the messiah spotted in governement-subsidized laboratories!

part three: vaccines, shmaccines

now here's an interesting one. also one for which the facts do a pretty good job on their own...

there has been a recent development in the study of sexual health: the hpv vaccine. there are actually two of them — they prevent different strains; one of them is nearly 100 percent effective against the two strains of hpv that account for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases in women. the second is equally protective against these cancer-causing strains and offers additional inoculation against two other strains of the virus that account for 90 percent of genital warts cases. both of these vaccines could be availble to the general public as early as this summer. health officials are very excited about these vaccines; over 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year, not to mention the huge amount of women who develop high risk strains of hpv that must be monitored to be sure they don't become cancer, not to mention the 500,000 to one million cases of newly dignosed genital warts annually in the united states. point being, hpv is a pretty important thing to be working to fight. so the development of these hpv vaccines is pretty good news, right? we should start vaccinating everyone we can as soon as possible, right?

or, as some would have it, we can argue over its "moral" implications instead.

yes, it's true. the right-wing pjfs actually have the audacity to oppose vaccinating young people because it will promote amoral, premarital sex:

just listen to bridget maher of the family research council who said "giving the hpv vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful. they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

or don't. because it's ridiculous. personally i prefer to listen to those who are looking at this vaccine exactly for what it is: "...public health 101," according to cindy pearson, director of the national women's heath network.

or cynthia daillard of agi who said, "if we had a vaccine for lung cancer, i don't think anyone would hold it back from their children because it might encourage them to smoke."

and thus i arrive at the conclusion at which i seem to arrive in every discussion of my little pjf-science series: there's just no argument. seriously, please step forward if you think you can explain to me how a vaccine that could prevent 70 percent of cervical cancer cases could even conceivably be a bad idea. i'd be interested to hear what you have to say.