Let me come straight to the point, then flesh out my thinking on the matter:
HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is a disease principally transmitted by unprotected sex, which can cause various cancers (often of the cervix or anus) years after the initial infection. The majority of consequent cancers are experienced by women, and gay men.
Girls in the UK have been vaccinated against HPV since 2008.
An HPV innoculation for boys is now ready to be introduced. The benefits will accrue 25% to the boy innoculated, and 75% to any female he couples with in the future. The risks associated with the innoculation drug are unknowable.
I predict that western governments will make this jab mandatory for boys, and those for and against it will both take to the streets. Not at first of course. It’ll start out as voluntary, then it’ll be opt-out, only then will it become mandatory after extensive pressure from sexual health advocates, and push-back from religious groups.
I hope at this stage in the grand opera of progressive authoritarian hegemony, you don’t automatically reject my prediction on knee-jerk grounds. The US National Institute of Health already looked into the implications of mandatory vaccination in 2010.
Let’s pull at some of the threads here.
More than 100,000 cases of cancer will be prevented under plans to give boys the HPV jab as well as girls, health officials have said.
Until now, only teenage girls have been given the free vaccine, with parental consent, which protects against cervical cancer.
From September, boys aged 12 and 13 will also be given the jab at school.
Giving boys the vaccine protects girls from the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is passed on through sexual contact.
Okay, so far, we’re injecting 13 year old boys with a pharmaceutical cocktail, entirely for the benefit of those with cervixes. Where’s their 25% of the benefits?
Estimates from the University of Warwick suggest the vaccine will prevent 64,138 cervical cancers and 49,649 non-cervical cancers in the UK by 2058. This will include 3,433 cases of penile cancer and 21,395 cases of head and neck cancer, such as throat cancer, in men.
Ah, there it is.
Now, it seems to me like this is an unprecedented situation. A BCG jab prevents the recipient from getting life-threatening tuberculosis. A measles jab supposedly maintains herd immunity and, in turn, protects the recipient and everyone else from a life-threatening epidemic. An HPV jab primarily protects other people (from the viewpoint of parents of boys), with a marginal potential benefit to the recipient.
Decision calculus when asked to have your children innoculated against measles or tuberculosis depends on the individual. If you believe there is no risk associated with vaccines, you’ll have your child jabbed without question. If you believe that there is a risk, you may decide that the risk of autism or whatever is subordinate to the risk of a measles epidemic or your kid getting tuberculosis, so you’ll reluctantly have your child jabbed. However, if you believe that the risk associated with the innoculation is unacceptable, you’ll not have your child jabbed, and he may well live a long and happy life without ever contracting measles or tuberculosis. And if he does ever contract those diseases, it will not be consequent to anything he has done that could ever be considered a moral matter, because those diseases are airborne.
So… what if you decide that the risk associated with innoculating your boys against HPV is unacceptable? There are three principal reasons to take this decision.
The first is if you decide the risks of the pharmaceutical cocktail having unforseen consequences to be unacceptable. This can be argued, and evidence can be exchanged, and conspiracy theories can be posited until the cows come home. It’s unresolvable.
The second reason is that you consider this innoculation to present a moral hazard: someone innoculated against HPV no longer has to consider this potential consequence of subjectively immoral behaviour.
It is the third reason, the new argument, that takes us into relatively uncharted territory: any risks associated with the vaccine are borne by the boy being innnoculated, while the benefits mostly accrue to other people.
Let’s just get a premise laid down at this juncture:
I’m not saying that there ARE any known risks associated with injecting children with miraculous cocktails of pharmacological wizardry. But what if there were, and they were being covered up or the seriousness and prevalence was being downplayed?
I’m not saying that’s definitely the case, but you cannot in good faith claim 100% confidence that the converse is true either.
Anyone who trusts scientists and the government and multi-billion dollar global drug companies and tech companies to be honest, impartial brokers of truth is an idiot. An idiot who doesn’t understand the crises in science with reproducibility and with the fact that falsification of theories – the life-blood of the scientific method – is strongly disincentivised when the theories have politically helpful and financially profitable consequences. An idiot who lacks the imagination to grasp the power and wealth that are at stake for those who control the supply of information, and the lengths to which the promises of power and wealth will drive people.
Now lets lay down another premise:
There are societies and cultures with religious foundations, who believe that to contract HPV is a shameful moral failing, because it is propagated by casual unprotected sex and disproportionately affects loose women and gay men.
I have a close Irish friend who survived cervical cancer when she was about 30. Her diagnosis, treatment and recovery all took place in London. She didn’t tell any of her Irish family about her diagnosis, and went through the entire ordeal alone and in silence, because of the stigma that was associated in Ireland with cervical cancer and the knowledge that it is often (but not always) caused by the HPV virus, which is often (but not always) caused by being a degenerate homosexual, or a slut.
Catholic Ireland is just one specific example of such a society, where the arguments about HPV vaccination have already been exercised in relation of vaccination of girls, USA is inevitably another, but it’s plausible that any traditional Christian or Muslim community would hold beliefs along these lines.
Today we have Muslim parents in the UK pushing back against the ‘No Outsiders’ programme in UK schools, which teaches very young children all about homosexuality, and that it’s more than okay to be this way.
This is a battle conservative Christians fought and lost in the UK 30 years ago. Their ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument was roundly mocked at the time, but it’s not a thin end anymore is it? It’s a big purple-veined chunk of Pride Month degeneracy rendered mandatory by government, schools, corporations , the media and the whole gamut of hysterical progressive cry-bullies.
We can be fairly sure, by the way, that this is matter is a moving feast, because the idea of innoculating boys in the UK was rejected in 2017 as ‘not cost effective‘ by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It behooves us to ask what’s changed, why and at the behest of whom.
What I didn’t realise when I opened this window is that the specific situation has been emergent in Australia for a few years now, since 2013 when they started vaccinating boys. A 2-minute search hasn’t turned up anyone kicking up a big stink about this, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, and signs are that the people of Australia are tiring of being bullied by Globohomo.
We also know that the subject of HPV vaccination is on the radar of people (women) who use language like this:
This paper examines Australia’s reification of gendered discourses of health, contagion and consent in those human papilloma virus (‘HPV’) vaccination programs. HPV vaccination programs and registers in Australia are usually based upon patriarchal gendered concepts of women, and particularly unchaste women, as irresponsible and unclean, potential reservoirs of disease who must be regulated and registered to protect both themselves and wider society from the harms of HPV contagion and cancer. Cervical cancer and HPV prevention schemes use law to write normative gendered expectations which oblige women to internalise a constant pre-illness risk state which casts their bodies as inherently unruly and pathological. These legislative and administrative schemes require women to become complicit with state- and self-surveillance to gain state-mediated health protections.
So let’s wait, stockpile the popcorn and watch, as arguments are made as to why conservative Christians and Muslims should vaccinate their sons against the consequences of immoral, sexually-licentious behaviour. Why these parents’ wishes should be disregarded, mocked, belittled, over-ridden and finally criminalised. Children taken by social services because their parents have moral scruples.
And let’s be under no illusion about what’s at stake here. The social contract will be waved at parents, children will face denial of their bodily autonomy, and mandatory pharmacological intervention in the name of all that is progressive will be expected to prevail in the name of all that is just and moral. To refuse you have your boy-child shot with a cocktail of drugs will be framed as an infringement of, and affront to, the rights of women and gays.
Watch this space.