Governor Mandating HPV Vaccine

[KnightofChrist]

Has any thought of what will happen when or if they find a cure for something that uses the stem cells of babies? Whats to stop a anti-life Governor from "mandating" a drug like that?

If Goverment can mandate a vaccine for a STD for a 9 yr old, why not a vaccine made from from a 9 day old preborn?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1186994' date='Feb 6 2007, 10:20 PM']
I think the problem most people seem to be having is the marketing tactics used on this vaccine (they tend to stretch the truth a bit). Moreover, they have not done thorough studies (if any) of long term effects of this vaccine, and when you're injecting nine year old girls...you might want to know how this will affect them in the future. And now it is being forced upon people. There is the safety of the children to consider.
[/quote]
These are all things I certainly didn't hear when I first heard the story. Those are all great things to think about... Poor girls.

[jmjtina]

I know you posted the doc. jess, but that was way too good for even the lazy clickers.

[u][b]IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT
THE HPV VACCINE[/b][/u]

[u]10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil[/u]

[color="#FF0000"]1. The vaccine only decreases your chances of getting cervical cancer, it doesn’t eliminate the risk.[/color]

Straight from gardasil.com:

“HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.

GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings.”[1]

Merck is upfront with this information; they don't try to hide it or spin it. But with all of the media coverage and information floating around about the "100% effective cancer vaccine", it's helpful to remember that Gardasil is only 100% effective at doing what it is supposed to do, which is preventing certain specific types of HPV, not preventing all cervical cancer.

[color="#FF0000"]2. Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years.[/color] (This is only true in the U.S.; worldwide it is one of the top cancer killers of women because women in many other countries have limited access to Pap tests and other health services.)

The Gardasil commercials refer to "thousands of women" being diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. each year, which is true, but they don't put that number into context.

“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.?? According to the American Cancer Society, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”[2]

So Merck wants parents to have their pre-teen and teenage daughters vaccinated. But if current trends continue, by the time these girls are old enough to be at risk, how big will the risk really be? Check out the government's statistics on cervical cancer for yourself at the National Cancer Institute website.

[color="#FF0000"]3. Gardasil is one of the most expensive vaccines ever, at about $360 for the series of three shots, plus the cost of doctor visits.[/color] Call me cynical, but I can’t help but think about how much money Merck stands to make from this if they can manage to convince all young women and all parents of young girls that this vaccine is a necessity. And while we’re at it, call me a conspiracy theorist too for wondering if maybe Merck just might be exaggerating the cervical cancer risk by a lot in order to scare young women and mothers into buying their product.

"'We're seeing a fairly remarkable uptake of Gardasil,' said Rick Haupt of Merck & Co., which reported sales of the vaccine had reached $70 million, exceeding analysts' projections.”[3]

Gardasil is a cash cow. The revenue stream is big now, with the potential to get much bigger. This is especially important for Merck, which is still dealing with the scandal surrounding their pain medication Vioxx, which they had to withdraw from the market in 2004 after it was found to increase the long-term risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it regularly. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed by former Vioxx patients. Vaccines like Gardasil are needed to provide the constant stream of cash that will help Merck to recover from Vioxx.

“Merck, struggling since the 2004 recall of its blockbuster pain pill Vioxx, has staked its turnaround in part on vaccines. They accounted for $1.1 billion of its $22 billion in revenue last year, or 5 percent, the highest share since at least 1995." [4]

[color="#FF0000"]4. While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for schoolchildren, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future. [5] [6] [7][/color]

If I felt like being cynical again, I might think that this is one of the reasons why a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease is being marketed not just to young women who are having sex or are going to become sexually active soon, but also to girls as young as nine. There’s a hell of a lot more stability and profitability in a required childhood vaccine than there would be in an optional vaccine meant only for young women.

It's important to remember that no matter how many feel-good, we're all in this fight together and we're just doing this out of the goodness of our hearts ad campaigns they run, drug companies are not non-profit organizations. They are in this to make money and a lot of it, and while that doesn't mean that all prescription drugs are harmful and horrible or that all doctors are evil, it does mean that when it comes to our health, we probably shouldn't take anything at face value.

[color="#FF0000"]5. There have been no long-term studies done on the effect of the vaccine after 5-10 or more years, and testing on young girls has been extremely limited.[/color]

“Merck has tested the cervical cancer vaccine in clinical trials of more than 20,000 women (about half of them got the shot). The health of the subjects was followed for about three and a half years on average. But fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 got the shots, among them only about 100 9-year-olds, Merck officials said, and the younger girls have been followed for only 18 months." [8]

If parents are expected to take their daughters to get a series of expensive immunizations, wouldn’t it be nice if they had any idea at all about what effects these girls might have to deal with 5 or 10 years down the line?

If you're wondering what the rush was, part of the answer could be patents. When a company's patent on a particular drug expires, that's when generic versions of the drug can be developed and released into the market, which obviously drives the price and the profits of the original drug way down. Merck's patent on the extremely profitable cholesterol drug Zocor expired in June of this year, and Gardasil is one of the new drugs being counted on to bridge Merck's financial gap. According to the FDA, Merck filed an application for a patent extension for Gardasil on December 6th.

This CNN Money article has more info on Merck's financial past, present, and future.

[color="#FF0000"]6. It is unknown how long the immunity provided by Gardasil actually lasts.[/color]

“Public health officials want to vaccinate girls early, before they become sexually active, even though it is not known how long the immunity will last.” [9]

“Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.” [10]

And straight from the FDA:

“The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established.”[11]

So if I do decide that it’s worth the risks to my hypothetical nine year old and that I should go ahead and give her the vaccine, in the end I don’t even know if it will do her any good at all by the time she actually becomes sexually active.

I do have a problem with the fact Merck isn’t telling women that their immunity may only last for a few years. The women and girls who get the vaccine may base some of their future sexual choices on the assumption that they are protected, but by the time many of them become sexually active this may not be true anymore.

[color="#FF0000"]7. The studies done on Gardasil were not set up to investigate whether the vaccine itself has the potential to cause cancer.[/color]

“GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”[12]

car·cin·o·gen
n. Any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer.

ge·no·tox·in
n. A chemical or other agent that damages cellular DNA, resulting in mutations or cancer.

[color="#FF0000"]8. Gardasil is one of many vaccines containing aluminum, and there is increasing evidence suggesting that aluminum-based vaccines can have harmful effects.[/color] Aluminum is a neurotoxin and the aluminum in vaccines can potentially reach the brain. Since the list of required childhood vaccines is only getting longer over time, children are being exposed to doses of aluminum that may exceed what their bodies are capable of managing. Aluminum in vaccines has been linked to a variety of neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s, although a lot more research is needed. [13] [14]

It's also interesting to note that according to the FDA, Merck tested Gardasil along with the Hepatitis B vaccine (currently on the required list), to make sure that there were no negative effects to administering both vaccines during the same doctor's visit. The tests showed no apparent problems. [15] However, the hepatitis vaccine was the only one that was tested, so it is unknown whether any of the other required childhood vaccines could be potentially harmful when combined with Gardasil. There was also no information in any of the studies about what adding Gardasil to the required list would do to the cumulative aluminum levels in children's bodies.

[color="#FF0000"]9. Gardasil is only for women.[/color]
"Boys would not have to be vaccinated, although they can get HPV. There are no HPV tests for men. The vaccine has not yet been tried on men." [16]

Men can get HPV. Men can give HPV to their partners. Men can get genital warts from HPV. Men can get cancer from HPV. (80% of HPV-related cancers affect women, but the other 20% include penile and anal cancers affecting men). [17]

So why wasn’t Gardasil tested on men, and why isn’t Merck funding PR campaigns to educate men about their HPV risk? Is it because they feel that there’s more of a stigma surrounding men’s sexual health, and that it would be more difficult to convince men and parents of boys of the risks? And as a result they wouldn’t be able to make nearly as much money off of men as they will off of women. (Sorry, there’s that cynical thing again.)

I think both men and women can take issue with this. Men, because their sexual health is really not being addressed here. They don't even have a test that can tell them whether they have HPV or not, so even if they want to be responsible about it there is only so much they can do. And women, because they are being asked to take full responsibility for HPV prevention. Women and girls are expected to take on all of the costs and the risks of this vaccine, and even if they do get vaccinated they could still be infected with HPV by a male partner who has been told that HPV isn't something that he needs to worry about.

From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website:
"There is no clear health benefit to knowing you have this virus—since HPV is unlikely to affect your health and cannot be treated. For most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available— since it usually goes away on its own." [18]

Isn't it a little irresponsible (and sexist) to say there is no benefit to a male HPV test? Regardless of the possible health issues such as penile or anal cancer, isn't not infecting your unsuspecting partner also considered a benefit? Men are reassured that tests and treatment are unnecessary because their HPV infections will likely go away on their own, while the fact is that most women's HPV infections will go away on their own as well. [19]

Apparently, when Gardasil went before an FDA panel for approval, Merck asked the panel to approve the vaccine for boys also, even though they have not done the same amount of testing on boys as they have on girls.

"Merck asked the committee to endorse vaccination of boys age 9 to 15, too. Urging them not to wait for ongoing studies to end, it said evidence shows Gardasil can prevent some male cancers and may slow the spread of sexually transmitted HPV.

'By delaying three-plus years, we could have an additional 100,000 [cancer] cases that could have otherwise been avoided,' Barr told the committee. But panel members didn't vote on the request, calling the idea compelling but unproven."[20]

It seems to me that we need to spend more time researching HPV in men and boys, not less time. And it would be nice to feel like Merck was taking this issue seriously and not just tacking it on as a "me too" measure in order to get approval more quickly. On the flip side, it's a positive step that more research on HPV in men is now being done. Maybe they'll even change their minds and decide that it is worthwhile to develop a male HPV test after all. They could probably share a lab with the researchers who are hard at work on that male birth control pill we've been hearing about for years.

[color="#FF0000"]10. The bottom line: Don't get this vaccine just because your doctor/mom/sister/friend/a perky TV commercial told you to. But don’t not get it just because some chicks with a blog say that they aren’t going to. It’s your health, your decision. [/color]

The Gardasil ad campaign is screaming at us to be “One Less”, meaning one less woman affected by cervical cancer. I’m all for that. I’m just going to try to reach that goal in my own way…as one less woman making an uninformed decision.


[color="#3333FF"]1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer.[/color] About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

[color="#3333FF"]2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus.[/color] When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

[color="#3333FF"]3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. [/color]Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

[color="#3333FF"]4) Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. [/color]Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

[color="#3333FF"]5) Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations.[/color] The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

[color="#3333FF"]6) Because the pool of subjects were so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS DIED OF IT.[/color] Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.

[color="#3333FF"]7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone.[/color] All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

[color="#3333FF"]8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade. [/color]??These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA. This vaccine was just approved in June, 2006. [color="#FF0000"][b]It was never tested on pre-teens except in a tiny trial run with at most 18 months of follow up.[/b][/color] Even if we subscribe to the theory that HPV causes cervical cancer, there is ZERO hard data showing that this vaccine reduces cervical cancer rates or cervical cancer mortality rates, which are both already very low in the US and getting lower every year.

There are two sides to every discussion, of course. This vaccine does appear to confer some benefits. If I were a sexually active woman who had not yet been exposed to any of the four strains of HPV that this vaccine protects against and who disliked condoms and liked to have multiple sex partners, I would probably sign myself up. [color="#FF0000"][b]But that's not the same thing as making this vaccine MANDATORY for a pre-teen population it was not rigorously tested on a scant 8 months after its initial rush job FDA approval.[/b][/color]

Aside from all the known risks of all vaccines, the unknown risks of this three shot regimen for pre-teens along with their other vaccine load, and the unknown long term risks of this vaccine for all populations, we have to look at cost vs. benefit.

7861 of the placebo subjects contracted 83 cases of HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias during the testing period compared compared to 4 cases among the 7858 subjects who were given GARDASIL. That's after counting out every subject with any prior exposure to these strains. The 83 placebo subject infections include 42 of the less serious HPV 6-, 11- related low grade dysplasias.

Merck has published no data for how many non-HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias were contracted by these subjects over these periods, but some practitioners have commented that they expect the vaccine to protect against 40%-50% of all dysplasias.

In terms of every possible kind of dysplasia for which this vaccine confers protection, Merck's own clinical evidence suggests that this vaccine saved about 10 patients out of each 1000 injected from the painful process of having these dysplasias treated (over the entire course of follow ups which ranged from 18 months to 4 years). [color="#FF0000"][b]Note that the populations for these studies were not pre-teens but women at the height of their sexual activity.[/b][/color] Further note that since the vaccine uses virus-like particles (a new vaccine technology) and is only about five years in testing now, there is no guarantee that it has any long term efficacy.

Of course, the pre-teen population is so less sexually active (and when active, so much less likely to be active with a previously contaminated partner) that I think it would be conservative to estimate that pre-teens are 5 times less likely to contract HPV dysplasias than the 16 to 26 year olds who were tested by Merck. So instead of saving 10 women per 1000 from painful treatments for HPV dysplasias, this vaccine would save perhaps 2 girls per 1000 from these procedures among the much younger population that Merck and Merck's politicians are targeting for mandatory vaccination.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Do we really want to pursue a public policy that costs $360,000 to vaccinate every 1000 girls while exposing each and every one of these thousand girls to the known adverse short term and largely unknown long terms side effects of three injections of a new vaccine just to save two of the more sexually active of these kids from having to have their dysplasias treated conventionally?[/b][/color]

What kind of a risk and cost vs. benefit trade off is that?

Note that nowhere are we discussing actual incidences of cervical cancer because there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that GARDASIL reduces cervical cancer rates, and even if we place our hope in the fact that it might, cervical cancer is simply not a meaningful health risk for any girl in the target vaccination population who is getting an annual pap smear.

While it is a widely accepted medical theory that HPV "causes" cervical cancer, it's not close to being a fact. [color="#FF0000"][b]Although the vast majority do, many cases of cervical cancer don't show any association with HPV.[/b][/color] It's a very good guess that certain strains of HPV are necessary co-factors for certain highly prevalent types of cervical cancer to emerge. [color="#FF0000"][b]The two really bad strains protected for in GARDASIL go hand in hand with 70% of CURRENT cervical cancer cases.[/b][/color] My point is that there are 36 nasty strains of HPV screened for currently, and the human body is an ecology. We have no idea how protection against the two strains of HPV that are CURRENTLY most prevalently associated with cervical cancer (typically decades after initial exposure) will affect overall cervical cancer rates far in the future.

[color="#FF0000"][b]What we instead DO know is that current practices of annual pap smears and screening for ALL bad strains of HPV continue to reduce rates of cervical cancer among the US population annually.[/b][/color] If all US women received a pap smear every year and were then promptly treated for any abnormal growths encountered, both the cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates would plummet even further to the point where HPV-associated cervical cancer would kill no more than a handful of US women a year. Yes, that is a guess as well, but it's a far better guess than assuming that conferring protection against four of the myriad of current and future strains of harmful HPV will somehow do the trick.

Certainly GARDASIL's benefit data against the four strains of HPV it targets are compelling. HOWEVER, the benefit data against ALL forms of HPV are not published by Merck and estimated by OP-GYNs to be a mixed bag. [color="#FF0000"][b]The benefit data against cervical cancer itself are nonexistent. The long term risk data for any population are nonexistent. There are almost no risk data at all for pre-teens.[/b][/color] The fact that the "placebo control" was a shot of alum that was recently shown to cause neural death in mice is particularly problematic in terms of interpreting the small amount of risk data that were gathered.

Studies of the long-term benefits of a new drug or vaccine take a long time. It would take several decades to prove conclusively that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer deaths. So why the rush to make these three injections COMPULSORY for pre-teens?

Perhaps this would be excusable if GARDASIL conferred protection against HPV generally, but it does not. We have absolutely no way of even guessing how conferring protection against four strains of HPV will affect cervical cancer rates decades down the line. If you think you do, then please quantify the expected benefits in terms of the expected reduction of cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates for the population of US women who get annual pap smears. The only thing you can say about these numbers are that they are both unknown and tiny.

I am not trying to stop anyone from signing up themselves or their kids for this. If you want to pay $360 to make your little girl one of Merck's test subjects, please do. As I said, [color="#FF0000"][b]the vaccine shows promise. It may be a life saver for a small segment of the population (especially those too poor or uninformed to get annual pap smears), and it offers protection against most genital warts and a good percentage of HPV dysplasias. [/b][/color]The procedures to remove these warts and dysplasias are very painful, so these benefits are compelling. However, the risk and cost vs. benefit profile of this vaccine is not such that it is good public policy to mandate it -- especially not for a pre-teen population on which it has never been sufficiently tested -- even with an "opt out" clause. If Merck wants to make sure that women and parents who want it and can't afford it can get it, they should offer it to low income individuals and families on a sliding scale rather than lobbying state and federal governments to pony up the billions.

This is hope-based medical policy. We are hoping the vaccine will have benefits against cervical cancer, and we are hoping that three injections of this vaccine (along with its alum adjuvant) will have no meaningful long term effects. We are talking about forcing a vaccine with a completely unknown period of efficacy on a pre-teen population it was not tested on -- most of whom already get annual pap smears despite no or limited sexual activity! How many among the population of 9 to 26 year old women who get annual pap smears die of cervical cancer? This number is TINY and always getting smaller as we screen for more and strains of HPV.

You know who could really use this vaccine? Places where you can't go down to the women's needs center to get your annual pap smear. Places where they can't afford to effectively treat dysplasias. Places like the third world. But Merck needs money after its VIOXX disaster, so our daughters are being made into the guinea pigs for this vaccine so Merck can rob our public coffers.

[color="#FF0000"][b]In terms of genital warts, that's actually what this vaccine has been shown to be highly effective against.[/b][/color] If Merck wants to sell it to women and men that way, I have no problem with that. But you should have to opt in rather than have it forced on your kids by Big Brother as a condition of sending them to middle school! Now we see that all these commercials had little to do with actually selling the product to us, but were instead all about selling the idea to us that it would be a good thing to make this vaccine mandatory.

References
Merck and the FDA: [url="http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htm"]http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806...m[/url]??

NY Times Op Ed: [url="http://tinyurl.com/2cyzsj"]http://tinyurl.com/2cyzsj[/url]??

News story on alum injections causing neural death in mice: [url="http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sini.."]http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sini..[/url].?

Peer reviewed scientific journal article about alum injections causing neural death in mice: [url="http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz"]http://tinyurl.com/3xhtdz[/url]

Source: [url="http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=60778&mesg_id=60778"]http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...p;mesg_id=60778[/url]

Human papilloma virus, or HPV, is a virus which causes cancer of the cervix in women. [color="#3333FF"][b]The only way HPV is transmitted is by sexual intercourse, one doesn't get it from a toilet seat or by shaking hands.[/b][/color] Since virtually all cervical cancers are related to HPV infection, it is correct to say that cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease. Interestingly, those of us who used to put it in those terms were pooh-pooh'd not infrequently. Now, however, with the advent of Merk's Gardasil HPV vaccine, everybody is talking about HPV, cervical cancer, and the vaccine. Let's flesh in some details.

[color="#3333FF"][b]There are over a hundred subtypes of HPV, and over thirty of these are associated with cervical diseases[/b][/color] including genital warts ("condylomata") in both ladies and gentlemen, cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous cervical changes) and frank, invasive cancer. [color="#3366FF"][u]The viruses don’t cause cancer directly, they cause dysplasia. The dysplasia may, in turn, progress to cervical cancer if left untreated.[/u][/color] The dysplasia is detected by the Pap smear and its more modern derivatives. If the Pap smear detects dysplasia, especially of the high grade variety, a biopsy of the cervix is recommended. If the biopsy confirms the high grade dysplasia, a LEEP (loop electrosurgical excision procedure) is usually performed, where a thin strip of the cervix containing the abnormal tissue is removed. This is frequently, but not always, curative.

Here are some important points:
1. dysplasia is not invasive cancer. It is a precursor to cancer.
2. a lot of dysplasia spontaneously regresses without further treatment.
3. some cervical dysplasia, if untreated, progresses. Progresses to what? Invasive cervical cancer. [color="#3333FF"][b]But the important thing is this: the progression is slow, orderly, and well understood. That's why the Pap smear works so well as a screening tool for cervical cancer: it detects the precursor lesions before they become cancer. [/b][/color]

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world, and prior to the widespread use of the Pap smear in the 1950's, cervical cancer was the most common cancer killer of women worldwide. It still is in parts of the world where Pap screening is not done. In the U.S., cervical dysplasia is very common. LEEP’s for high grade cervical dysplasia are very common (this procedure is done several times per day in my hospital). [color="#3333FF"][b]Cervical cancer, however, is relatively uncommon, [u]due to the Pap smear[/u] (5000-7000 cases in the U.S. annually)[/b][/color]. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a vaccine that would prevent all this?

Enter Merck and Gardasil. Approved for use by the FDA in June, 2006, it protects against the four most common types of high risk HPV,[1] which account for 70% of cervical cancers, and 90% of genital warts. It’s a three shot series given at 0, 2 and six months, and need for a booster is unknown at this time. A second vaccine is under development by GlaxoSmithKline. [color="#3333FF"][u]On June 29, 2006, the Advisory Council on Vaccine Practices (ACIP - the group which formulates vaccine recommendations for the CDC) voted to “recommend” universal vaccination with the HPV vaccine for all girls age 11-12, but beginning as early as age 9[2][/u][/color]. [color="#3333FF"][b]ACIP recommendations, once accepted by the CDC, take the de facto force of law, as local school boards and others turn the recommendations into requirements.[/b][/color] The ACIP recommendations that all adult nonpregnant women (>19 years old) be vaccinated were published in the CDC’s publication, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports (MMWR) on 13 October 2006. The recommendations for the universal childhood vaccinations are scheduled to be published in November, but are unavailable as of this writing. Not too surprisingly, the medical machine, as represented by the New England Journal of Medicine, is all for this,[3] and well funded pro-teenage contraception organs like Advocates for Youth are simply livid that those religious conservatives might not think universal HPV vaccination for children is such a swell idea.[4]

Why isn’t it a swell idea?
1. The vaccine does not remove the need for Pap smears nor will it do anything for a lady already infected.
2. [color="#3333FF"][u]It doesn’t do anything about other sexually transmitted diseases, although it’s easy to imagine a 12 year old (remember, that’s the target audience) who thinks it does.[/u][/color] For that matter, I can easily imagine a 20 year old who might think it does, but that’s neither here nor there.
3. There are concerns that the FDA has "fast-tracked" licensure of Gardasil, without adequate study of its safety in little girls.[5]
4. And most importantly, no one knows what effect universal vaccination of 9 year olds might have on adolescent tendency to have sex. [color="#3333FF"][u]However, the data of the past forty years of social experimentation suggest that it would tend to increase sexual activity.[/u][/color] That’s been the outcome of all the other experiments on early immersion of young children into the fetid world of “sex ed” and teenage contraception, and there’s no reason this should have a different effect.

Regarding the morality of the vaccine itself, its manufacture does not involve aborted babies[6]. So the moral problems attached to, say varicella or rubella vaccines do not apply here.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. You don’t get it if the person next to you coughs, and you don’t get it from a water fountain or a toilet seat. [color="#3333FF"][b]Requiring HPV immunizations for young girls (and that is what ACIP “recommendations” amount to: requirements) is, in my view, no different from requiring that all school age girls be put on contraception.[/b][/color] The decision to vaccinate one's little girl with Gardasil should reside strictly within the family. Legislating its use is inappropriately paternalistic. The National Catholic Bioethics Center has summarized it appropriately:

“The NCBC considers HPV vaccination to be a morally acceptable method of protecting against this disease, but asks that civil authorities leave this decision to parents and not make such immunization mandatory.”[7]

[1] “HPV and HPV Vaccine: Information for Healthcare Providers” Centers for Disease Control, August, 2006. www.cdc.gov/std/healthcomm/fact_sheets.html
[2] “ACIP Provisional Recommendations for the Use of Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine”. available at www.cdc.gov
[3] Steinbrook, R. “The Potential of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines.” NEJM 354(11):1109-1112; 16 March 2006.
[4] “Will the Politics of Teen Sex Stop a Cancer Vaccine?” Advocates for Youth Media Brief, www.advocatesforyouth.org
[5] "Merck's Gardasil vaccine not proven safe for little girls." National Vaccine Information Center, Press Release, 27 June 2006. www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr62706gardasil.htm
[6] Gardasil package insert, Merck & Co., 2006. Available at Institue for Vaccine Safety, www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
[7] NCBC Statement on Vaccination against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). National Catholic Bioethics Center, 11 July 2006. www.ncbcenter.org/06-07-11-hpv_vaccine.asp

Source: [url="http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/hpv-vaccine.html"]http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/hpv-vaccine.html[/url]

Edited February 9, 2007 by Lil Red

[MissScripture]

That was very interesting! (Although, I'll admit, I didn't read it all...I scanned most of it). But I had wondered about the male half of it.

[Moneybags]

My question is thus: What does the Catholic Church have to say about this?

[goldbug16]

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ' post='1186418' date='Feb 6 2007, 03:49 PM']

This stuff IS awful, unsafe and will do NO good.

It is NOT preventing anything and young girls should not be treated in such a way.

Its ridiculous and wrong. I don't like it at all.

[/quote]

It is also basically saying that girls at that young age are bound to be sexually active.

[exquisitebones]

first off, any parent can opt out of ANY vaccine they do not want their child to have. My son has had very few vaccines..


SECOND, as a person who HAS hpv, and the possiblity of cancer. I am monitored every few months to make sure it does not get worse. I think the vaccine is a good idea.
And i know they are saying the vaccine against cervical cancer... but guess what.
HPV is the ONLY way to get cervical cancer. so in a sense, YES it is a vaccine against the cancer.

I wish i would have had the knowledge to not be a troubled teen who did terrible things, but i cant change that, even if I could, I wish i could have got that vaccine years ago. It would have saved me all the trouble i have now.




[quote name='goldbug16' post='1188935' date='Feb 8 2007, 06:08 PM']
It is also basically saying that girls at that young age are bound to be sexually active.
[/quote]


HOw many people dont grow up to be sexually active? you are? are you not? this is to ensure that when they are OLDER and hopefully MARRIED, they have no risk of contracting it.

you dont always get to marry virgins, while it would be AWESOME if we all could.. that is not always the case.

[jmjtina]

First off, I am sorry to hear you have HPV. Know you are in my prayers. However, not all young girls should be mandated with this vaccine when there is not sufficient research on the long term effects of getting it so young.

This vaccine should be voluntary. Instead of opting out, it should be availabe to opt in.

from CatholicMom:

"If a kid with measles is sitting in a classroom, he or she is going to infect many other classmates. A kid with HPV infects no one other than one she might have sex with,"

"We're not protecting the public health in the same way that we protect public health when we require measles vaccine."

The point is, the state should not mandate this. This is not 100% effective either of cervical cancer. We should not treat this as a cure all for the cancer. It no more a sure proof vaccine against cancer any more than a condom is a sure way to prevent a pregnancy.

Also note, HPV is not the only way to get cervical cancer. There is a greater possibility of you getting cervical cancer if you have HPV. Other causes are the birth control pill, smoking, poor diet, and others. Remember, these are factors, however small, that give you a greater possibility of getting cervical cancer. Some people have HPV and don't get cervical cancer. Some people do. This is a prevention of an STD and the bonus will decrease your chances of getting cervical cancer. Of course, widespread behavior modification, aka chastity, would do the same thing, but that's much harder for the state to do.

Again, this is something the state should not mandate and parents should be educated on the risks of being vaccinated so young and the benefits of having the vaccine to decrease thier chance of the incidence of cervical cancer.

It should never be mandated.

Edited February 9, 2007 by jmjtina

[exquisitebones]

i dont think any vaccine should be mandated. and yet.. most are. I think every person should have a right to chose vaccination....

that being said, I also think that behavior modification, would be GREAT and i am all for chastity until marriage.. Unfortunatly, at this point of time, in our world, its not gonna happen for everyone.

that also being said, the statistics for HPV are INSANE... higher than ANY other STD..

HPV infects 75% of sexually active men and women in their lifetimes; that means that 3 out of 4 of your friends who are having sex will get it or already have it!

There are currently 20 million people in the United States who have HPV and 5.5 million more get it every year

-- -

my best friend, my sister in law, my cousin, my aunt, ALL have it. I just think more PARENTS, should OPT to THINK about the benefits of the vaccine.
I know I would LOVE to hope adn think my son, will grow up and marry and stay chaste...
but who knows, I can not FORCE him to follow in that hope. I can not FORCE him not to have sex.
I would like to hope that he will not contract a disease like this.

EDITED TO ADD: sorry about saying it was the only way to get cervical cancer.. here is a accurate statistic:
The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of 93% of all cervical cancer cases. There are about 30 sexually transmitted strains of HPV. 13 of the 30 sexually transmitted strains of HPV are thought to cause cervical cancer.

Edited February 9, 2007 by exquisitebones

[jmjtina]

This prevents an STD. That is the primary.

Although it decreases the chances of you getting cervical cancer, it is a secondary.

There is not enough of a public health risk to mandate all young girls to recieve this vaccine. The chances of a chaste girl getting HPV is significantly lower than a girl who is sexually active. Routine pap smears will usually detect pre-cancerous or early cancerous changes so that treatment can be initiated in these early stages and full recovery is expected. HPV vaccine does not remove the need for continued pap smears.

Bottom line, this is a decision that shouldn't be mandated by the state.

A 9 year old is only a fourth grader or end of the year third grader. 9 years old. That is absolutely ridiculous.

As far as stats go:
2. Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years. (This is only true in the U.S.; worldwide it is one of the top cancer killers of women because women in many other countries have limited access to Pap tests and other health services.)

The Gardasil commercials refer to "thousands of women" being diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. each year, which is true, but they don't put that number into context.


“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”[2]


[2] link: [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B63"]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9609C8B63[/url]

Edited February 9, 2007 by jmjtina

[Proud2BCatholic139]

By the govonor mandating this law, it gives the impression on young girls, "Oh, I have this vaccination, I can have sex all I want because I have this medicine; I won't have an STI/STD."

NO!!!

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1188876' date='Feb 8 2007, 05:21 PM']I know you posted the doc. jess, but that was way too good for even the lazy clickers.[/quote]lol, i know, but it's a long document


[quote name='jmjtina' post='1188876' date='Feb 8 2007, 05:21 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]What we instead DO know is that current practices of annual pap smears and screening for ALL bad strains of HPV continue to reduce rates of cervical cancer among the US population annually.[/b][/color] If all US women received a pap smear every year and were then promptly treated for any abnormal growths encountered, both the cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates would plummet even further to the point where HPV-associated cervical cancer would kill no more than a handful of US women a year. Yes, that is a guess as well, but it's a far better guess than assuming that conferring protection against four of the myriad of current and future strains of harmful HPV will somehow do the trick.[/quote]
what i would like to know is why aren't 'they' promoting annual Pap smears and screening for women more heavily if that's how it is caught early and treated early?

[XIX]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1186496' date='Feb 6 2007, 05:09 PM']
my concern is truly on the science and politics behind this - really not on the religious aspect. if you look at the document i provided, it goes into greater detail.
[/quote]
Okay. Fair enough. But I think what really set me off is the comparision between the vaccination and birth control. Saying they are no different. I have dedicated my life to contributing to the end of birth control (among other things) can not understand how the two are identical.

I think it's kinda annoying that this is being touted as something we need to have, but I don't understand this huge uproar.

[Proud2BCatholic139]

This vaccine will cost about 350,000 families 350 dollars for the three shots. I'm sorry though...that is ridiculous.

I guess it just comes to the moral issue of age and also it can harm their health. It violates private family life it should be the option of the parents, not a requirement. It's also the parents responsibility to teach their child many things...

[XIX]

I agree that the mandate itself is a little over the top. Especially since they are forcing you to pay for the whole thing.