Time wouldl tell.
I knew I'd be accused of gross sensationalism for saying this, but I thought Merck's HPV vaccine, Gardasil, would increase AIDS risks. Had they considered that matter at all? In other parts of the world, heterosexual sex accounts for a much higher proportion of AIDS cases than in the US. And my belief that sperm cells harbor both HPV and HIV has been explained in this material.
And a medical question, which had been largely ignored, seemed to me to have greater significance. "What is the function of menstruation? Is it more than a nuisance? Is it, in fact, a form of immune defence?" If young women are to be encouraged to have more sex, those are questions that should be looked into
A more extended discussion of all this is to be contained in my work The Calculus of Sex, which is to be out by the end of 2009 in printed form, or sooner if there's sufficient interest. A copy may be ordered at 317 523- 6943.
Merck and other drug makers are working toward the day when every adolescent girl will be using birth control pills to protect against pregnancy. And, since birth control pills increase the risk of cervical cancer, they've found it necessary to provide a vaccine for the cancer. That is, a pill may solve one perceived problem, but it causes others, so a vaccine is then needed. The situation might be described as a "biochemical coverup" or as "medical makework."
If the evolution of new strains of HPV and the occurence of new AIDS cases is the result of all of this, then even more medical makework will also materialize.
And what about the girl who's denied the use of birth control by her parents, for financial or other reasons? Isn't it possible that such a girl will feel somewhat deprived and will be tempted to experiment with oral sex-- since an oral sex act might not require making any purchase?
Doesn't that scenario, in fact, possibly explain the disturbing oral sex statistics with which we began this article?
Thus the net result has become an extensive medical and social pathology. And there was talk in 2006 that cervical cancer vaccination might have to be made mandatory. That would have represented a boon for both for Merck and for the companies that make birth control pills. But it's not clear that young Americans would have benefited in any way at all. In fact, in my view a mandatory vaccine might call for the following neologism:
" genosuicide."
In late 2006, though, mine wasn't the prevailing opinion. Newsweek (9/25/06, p43) called the HPV vaccine the "hot shot on campus." Dr. Donald Misch of Northwestern was quoted as saying, "Even if cervical cancer weren't an issue, nobody wants to get genital warts." I phoned Dr. Misch, but he didn't return my call. Newsweek didn't report on whether Northwestern or Dr. Misch are due to receive a commission on sales of the vaccine.
Let me conclude this by repeating a point made above: unfortunately, there are--at times--reasons for being concerned about the objectivity of academic researchers. Objectivity may falter when it comes to sexual issues that also have sociological or political implications. Thus academic researchers haven't been particularly objective regarding the safety of birth control pills.
. . . or regarding oral sex. And with respect to oral sex, the health of both sexes is at risk.
Restraining population growth and preventing unwanted pregnancies may be desirable goals. However, there's a need to face what might be called adverse "societal side effects" of the regimen that is now being implimented. The end doesn't always justify the means--as was learned from the world's experience with Marxism.
The other part of this article discusses the disappointing institutional response to the oral sex issue.
START OF ORAL SEX ARTICLE
How smart is campus reaction to Gardasil?
The University of Chicago has an exceptional program with a colorful history.
Click to read more