cervical cancer

[matagi]

Lisa, whilst I can understand your concern, I feel I must point out that this is not an untested product. It has gone through clinical testing which includes human testing prior to its release on the market.

Basically you have to look at the risks vs benefits ... what are the potential risks and benefits of the vaccine compared to HPV infection with its risk of developing cervical cancer and the associated sequelae?

Oh yes, and just to clarify - the vaccine was not "invented" by this one pharmaceutical company. It was in fact developed in Australia by Professor Ian Frazer, an immunologist, and the technology was licensed to Merck for further development.

[EBD]

I also understand the concern about long-term effects, but if we waited to see if the subjects in clinical trials had any effects 40 years later, there would be an additional 40 year lag before we could take advantage of any new medical technology! That may be the most prudent approach, but it's not realistic.

On the topic of the vaccine only being for young girls - my mom (who works in medical research) tells me that there is some research indicating that the vaccine might help women who are already HPV positive to shed the virus faster. Since I've tested positive, I'm going to ask at my pap next week.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

I do hear what you are all saying. I'm no fan of cervical cancer, and I'm not generally anti-vaccine. I just think about this one differently. I think a minimum 10 year study on some volunteer young girl subjects would be ethical before mandating injecting the entire nation of millions of young girls. At least find out if it leads to later fertility problems or birth defects first.
Merck Pharmaceuticals has invested big money in pushing the mandatory vaccination law proposals, and stands to become filthy rich (again).

[Tuckervill]

Lisa, I just wanted to say that I agree with you, that we should be more cautious about what we inject in our children. It's the mandatory nature that I disagree with.

Karen

[matagi]

I do hear what you are all saying. I'm no fan of cervical cancer, and I'm not generally anti-vaccine. I just think about this one differently. I think a minimum 10 year study on some volunteer young girl subjects would be ethical before mandating injecting the entire nation of millions of young girls. At least find out if it leads to later fertility problems or birth defects first.

By what mechanism do you think it is going to cause birth defects or fertility problems? The vaccine is designed to stimulate the immune system against the virus. If the vaccine has the potential to cause those problems, then the virus itself would have the same effect and I don't think there have been any reports linking HPV to birth defects or fertility problems (other than the obvious one that occurs after you've had half your insides taken out because of cancer).

I agree that there should be more discussion before any proposal for mandatory vaccination is considered but more from a cost-benefit perspective than a risk of adverse reactions.

[Grog]

Well the only thing I can think of is that HPV might have a role that we don't know about yet in... something we don't know about yet.

Otherwise, vaccines are a pretty well-understood technology.

I generally agree with Lisa SH that pharm companies are a powerful lobby, and that this decision to make the vaccine mandatory (can anyone post a link to information about this "mandatory" thing?????) might be no stranger to that.

However it's also common to give a given vaccine to everyone of a generation so that the disease is eradicated. But then boys should get it too, since they will keep transmitting it. By vaccinating only girls, aren't we perpetuating the problem (and making an eternal market for the vaccine)?

[matagi]

Boys can't get cervical cancer, so the immediate cost benefit is not there, even though males can be asymptomatic carriers of HPV. I believe there are trials currently underway assessing the vaccine in boys, because males can get anal cancers from HPV. FWIW, the guy that developed the vaccine has had both his sons vaccinated against HPV. In Australia the vaccine has been made available to females aged 12-26 free of charge. Boys can also receive the vaccine but you need to pay for it.

I guess it is analogous to rubella vaccine - in Australia, girls were the first to be vaccinated because of the consequences of rubella in pregnant women. The vaccine has subsequently been made available to everyone and is now part of our routine childhood immunisation program, which means both boys and girls receive the vaccine.

What is the situation in the US if this vaccine becomes mandatory? Are you expected to pay for it, or do you get it free of charge?

[HillSlugger]

What is the situation in the US if this vaccine becomes mandatory? Are you expected to pay for it, or do you get it free of charge?

There are many immunizations that are mandatory. For the majority, we are expected to have it covered by medical insurance. They are free through special programs to only those you can't otherwise cover the cost

[Triskeliongirl]

Boys can't get cervical cancer, so the immediate cost benefit is not there, even though males can be asymptomatic carriers of HPV.

Actually, I learned recently from a virologist colleague that indeed gay men can get anal cancer from HPV, yet the vaccine has never been tested in men and is not available to men. While a women can live without a cervix and man cannot live without an anus, so this appears to be real discrimination.