WORLDmag.com | Community | Blog Archive

Issues, WorldMagBlog Print

Click to Print

Include Comments

Park that bandwagon

13 Comments

Written by Kristin Chapman

August 22, 10:26 AM

Ever since the release of Gardasil, Merck’s famed HPV vaccine, doctors and medical organizations have sung its praises and pushed parents to get their preteen daughters vaccinated. But while many states are weighing whether to make the shot mandatory, authors of a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine say caution is still needed because:

Gardasil’s long-term effectiveness is unclear;
It is expensive;
It only protects against some of the viruses that cause cervical cancer, so women still need regular pap screenings;
And it is linked to thousands of side effects–some more serious than others.

Dr. Carolyn J. Haug, editor of the Journal of Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in the New England Journal editorial that the long-term impact of the HPV vaccination will not be observable for decades. Thus, ”with so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Email a friend

RSS 2.0

back to top13 Comments to “Park that bandwagon”

BY NJLawyer 08.22.08 AT 10:34 AM

Isn’t this what StuBob was trying to tell us when this stuff was first marketed?
Report comment to moderator
BY Bianca 08.22.08 AT 10:36 AM

One rule of tyranny – what you can opt in for today will be forced on you tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
BY Peter L 08.22.08 AT 11:04 AM

It is interesting that they say that it “only protects against some of the viruses that cause cervical cancer”, making it sound fairly effective. Then you find out it only protects against a few of around 100 strains, meaning it is over 90% ineffective. From the NEJM article:

Since the vaccines protect against only two of the oncogenic strains of HPV, women must continue to be screened for cervical lesions. Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening. How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes.

Why the big push to inject all the girls? Is it so the promiscuous sex gang can promote “safe sex” to our teens? Is it so Planned Parenthood and their ilk can stay in business? Again I ask, why?
Report comment to moderator
BY Luke 08.22.08 AT 12:40 PM

We don’t need to look for hidden motivations or assume the worst of those trying to protect young girls from HPV, Peter.

Other logic seems sketchy, Peter. The vaccine would only put selective pressure on other strains of HPV if those strains are in competition with 16 and 18 for scare resources. Human cells are not scare. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think that story sounds likely.

There’s a guy I used to sleep with who is a microbiologist though. I’ll ask him.

Still, mandatory injections should not happen. This vaccine has been around for less than 10 years. Let it prove to people that it actually can reduce cases of HPV before you start telling them the state is justified in making it a requirement. Disease control policy as a very high potential for abuse and should always have to live up to extreme standards and reviews.

Steps inside state governments should also be made to prevent university boards from requiring the vaccine of incoming first years.

And while you all object to gender analysis, HPV also causes anal cancer and other harmful (and unattractive) conditions. There seems little reason for exempting males from HPV vaccination should we ever reach that point. It’s wrong to make this into a “woman’s illness” while we let men roam around as HPV carriers. And if containing the virus has burdens in the form of side effects, it’s wrong to make women bare them all.
Report comment to moderator
BY Cameron 08.22.08 AT 12:44 PM

Peter L,
While I’m no fan of the vaccine, and I’m certainly not for its mandatory application, to say that it is 90% ineffective isn’t exactly true. While it is only effective against a few strains, my understanding is that the few strains it works against are the strains most responsible for infection. Hunting a link now…
Report comment to moderator
BY Cameron 08.22.08 AT 12:46 PM

The vaccine is effective against HPV types 16 and 18, which cause approximately 70 percent of cervical cancers and against HPV types 6 and 11, which cause approximately 90 percent of genital warts.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01385.html
Report comment to moderator
BY Peter L 08.22.08 AT 12:50 PM

Cameron and Luke: Points taken. However, I believe that my exaggeration pales in comparison to the ad campaign’s.
Report comment to moderator
BY StuBob 08.22.08 AT 12:57 PM

Thanks for remembering, NJL!
Report comment to moderator
BY theselittleones 08.22.08 AT 1:32 PM

http://tinyurl.com/66tgwl

Why anyone trusts drug companies is beyond me.
Report comment to moderator
BY StuBob 08.22.08 AT 1:40 PM

Here’s an intervention which has been heavily researched in both the public and private sectors, tested in thousands of people and probably hundreds of thousands of animals. Yet, serious questions remain as to who should receive it and under what circumstances.

Half the women in my church are using some cream sold by a multi-level marketer, which purports to lessen cramps, shorten and lighten menstrual periods, and improve whatever other female problems one might have. Someone used it and felt better, proving that it works.

Those who rightly question the wisdom of Gardasil should bring the same skepticism to Mona Vie, Arbonne, and similar “supplements.”
Report comment to moderator
BY llama 08.22.08 AT 1:59 PM

‘And it is linked to thousands of side effects–some more serious than others.’

Well I hope so. If all of them were serious in nature you would be dead I would think. If one of them is Erectile Dysfunction I will just slit my wrists and lay down in the gutter.

If I see ED listed as one for it on a TV commercial, I will get the shot myself, one in each breast.

I will say this though. Thousands of side effects seems like quite a few to me, too many to believe in fact, but some of them, maybe even a few of them, have got to be real bad like: slimy, gaseous, poisonous, foul smelling and evil looking pustules that appear where ever they want to – like on your fish, possibly your pets or something else you kill off regularly without really trying very hard.

Thousands of them It’s just too shocking I say. They should have a shot just for the side effects before they allow this shot to be marketed to our little girls for heaven’s sake.

Jeeze. What are these people thinking?
Report comment to moderator
BY Random Name 08.22.08 AT 3:07 PM

Capitalist food companies place all sorts of untested ingredients in your food all the time.

Some are genetically modifying your crops for food consumption all the time.

That kind of “experimentation” is OK.

Jeeze. What are these people thinking?

By the way, what does “Jeeze” mean. Are we allowed to say that here?

Is it something like “shootload,” which TJ asked me about the other day?

Jeeze.
Report comment to moderator
BY opinionated teen 08.25.08 AT 10:58 PM

I will never get this vaccine. I will have no need to.
Report comment to moderator