this, even those who survive the cancer wouldn't want to reveal that they had it, for obvious reasons, so, to be honest, there is no "poster boy" as you so flippantly remarked upon. To be honest, your attitude is simply disgusting. :puke:

men have been getting the equivalent of pap smears.

gardasil will be given to boys as it's looking like it's effective in them as well.

this might be news to some people -- but some of us like to know what's happening or could happen to our bodies.

putting your sexual partners at risk?

You refused to answer this in the other thread. It's a reasonable question to ask a MALE who advocates mandatory vaccination of 9 year-old FEMALES.

And if you're implying that I don't care about what happens to my body, or the bodies of my family members, both male and female, you're as rude as you are wrong.

so your lying.

you betchya -- no hpv as of this writing -- for that judgemental prurient brain of yours. like it's any of your business.

and i am implying you don't care APPROPRIATELY about what happens to your body or anybody else's when you disseminate ignorant dangerous hogwash as truth.

Your logic is quite faulty and I'm through trying to reason with you.

did i say the report from the nci was dangerous?

no it's your inference that vaccinating against hpv cancers is dangerous.

Go on back to that one and refresh your memory.

If anyone is fibbing here, it's you. And the poster isn't disseminating hogwash. I'm afraid you win the prize on that score.

Get some help. You seem unusually angry at people who are posting simple scientific fact.

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

:kick:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/healthscience/sncancer.php

Article also says there are 6.2 million people infected with HPV every year.

Dr. Eliav Barr, a director of clinical research at Merck, said he had heard that some men were receiving the vaccine, but added that the company was barred from promoting it for men unless the Food and Drug Administration approved it for that use.

That is unlikely for at least a couple of years. Merck is sponsoring a clinical trial of Gardasil in 4,000 men, including 500 gay men. The first results are expected toward the end of next year.

Recruiting gay men has been challenging, researchers said. The vaccine is intended to prevent an initial infection with the virus, but many people become infected soon after becoming sexually active. Merck has recruited men from 16 to 26 who have had no more than five sexual partners.


The thing about HPV is that even though many get it, 90 percent clear it from their systems without incident inside of two years. At any given time, they estimate about twenty million have it:

Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year....There is no "cure" for HPV infection, although in most women the infection goes away on its own. The treatments provided are directed to the changes in the skin or mucous membrane caused by HPV infection, such as warts and pre-cancerous changes in the cervix.

...Approximately 10 of the 30 identified genital HPV types can lead, in rare cases, to development of cervical cancer. Research has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection becomes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer.

A Pap test can detect pre-cancerous and cancerous cells on the cervix. Regular Pap testing and careful medical follow-up, with treatment if necessary, can help ensure that pre-cancerous changes in the cervix caused by HPV infection do not develop into life threatening cervical cancer. The Pap test used in U.S. cervical cancer screening programs is responsible for greatly reducing deaths from cervical cancer. For 2004, the American Cancer Society estimates that about 10,520 women will develop invasive cervical cancer and about 3,900 women will die from this disease. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular cervical cancer screening.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=164655

Why would any woman not get a PAP Smear because she had a shot for one particular kind of cancer? This makes no sense and you're spreading hysteria that is going to cause women to die.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

If you want the medical journal references, I can cite them. Just ask. However, I highly doubt that you'll want them because reading and understanding them would negate your ability to libel me baselessly -- unless, of course, you were to be (mods, please note the subjunctive mood) acting in bad faith.

They are making less and less sense as the days go on. They have moved to dangerous misinformation which CAN cause people to make decisions about this vaccine that can end up in cervical cancer in daughters where there might otherwise have been none. In fact, the mods might consider whether you're stepping over the line and dispensing medical advise that you are not qualified to deliver.

You can find it right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

I can't see why we should be having a discussion about another thread here unless your purpose is simply to unfairly denigrate me personally to dissuade people from reading my thread and forming their own opinions about it.

Is that your purpose?

If you don't want people to respond, don't post. People can click any link they want. Another ridiculous assertion that responding to a thread prevents someone else from clicking on a link. As irrational as your claims about pap smears.

So far, you have posted three comments here denigrating this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply post your feelings about this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

on the thread itself?

Why do you think you can tell everybody where to post??

I was asking you if you would kindly post any material objections you had to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

I would welcome any constructively critical input.

post your links to your sources if you have them. I won't see them now, as your threads are hidden.

Get over yourself.

that the vaccine will give women a sense that they're protected against cervical cancer but the vaccine does NOT prevent all forms of HPV -- there are more than 100 different viruses lumped together under the name of HPV. The V is for viruses, not virus.

The CDC says that Gardasil is 70% effective, which means 30% of girls vaccinated may still get HPV if exposed to it by their sexual partners.

The second reason is that many girls and women avoid going to the gynecologist even when they have symptoms that should cause them to go. Not all women are comfortable with exposing their genitals to doctors, teenaged girls even less so. This may seem strange to some DUers but it's a fact of life for many American girls and women.

If parents choose to have the daughters vaccinated, they need to know that they can still get HPV and cervical cancer, and be sure that their daughters get proper GYN check-ups, starting within a few years of their menarche. Of course, that means parents need to provide their kids with knowledge about sex and an expectation that it's normal for girls to get GYN check-ups. It's highly unlikely that all parents will do that. Being able to afford GYN check-ups is a further complication affectings millions of uninsured women and girls.


Creating a false sense of security with a vaccine has the potential to lead to MORE women developing cervical cancer.

Quite amazing how many people don't read what is posted or check the references given to substantiate the problems with Gardasil. Others skim the information rather than reading carefully.

How difficult is it to understand that a vaccine makes most people think they are protected against whatever disease they've been vaccinated against, when in fact they may have only partial protection? In this case it's KNOWN that Gardasil protects against only a fraction of the 100 HPViruses. The CDC says it will be effective against SOME HPViruses in 70% of those vaccinated.

No one will know if she's one of the 70% or one of the 30% with no immunity. How many will believe that they're safe to have a Pap smear only every two or three years, or not at all?

All in order to save money for insurance companies, which, along with Merck and other pharmaceutical companies, have made ample contributions to many politicians, Democrats as well as GOP.
Merck makes Gardasil and stand to make large profits from sales. Merck might profit from Gardasil if it was offered as an option but they will profit more by state governments mandating it for little girls in public school and making it undesirable to opt out of being vaccinated.

Do people not know that insurance companies routinely pressure doctors to cut costs and refuse to pay for procedures and drugs the physician believes are necessary for a patient's health? This is one of the most common complaints doctors have about being doctors, this is why many decide to retire early.

The dots are quite easy to connect but people refuse to see what's in front of their eyes, preferring to denigrate everyone who tries to inform DUers about an important public health issue.

Perhaps they will connect the dots when insurance companies do exactly as you said and change their policy to pay for Pap smears only every two or three years instead of the annual Pap smears that have been recommended for decades.

My own mother once missed her yearly Pap smear, going in just six months later to have it. In that year and a half, she had progressed from a completely normal condition to Stage 4 cervical cancer. If she'd waited another six months (having a Pap smear every two years), it's quite likely she'd have died of cervical cancer at age 40. I'm very glad she didn't and don't want anyone to bury a mother, sister, wife, or daughter because of the profit-driven machinations of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and politicians.

Another family member developed Stage 3 dysplasia (one stage away from cervical cancer) in a six month period. Due to other gynecological problems, she had been advised to have Pap smears every six months, which she did. And in one of those six month intervals, she went from completely normal to Stage 3 dysplasia, which was successfully treated. She was 31 at the time. Imagine if she'd have been told to wait two or three years between Pap smears? She could well have been dead before she was 35.

Cervical cancer is treatable but it must be found early. Most women who die from it are diagnosed when the disease is too far advanced to treat successfully, usually because they didn't have Pap smears as often as they should have. Often, the reason they didn't get annual Pap smears is that they couldn't afford to pay for them.

like I would trust anything the big pharma barons would say. they have proven themselves to be corrupt.

Anal cancer does not sound fun.