About this HPV vaccine...

[betsy]

They're talking of doing this in school.

Would you have your 9 year old daughter vaccinated?

What is the HPV vaccine?

The vaccine, Gardasil, is the first vaccine developed to prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions, and genital warts due to HPV.

Who should get the HPV vaccine?

CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all 11 and 12 year old girls. The recommendation allows for vaccination to begin at age nine. Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13 through 26 years who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the full series of shots.

Are there other HPV vaccines in development?

Another HPV vaccine (being developed by GlaxoSmithKline) is in the final stages of clinical testing, but it is not yet licensed. This vaccine would protect against the two types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers.

How and when is the vaccine delivered?

The vaccine is given in a series of three injections over a six-month period. The second and third doses should be given at two and six months (respectively) after the first dose. HPV vaccine may be given at the same time as other vaccines.

Is the HPV vaccine effective?

This vaccine is highly effective in preventing four types of HPV in young women who have not been previously exposed to HPV. This vaccine targets HPV types that cause up to 70% of all cervical cancers and about 90% of genital warts. The vaccine will not treat existing HPV infections or their complications.

Is the HPV vaccine safe?

The FDA has licensed the vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in thousands of females (9 to 26 years of age) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is brief soreness at the injection site. CDC, working with the FDA, will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccine after it is in general use.

Does the vaccine contain thimerosal or mercury?

No, there is no thimerosal or mercury in the vaccine.

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?

The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed .

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/vac-faqs.htm

Edited September 21, 2007 by betsy

[guyser]

They're talking of doing this in school.

Would you have your 9 year old daughter vaccinated?

Talking about it? I thought they already approved and started.

But to answer your question..Yes I would. Why would I not have my daughter get the shot?

[sharkman]

I saw a report on this during last night's news. They said this virus is involved in the growing numbers of oral tumours showing up. They said a recent study concluded that those who have had more than 6 sex partners face increased risk, which continues to rise with 8, 10 or 12 partners. It seems oral sex is not as safe as advertised.

[Shakeyhands]

I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't want my daughters to have this shot. Nor can I think of a single reason why any other reasonable parent would object.

[betsy]

On one hand it is good to have something that would prevent cervical cancer, however I would like to know how long had they done the research? There seems to be some controversies about it.

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?

The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed .

That last statement is of particular concern. If more research is needed just to find how long the protection would last....that, to me, says the research that has been done is not enough.

It could've easily said that "more research is being done to know if there are any side-effects that might crop up after several years."

What could happen after five years? Maybe nothing. But what if there is?

Remember the thalidomide (?) kids? And Birth control pills were later found to cause cancer.

As a parent, would I want to take the chance....practically using my child as a guinea pig?

Edited September 22, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Hype about new HPV vaccine is more good marketing than good medicine

June 20, 2006, Yarmouth, Maine

— Women to Women, whose website is one of the most prominent women’s health sites on the internet, posted a warning today about the recent “hype” over a newly developed vaccine for HPV, the human papilloma virus, which affects millions of women.

“The drug company behind the vaccine is already promoting it as a cure-all solution. The ad campaign, titled ‘Tell Someone,’ has created false hope among women that this new vaccine will make the HPV problem go away,” says Marcy Holmes, a practitioner at Women to Women.

“What the commercials don’t make clear is that the vaccine is meant for very young women who have had no prior sexual contact. What’s worse, while over 20 strains of HPV are considered high-risk, the vaccine only targets 2–4 of them — hardly a true preventative,” says Marcelle Pick, a founder of the Women to Women clinic.

Holmes adds, “Many vaccines can have negative effects on health and this new vaccine has not been studied in sufficient depth or over sufficient time to ascertain its long-term safety. The truth is we just do not know enough yet to be generating this kind of hype,” says Holmes.

Responding to reports that the vaccine may even be mandated, Pick comments, “Talk of mandating such a vaccine for young women is very premature. We simply do not have enough information to warrant such an extreme step. Little is known at this point about the vaccine’s long-term side effects or its interaction with other drugs. In addition, many of the test study details — information such as whether any recipients were immune suppressed and other possible drug interactions — are still unknown.”

“The public relations campaign behind the new vaccine may be good marketing — or even good shareholder relations — but it isn’t responsible medicine,” adds Holmes. “I would call this a promising advance that may one day yield an effective therapy — one we could recommend to our patients. But not yet.”

Marcelle Pick adds, “My concern is that this kind of public relations campaign also promotes the idea that there can be a kind of magic pill to solve the HPV problem. The reality is that HPV infection is a net result of exposure plus a weakened immune system. There are ways to reduce the risk of exposure and to enhance immune function, but reliance on a vaccine for HPV may lead women to ignore the underlying causes.

http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfe...ressrelease.asp

***************

I was watching City On Line the other day and they were talking about this vaccine. The way the host and her guests were carrying on about this vaccine made it seem that they were ramming this vaccine down our throats. And now after seeing this article, I just realized that the word "hype" was what had eluded me at that moment.

The guest (a doctor) even went so far as saying "how do you think you'd feel if you do not give your daughter this vaccine now and later on she developed cervical cancer?"

The host was quick to help with the "marketing" by getting right on cue..."Oh, I couldn't even begin to imagine as a mother how I would feel."

Edited September 22, 2007 by betsy

[myata]

This vaccine has been approved by Health Canada, so I'll go with their word vs some web site I know nothing about. If I were to mistrust all experts, I would be insane to drive my car; fly on a plane; use cell phone (risk of unknown illness); Internet (risk of psychological damage reading all kind of cr.. one can find there), and so on. So yes, barring confirmed side effects or issues with the vaccine, I'd have my child vaccinated (if I had one).

I don't quite understand though how it works. It appears that it's important that it's administered before the body is exposed to the virus. Somehow, it appears that vaccination of already infected does not have the same efficiency.

[ScottSA]

It seems oral sex is not as safe as advertised.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Edited September 22, 2007 by ScottSA

[betsy]

This vaccine has been approved by Health Canada, so I'll go with their word vs some web site I know nothing about. If I were to mistrust all experts, I would be insane to drive my car; fly on a plane; use cell phone (risk of unknown illness); Internet (risk of psychological damage reading all kind of cr.. one can find there), and so on. So yes, barring confirmed side effects or issues with the vaccine, I'd have my child vaccinated (if I had one).

I don't quite understand though how it works. It appears that it's important that it's administered before the body is exposed to the virus. Somehow, it appears that vaccination of already infected does not have the same efficiency.

I understand what you mean about the women website. I haven't heard of it until now.

However, the statement from this government site, especially the highlighted part corroborate the concern of the women website:

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed?

The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed .

The women website stated:

Holmes adds, “Many vaccines can have negative effects on health and this new vaccine has not been studied in sufficient depth or over sufficient time to ascertain its long-term safety. The truth is we just do not know enough yet to be generating this kind of hype,” says Holmes.

If more research is still being done....then it means the findings they have so far is not complete.

A lot of drugs had passed the FDA regulations and later on pulled from the shelves.

My concern here is that they want girls to be vaccinated en masse in schools...with something that is still being studied. Parents are being lulled or pressured to agree to this.

Therefore, with the parents' consent these girls will be used as guinea pigs.

Edited September 22, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

So far there are some minor side-effects. And although there were reported deaths, the relation with the vaccine is not clear.

Possible adverse reactions after vaccination

As of May 11, 2007, 1,637 adverse reactions to Gardasil vaccination have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration.[21] As of July 31, 2007, the count is up to 3,137.[22] The vast majority are minor, but there have been seven reports of deaths following HPV vaccination. A child, a 12-year-old girl, and a nineteen-year-old woman died of heart problems and/or blood clotting after receiving Gardasil.[23] Other reported adverse events are "neurological symptoms including syncopal episodes and seizures, arthralgia and joint pain, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, and other immunological reactions."[24] Full details are not available and it is not known if these are related to the vaccine. These reports are from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database: "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established... VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine." [25]

In the Gardasil clinical trials, 1,115 pregnant women received the HPV vaccine. Overall, the proportions of pregnancies with an adverse outcome were comparable in subjects who received GARDASIL and subjects who received placebo [26]. However, the clinical trials had a relatively small sample size. Currently the vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#Controversy

[myata]

If more research is still being done....then it means the findings they have so far is not complete.

...

Therefore, with the parents' consent these girls will be used as guinea pigs.

Surely you understand that "more research" means gathering statistics. Which is a direct function of time: 5 years, good confidence; 10 years, better, and so on. In the meanwhile, many of those entering sexual activity will get the virus; which according to the best of known research, will result, with certain probability, in cancer; which, to some extent, and again, according to the best of known research, could have been prevented.

Then, surely, nobody is forcing it, it can be refused just as any other vaccination. And indeed, there're few absolutely certain things in this life, so we're all "guinea pigs" in some sense. The question is, of whom and for what. I'm OK being a guinea pig of reasonably well researched science to improve the health of my child; being a guinea pig of an outdated belief system for what? hope of future salvation? - I don't know. If the god is gonna punish people for trying to protect their children, something must be terribly wrong out there.

[Guest coot]

What could happen after five years? Maybe nothing. But what if there is?

Remember the thalidomide (?) kids? And Birth control pills were later found to cause cancer.

One could have said the same thing before every one of the many vaccines we now use were implemented. There is always risk from every vaccine, but the odds are always in the vaccine's favour.

You will find that the source of opposition to the vaccine stems from religious groups that worry the vaccine will cause promiscuity and interfere with god's judgemental wrath.

[Visionseeker]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

ROTFLMAO!

Good on ya ScottSA, one of the best laughs I've had from a board or e-mail in some time.

[Visionseeker]

I have to say that I'm a little concerned with the roll-out of this vaccine. It simply hasn't followed normal protocols and is seemingly being rushed into the fray. That being said, I know of no compelling clinical reason to avoid it, but am thankful nonetheless that the age of my girls will give me time to see what develops.

But if my girls were older, I'd really have a problem on my hands. As for the doctor on City TV, my response would be that we don't have kool-aid in our house and make our decisions on the basis of reason, not fear.

I'll the same, my investigations into the product do leave me leaning towards its use as the known contra-indicators are apparently limited.

[geoffrey]

My concern here is that they want girls to be vaccinated en masse in schools...with something that is still being studied. Parents are being lulled or pressured to agree to this.

Therefore, with the parents' consent these girls will be used as guinea pigs.

The way I see it, the risk is rather minor. Not for HPV infection, which it's likely every girl/woman outside of a convent (and some in it) will have soon enough. It's so common, your more likely than not to have it. 1% of those with an infection develop cancer.

I think the risk is well worth the potential gains here.

And on the moral side, giving a girl this vaccine will not encourage promiscuity or anything of the such. What a ridiculous claim by some on the religious right. Having only one partner was never a reality, and will not ever be a reality. They need to stop kidding themselves and get their kids protected and educated.

[Shakeyhands]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

hahaha..... very funny!

[betsy]

"What’s worse, while over 20 strains of HPV are considered high-risk, the vaccine only targets 2–4 of them — hardly a true preventative,” says Marcelle Pick, a founder of the Women to Women clinic."

Like the flu vaccine that targets only certain strains!

For something that wasn't researched thoroughly, not even having the knowledge whether it's still effective after only 5 years...would you still say the risk is worth taking?

Do we give the flu vaccines en masse in schools? I'm not sure about that that's why I'm asking. As far as I know it is up to you if you want one and you go to the clinic.

What I question about is this sudden hyping of its needs! From scare-mongering as a way to pressure parents to the cost of the vaccine if it's not for free! They're driving home the fact that if you were to pay for this vaccine yourself it would cost you around $400.00! If it's so dire important....then cost shouldn't be an issue! People should have the vaccine available at all times and for free. If they can give it for free in schools, then they can give it for free in clinics at anytime since I don't think any girls will abuse its use and get the vaccine twice!

Why this tremendous pressuring on the parents?

Why must it be forcibly given? Some states in the USA wouldn't accept a child in school unless they've been vaccinated. Why?

Coot is right. Some groups are adamant about refusing its forcible use in schools because of its moral implications that stems from religion. And some groups are adamant about refusing its forcible use in schools because of its moral implications that it over-rides parental decisions!

HOWEVER, some proponents of this vaccines are adamant to see its use enforced in schools because of the fact that they see it as a foil against religions and conservative thinking. In other words they're letting their ideology cloud their better judgement!

The doctor interviewed on tv bragged about its 5-year research! 5 years ONLY?

The simple fact remains that the vaccine is preventive only on 2 to 4 strains of the virus, and that research is still going on.

Edited September 22, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

I would say this fits the pattern of the liberal or left-wing obsession with control.

They tell you what's good for you and they want you to do as they say.

They couldn't care less if the vaccine has been properly researched....but that it gets shoved down our throats.

[jdobbin]

I would say this fits the pattern of the liberal or left-wing obsession with control.

They tell you what's good for you and they want you to do as they say.

They couldn't care less if the vaccine has been properly researched....but that it gets shoved down our throats.

That's why some people don't get any vaccines at all.

[sharkman]

This reminds me of the 486 drug ( I think that's the name) that has had very serious side effects, yet it gets introduced with great fanfare and any negative info on it is kept on the down low. It's definitely PC related.

There is plenty of negative info on the HPV vaccine and such, yet it's being treated like the answer to cancer. I mentioned above a study which links this virus to throat and mouth cancers, and here's a link that lays it out.

Edited September 22, 2007 by sharkman

[myata]

I would say this fits the pattern of the liberal or left-wing obsession with control.

They tell you what's good for you and they want you to do as they say.

Poor us! Only imagine how different we'd fare under "control", no, no, gentle guidance, of the Church! Oh wait, haven't we already been there?

[kimmy]

Hype about new HPV vaccine is more good marketing than good medicine

June 20, 2006, Yarmouth, Maine

— Women to Women, whose website is one of the most prominent women’s health sites on the internet, posted a warning today about the recent “hype” over a newly developed vaccine for HPV, the human papilloma virus, which affects millions of women.

While I understand the concern about hype, be careful lest ye fall for it yourself.

The website you've quoted here, for instance, is not a "women's health site". It's a company that sells organic and herbal "health products". It's not difficult to see why such a business has a vested financial interest in scaring people away from "normal" medicine and medical technologies ("big pharma", as the weenies like to say) and towards "alternative" medicines.

On a practical note, if the vaccine is only believed to provide about 5 years of protection, then it seems to me that administering it at age 9 is jumping the gun a little. It sounds as though protection could be expiring just when it's going to start being needed. I realize things change, but I recall some of my classmates beginning to become sexually active in their early teens, not age 9...

-k

[EchoesofMourning]

It comes down to a question of trust - do you trust government regulated medical research? In a perfect world I would. The big problem that I see is that there is a lot of private interest in this situation. That's the reason why it's being pushed so hard - not necessecarily because it's good, but because it puts money in somebody's pocket. I for one, do not trust a money-hungry corporation that has no interest in my health or the health of my children.

[betsy]

My biggest concern is the mandatory vaccination of these girls. Although I don't think it is mandatory yet in Canada - correct me if I'm wrong - the fact that it had become mandatory in some of the States next door could mean that eventually that would be the way it is here.

There is a tremendous amount of coersive pressure being put on the parents. Not only are they using the "guilt" card (like how awful it would be for a parent who denied her child this vaccine if the child ends up getting cancer)....they are using the financial aspect as well (let them do it to your child in school now and you save $400.00). Who doesn't want to save $400.00?

Like I said, if this vaccine is that crucial to have, then why shouldn't it be available for free anytime a parent decides it's time for her daughter to have it? Why does it have to have that connotation of "it's now or never?"

These low-down tactics are setting off warning bells in my ears.

[betsy]

Poor us! Only imagine how different we'd fare under "control", no, no, gentle guidance, of the Church! Oh wait, haven't we already been there?

The difference is clear. Only a liberal can't see. The liberal tries to control everybody - not just their own sheep. The liberal flock is being controlled without them even realizing it.

The Christian flock - for I know this is aimed again at Christianity - not only realizes that God is in control, but wants it that way. They have the choice. Nobody is getting dragged into church to be baptized whether they like it or not.

Furthermore, the liberals are not content to stay out of the church or to remain unbelievers....but they dare interfere and try to control the church!