The Christofascist Zombie Brigade will never go for this

The new vaccine for cervical cancer looks to be highly effective against the human papilloma virus, which is the primary cause of the disease, and is likely to be available this year:

GlaxoSmithKline Plc's experimental vaccine against a virus that causes cervical cancer protected women for as many as four and a half years, according to a company-sponsored study published in the Lancet.

The Cervarix vaccine produced and maintained high levels of antibodies against HPV-16 and HPV-18, the most common types of the virus associated with cervical cancer, according to a study of 776 women by Dr. Diane Harper of the Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

London-based Glaxo, Europe's biggest drugmaker, is conducting studies to win regulatory approval for a vaccine that fights the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV. HPV has been shown to be the cause of cervical cancer, the second- most common cancer in the world and the most common cause of cancer death in the developing world.

One would think that a group of people who call themselves "pro-life" and who held vigils in front of the hospice of a brain-dead woman would welcome such a development. One would be wrong, however, because anything which allows a woman to not suffer the consequences of unchaste behavior is off the list for these people.

October 2005:

Exactly how the vaccine is used will be largely determined by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel of experts assembled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The panel issues widely followed guidelines, including recommendations for childhood vaccines that become the basis for vaccination requirements set by public schools.

Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus.

"I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.

At the ACIP meeting last week, panel members heard presentations about the pros and cons of vaccinating girls at various ages. A survey of 294 pediatricians presented at the meeting found that more than half were worried that parents of female patients might refuse the vaccine, and 11 percent of the doctors said they thought vaccinating against a sexually transmitted disease "may encourage risky sexual behavior in my adolescent patients."

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.

"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

[snip]

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

Without getting into a debate on whether any immunizations should be mandatory, the CZB position is ominous. It's one thing to fight to not make the immunization mandatory because of concerns about the vaccine itself (as with the concerns about thimerosal in other childhood vaccines). It's quite another to want to leave young people vulnerable to a disease because of the idea that fear is an abstinence motivator. That has never worked, why do these people think it would work now? And do they really want their daughters to develop cancer if they stray from the abstinence message?

It remains to be seen if they will be content with just not making it mandatory for young people, or they will try to have the vaccine banned on the grounds that it removes a concern about sexual consequences for ALL women.