GARDASIL (HPV) vaccination for teenage girls? what to do?

Post Reply New Topic

All that talk about bedfellows is just more brainwashing.

A large percentage of us would not be here to post if it were not for vaccines. Any of you care to contract polio, or smallpox? No, I didn't think so. And yet the FDA today is MUCH more careful than the early days of inoculation.

As a cancer research nurse who has worked with the FDA, I can tell you the following:
1. This vaccine is the ONE and ONLY way to prevent cervical cancer. Period. You take your chances with all the rest, there's no sure way of preventing any other form of cancer, but the researchers have not only proven a link between certain kinds of HPV and cervical cancer, but yegods, they've found a vaccine to prevent it! Hallelujah - we should all be rejoicing!

2. All that talk about "only 1100 studies". OMG. If you only knew exactly how thorough the FDA was, you would not be saying that. It's a lay misconception that the FDA forces things through for political reasons. As I said, I've worked directly with the FDA and drug regulating for years, and it's the most scrupulous, careful agency you could find anywhere. In fact, they are almost too careful, in my opinion.

3. And not wanting to be a "guinea pig": if not you, then who? Not that the HPV vaccine is anywhere close to being so new that it qualifies for that status anyway. But I digress. What a shameful attitude - "I'll try it when 10,000 other people have tried it and it helped them" - what makes you so special? How are we to find improve medicine otherwise?

And the arguments against medicine, in favor of going "natural" - have you ever read medical history? Do you really want to go back to the times when the average life span was 35? When people routinely died of measles? How do you think we've gotten to the point where we can expect to live over 75 years?

This is a nice lively debate, and it has spurred me to do some quick research. Here's some information on the subject:

According to the Center for Disease Control, a pregnant woman can pass HPV onto her baby during vaginal delivery. Admittedly, this is rare. HPV is also contractable through skin-to-skin contact. However, if only girls who have never had sexual intercourse are to receive the vaccination to prevent unknown complications where does this put the girls who have contracted the disease from their own mothers or through skin-to-skin contact and have had it all their lives without knowing it? What if they are forced to receive the vaccination, what will it do to them? Does anyone really know? Are doctors going to be required to test each and every vaccination candidate to make sure they do not have the HPV virus already before receiving treatment?

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#Howget

On the contrary, even the FDA states the vaccine is a new. In addition, the FDA isn't sure how effective the vaccine will be in the future. For example, will boosters be required. Also. Gardasil is only effect for four types of VPD (Nos. 6, 11, 16 and 18 to be specific). So, what about the other 96 plus other strains?

http://www.fda.gov/womens/getthefacts/hpv.html



What's true is true. Merck is the only pharmceutical company that manufactures Gardasil. Merck gave Rick Perry PAC donations in the amount of $6,000 (that we know of) when he was up for re-election. In addition, Merck hired Perry's Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobby work. (Welcome to the good ol' boys club). Further, the cost for each vaccination is $360 a pop, and a single candadite is required to have three vaccinations. Also, a candidate may have the cost of potential testing for the HPV virus before actual adminstration to make sure they do not already have it. Oh, and let's not forget, a candidate may need to get boosters later on down the road. Quite a chunk of change for a vaccination that has not been completely researched and may not be effective over the long haul. Perhaps our HMO/PPO dollars would be better spent on offering free annual physicals to help identify and treat any possible cervical problems. Oh, but many already do offer free annual physicals, so that is mostly a moot issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cervical_cancer_vaccine

The last point I would like to make is the flagarant impingement on our constitutional rights as citizens of a free nation. It is not up to Rick Perry to demand that I vaccinate my child in any way he thinks fit or for his personal or his buddy's financial gain. The last time I checked our government had checks and balance put into place to prevent this type of dictatorial behavior. If a new vaccine, which has been found to be in the best interested of the citizens, needs to be implemented into the current vaccination regimen, procedures and protocols need to be followed and voted upon; not arbitrarily thrusted upon the people and shoved down their throats like a bitter pill.

If by brainwashing you mean clearing out misconceptions, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.

There probably isn't a pharmaceutical product in the country that hasn't been the beneficiary of bribes or handouts of one sort or another. They give many, many millions a year to doctors and politicians, both to push thousands of products, and to benefit themselves in other ways -- lobbying to keep lower priced Canadian drugs out of the US, for example. If you don't want to be involved in any corruption, you're going to have to boycott pharmaceuticals altogether.

While you're at it, other types of business are every bit as bad. Monsanto, for instance, has a thoroughly evil business model. They genetically engineer soy, canola and corn, saturate the market with seed, then when the pollen from those crops blows into the fields of organic farmers (who do NOT want to grow GM crops) and contaminates the field's genetics, they file huge lawsuits against the organic farmers for using their property without paying. And Monsanto definitely make their share of political contributions. So, to avoid corruption, you are going to have to go vegan (corn and soy are major components of all livestock feeds), and become extremely picky about the plants you can still eat.

You might also want to boycott gasoline, plastics, and so on; most of those oil companies are NOT models of corporate ethics.

In short, it seems unproductive to single out one product of one company while routinely buying hundreds of other products that are just as bad.



It isn't to prevent complications, it's to skip a vaccination that would be pointless. The vaccines aren't believed to be effective if one already has one or more of the strains being vaccinated against.

But there is no reason to believe that inoculating someone who had already been exposed would be harmful. If you give a chicken pox immunization to someone who has had it, nothing bad happens -- the shot is simply wasted. Same deal. Anyone who is worried, despite that, can have their kid screened for HPV first if they want.



Two strains (16 and 18 ) cause 70% of all cervical cancer. Another several strains cause an additional 29%. Over a hundred strains are not known to have any harmful affects at all. No point in vaccinating against those.



True, GlaxoSmithKline's similar HPV immunization is called Cervarix. It has gotten through Phase III trials, GSK has asked the FDA for the final go-ahead, and it should be on the market within a few months.



No, it's $120 a pop. $360 covers the whole series. And most health insurance plans, including Medicare, will cover it.

Whether or not it's draconian for politicians to require immunizations of kids in school is a matter of opinion, but they've been doing it for decades, and it seems to have worked out pretty well so far.

Last edited by geek on 15 May 2007, 4:55 am, edited 3 times in total.

I've read that Gardasil is for females aged 9-26. Why can't someone older than 26 get vaccinated?

This is the kind of fact that may give the entire industry a bad name if people look at it the "wrong" way.

The Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices felt that it was unclear how helpful the vaccines would be for women over 25, most of whom would have been exposed already. GSK tested their vaccine on women up to age 55, and there were no safety issues related to age. Following the FDA's decision to OK Gardasil for ages 9-25, Merck began studying the efficacy of Gardasil on women over age 25, so change could be in the works.

Doctors can be flexible, so I'm sure that some women over 25 will get it regardless.

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned is that HPV also causes a certain type of throat cancer for those who participate in oral sex. Men would be vulnerable here as well, and I am amazed that the vaccine wasn't tested on boys as well. I know that there are preliminary studies going on now.

While I think any help, vaccine or otherwise, is good, I really would like to know why we are pushing the vaccine? Does safer sex practices not help? And why aren't we pushing those as well? I know that safer sex practices aren't perfect, but they are cheap.

Just a note on boosters: most vaccines require boosters. When I worked at a hospitable, I had to get boosters for most of my childhood vaccinations, and I was checked regularly, as I worked with extremely vulnerable populations.

Rjaye.

Very true, the report which just came out said that HPV exposure could increase the risk 32-fold, making the HPV death rate twice as high as estimated before, since throat cancer kills about as many people as cervical cancer does.

This study also raises the possibility that oral HPV might be passed along by kissing.

There was another report issued a day or two ago which indicated that Gardasil was barely effective (if at all) among one of its initial test groups -- women in their 20s or late teens, who were presumably already exposed.


They help somewhat, but, of all STDs, HPV is by far the most able to get around a barrier, so practices which might stop something like HIV are helpful, but far from certain.

Most states also have federally-funded "abstinence only" programs, and if a recipient state tolerates any advocation of other methods in those programs, they lose their funding, which is typically millions of dollars. So, as a matter of law, things like condoms, or other products or practices which prevent the spread of STDs, can never be mentioned. The state of California has concluded that abstinence programs are not useful, and has turned down the money, but no other state that I know of has done so.

Thank you all for opinions..looks like the "yes" for Gardisil far out weighs the "no's." My 17 year old daughter has AS. I'm not worried about her "getting austism" from Gardisil-just worried about possible complications in the future.

Yet...I've always taken the approach with childhood vacinations, flu shots, that the results of not getting them would be a greater risk than a side effect but...just wanted to think this one through.

This is what I love about this site..you ask a question and get a flood of well written, substantiated reponses.