Why do they only suggest giving HPV vaccine to women?

[Ferret_Herder]

Actually, on poking around online, it seems like there are gender-based differences in adverse reactions to vaccines, with worse reactions for women than men in some cases (anthrax - PDF warning, influenza), and worse for men than women in others (smallpox).

[Broomstick]

@Chronos

Back on the topic of HPV, I find it somewhat surprising that it’s mostly sexually-transmitted, given that it can spread skin-to-skin. Sure, of course the genitals are a prime location for infection, what with being moist and protected and all, but on the other hand, most folks shake hands a lot more often than we have sex. You’d think that the sheer quantity of hand-to-hand contact would make up for the less optimal transmission conditions.

There are HPV strains associated with warts on the hands and feet, among other places. They are not generally those associated with cervical cancers, but it’s not impossible for such strains to cause warts in locations they aren’t usually encountered.

The skin on your hands is usually thicker and tougher than almost anywhere else on your body, which may make entry by the virus more difficult.

[Der_Trihs]

@tumbleddown

@HorseloverFat

I think because men simply do not have the same amount of push for health issues as women do.

Actually, it’s just the opposite. The high visibility of programs dedicated to women’s health are a response to women, especially younger (i.e. premenopausal) women, being shut out of clinical trials and research for many years, to some extent at the order of the FDA. For too many years, it was out of sight, out of mind, and there had to be a strong and highly vocal movement in the opposite direction to counter that.

Actually, that’ arguably an example of the lack of concern society has for men ( and has been used as such an example actually ). Turn it around, and consider a situation where it was the women who were undergoing all those clinical trials, and men were not. We’d be hearing speeches about how women were being used as guinea pigs for the benefit of men.

It was really about a reluctance to put women at risk with experimental treatments, and a willingness to risk men; in large part because society simply cares a lot more if a woman gets sick or dies from those experiments. Or from sickness in general; last I heard female specific health research had twice the funding of male specific health research. Men were chosen for those trials because they were regarded as more expendable; the practice changed only when it became obvious that treatments don’t always work the same on both genders.

[Marley23]

@Broomstick

There are HPV strains associated with warts on the hands and feet, among other places. They are not generally those associated with cervical cancers, but it’s not impossible for such strains to cause warts in locations they aren’t usually encountered.

Right. These vaccines are supposed to work against the four strains fo HPV that are most associated with cervical cancer and genital warts. There are dozens of other strains.

[SciFiSam]

It’s for the same reason that breast cancer screening is routinely offered to women in higher-risk groups, but not to all women. Yes, givng the screening to everyone would be more effective, but it would also be a lot more expensive. The funds are not unlimited, so you have to target them.

@Der_Trihs

Actually, that’ arguably an example of the lack of concern society has for men ( and has been used as such an example actually ). Turn it around, and consider a situation where it was the women who were undergoing all those clinical trials, and men were not. We’d be hearing speeches about how women were being used as guinea pigs for the benefit of men.

It was really about a reluctance to put women at risk with experimental treatments, and a willingness to risk men; in large part because society simply cares a lot more if a woman gets sick or dies from those experiments. Or from sickness in general; last I heard female specific health research had twice the funding of male specific health research. Men were chosen for those trials because they were regarded as more expendable; the practice changed only when it became obvious that treatments don’t always work the same on both genders.

Do you have a cite for that bolded part, please? I wonder if it includes pregnancy-related conditions.

Breast cancer is more likely to affect young women than prostate cancer is to affect young men. (Source for breast cancer; source for prostate cancer.) I suspect that’s the main difference, really. There’s more of a focus on illnesses whch affect younger people who might either be parents of minor children or the main wage-earners in a family, and who just haven’t had as much chance to live as long. Fair enough.

The crude rate for breast cancer in women in much higher than the crude rate for prostate cancer in men. (The crude rate for ‘persons’ getting breast cancer is lower, because it’s including men - since they also get breast cancer occasionally - whereas the crude rate for prostate cancer only includes men, for obvious reasons). Fewer men die *of[/] prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer. There’s more of a focus on illnesses which are more common and have a higher mortality rate. Fair enough.

It also makes sense to spend money on a cancer that has an obvious, identifiable and treatable cause, like cervical cancer being linked to HPV. You’re not throwing money in the wind there - you’re spending it in a way which is certain - as far as anything can be certain in medicine - to work.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

Men were chosen for those trials because they were regarded as more expendable; the practice changed only when it became obvious that treatments don’t always work the same on both genders.

The men were also usually chosen out of a pool of medical students, who presumably would take the trials seriously. I don’t think that men were chosen because they were regarded as being more expendable. I think that they were chosen because they had a very, very small chance of becoming pregnant.

[Der_Trihs]

@scifisam2009

Do you have a cite for that bolded part, please? I wonder if it includes pregnancy-related conditions.

< googles >

In fact one sex does appear to be favored in the amount of attention devoted to its medical needs. In the United States it is estimated that one sex spends twice as much money on health care as the other does. The NIH also spends twice as much money on research into the diseases specific to one sex as it does on research into those specific to the other, and only one sex has a section of the NIH devoted entirely to the study of diseases afflicting it. That sex is not men, however. It is women.

IN the United States women seek out and consequently receive more medical care than men. This is true even if pregnancy-related care is excluded. Department of Health and Human Services surveys show that women visit doctors more often than men, are hospitalized more often, and undergo more operations. Women are more likely than men to visit a doctor for a general physical exam when they are feeling well, and complain of symptoms more often. Thus two out of every three health-care dollars are spent by women.

< snip >

THE 1987 NIH inventory did indeed find that only 13.5 percent of the NIH research budget was devoted to studying diseases unique to women. But 80 percent of the budget went into research for the benefit of both sexes, including basic research in fields such as genetics and immunology and also research into diseases such as lymphoma, arthritis, and sickle-cell anemia. Both men and women suffer from these ailments, and both sexes served as study subjects. The remaining 6.5 percent of NIH research funds were devoted to afflictions unique to men. Oddly, the women’s 13.5 percent has been cited as evidence of neglect. The much smaller men’s share of the budget is rarely mentioned in these references.

To be fair, note that most or all of the difference in actual care ( as opposed to research ) is self-inflicted on men; they choose not to seek out care. But the average man isn’t the one allocating funds for medical research.

@Lynn_Bodoni

The men were also usually chosen out of a pool of medical students, who presumably would take the trials seriously. I don’t think that men were chosen because they were regarded as being more expendable. I think that they were chosen because they had a very, very small chance of becoming pregnant.

I was speaking of medical research in general, not just studies involving pregnancy. And yes, the expendability of males was a conscious PR concern. Women getting sick or dying in an experiment is a scandal that makes the news; with men, people generally don’t care.

[Guinastasia]

How about a link to your source, Der Trihs?

[Marley23]

@Der_Trihs

Women getting sick or dying in an experiment is a scandal that makes the news; with men, people generally don’t care.

People die in clinical trials all the time and it’s almost never news, because the people in the trials are frequently dying in the first place. That’s why they’re in trials. When a drug that’s already on the market starts killing people, it doesn’t matter if it kills men or women - that’s always news.

[Ferret_Herder]

@Marley23

People die in clinical trials all the time and it’s almost never news, because the people in the trials are frequently dying in the first place. That’s why they’re in trials. When a drug that’s already on the market starts killing people, it doesn’t matter if it kills men or women - that’s always news.

Well, mostly true - a lot of studies are for drugs that aren’t necessarily for anything that’s fatal, but deaths in those kinds of studies really stick out and are carefully evaluated. And as a person - a woman - who serves on an institutional review board at a medical center, who helps oversee research studies on humans and helps evaluate them for safety and ethics, I find Der Trihs’ commentary highly offensive. This is a volunteer position for me, over and above my job, and I take it seriously.

[Snnipe_70E]

@sailor

The vaccine is quite new. I think the idea is that you start using it on those who can benefit the most until it has been widely proved effective and safe and then you move on to those who benefit less.

You have stated the problem. The Vaccine is quite new! There have been little long term tests. A lot of people are questioning blanket giving the vaccine to everyone.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

I was speaking of medical research in general, not just studies involving pregnancy. And yes, the expendability of males was a conscious PR concern. Women getting sick or dying in an experiment is a scandal that makes the news; with men, people generally don’t care.

I wasn’t speaking of pregnancy studies at all. Traditionally, drug testing and such were done on medical students, who were almost all male. The experimenters absolutely did not want any pregnant subjects, so they were absolutely OK with having only male subjects. They also didn’t want women having periods to participate in their studies.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/19993

Investigators have defended their choice of males as research subjects on the grounds that men are cheaper and easier to study. The estrous cycle is viewed as a methodological complication during analysis that increases research costs because many more control groups are required. Researchers have also feared that the inclusion of women of childbearing age in clinical trials might endanger fetuses. FDA guidelines restricting research on women of childbearing potential were first implemented in 1977 in reaction to the birth defects resulting from thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol administrated during pregnancy, and the FDA only revised these guidelines to include this population of women in early-phase clinical trials in 1993. These protective restrictions, however, can support the portrayal of women as “walking wombs,” unable or unwilling to control their fertility. These guidelines also overlooked the pharmacologic needs of many pregnant women, three-quarters of whom require drug therapy during pregnancy and currently use prescription or over-the-counter drugs for chronic conditions such as diabetes or depression

I suggest reading the whole article. While individual men might have suffered because researchers tended to use men as test subjects, men as a whole benefitted. Women as a whole and as individuals have suffered because researchers did not turn up data that detailed how a woman might not react in the same way as a man would if she used a certain drug, or how a woman might miss signs that she was having a heart attack, because only the typical male signs had been publicized.

[SciFiSam]

@Der_Trihs

< googles >

To be fair, note that most or all of the difference in actual care ( as opposed to research ) is self-inflicted on men; they choose not to seek out care. But the average man isn’t the one allocating funds for medical research.

That’s a bit vague.

What about the points I made about possible good reasons for funding research into certain forms of cancer over others, when there are limited funds?

I was speaking of medical research in general, not just studies involving pregnancy. And yes, the expendability of males was a conscious PR concern. Women getting sick or dying in an experiment is a scandal that makes the news; with men, people generally don’t care.

Years ago lots of my friends took part in clinical trials, because a couple of our friends worked at a clinic where such trials took place. Women were not allowed to be test subjects because they could either fall pregnant (which would change the results of the trial, as well as being potentially dangerous to the patient) and because women’s hormones apparently fluctuate too much. This even went for really, reallt safe drugs like Aspirin that have to be retested every so often (well, every couple of decades or so, I think - I know my friends were testing Aspirin, anyway).

I think you’re looking for offence here, really.