The beginning of school is when most parents start to think more about vaccines.
One vaccine that is getting particular attention this year is the vaccine that protects young females and males against the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause genital warts and , at worst, various types of cancer.
About 79 million Americans, most in their late teens and early 20s, are infected with the virus. Each year, about 14 million people become newly infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The vaccine, which studies show is effective, is administered as three injections over a specific period of time.
The CDC recently said that the number of young people getting the vaccine is not increased significantly over time, in part because the agency said some physicians are recommending it to patients and their parents but not enough.
Have you had your children vaccinated against HPV? Do you think it’s necessary?
And if you want to share your thoughts with my AJC colleague Shelia Poole working on a story on this subject, you can e-mail her spoole@ajc.com
Hi, I'm reporter for The AJC and would like to talk with parents about the vaccine. Why or why not? Please email me at spoole@ajc.com. thanks Shelia
p1
Some interesting facts:
Gardasil was Fast Tracked. It did not meet the requirements for Fast Tracking a drug. Requirements:
Drugs which show promise in treating a serious or life-threatening disease and address an unmet medical need. (HPV does not fulfill that requirement.) -Serious Condition: whether the drug will have an impact on such factors as survival, day-to-day functioning, or the likelihood that the disease, if left untreated, will progress from a less severe condition to a more serious one.
-Unmet Medical Need: the drug must be developed as a treatment or preventative measure for a disease that does not have a current therapy. (Despite the vaccine women still must have yearly pap smears and the CDC supports this. HPV is not a substitute for the yearly pap despite the many article that state this.
This is paraphrased as the information is quite extensive. Gardasil did not meet the requirements. Fast Tracking is meeting a need for a country of the world, not for a small group of people when the result will not be know for 15-20 years.
-“The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial”. Fast Tracking Gardasil for market approval by the FDA before the phase 3 clinical trials were completed makes the children who submitted to this drug-the test subjects. This vaccine has never been tested for safety against unvaccinated people using an inactive placebo. The safety was only compared against the aluminum compound that is in the vaccine.
* http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7605/1182.1/reply
* http://www.free-press-release.com/news-truth-about-gardasil-demands-department-of-justice-investigate-hpv-vaccines-part-1-of-3-1317134493.html
- PTB don't know whether the vaccine will increase the risk of infertility due to polysorbate. Polysorbate has been shown to cause infertility in lab rats.
- Whether aluminium adjuvant is safe:
although aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials”
“In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences”.
“Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminium adjuvants,medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDL/is_4_14/ai_n24354801/
http://vaccinexchange.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tomljenovic_shaw-cmc-published2.pdf
@Bodhisattva1 1) HPV is a serious condition because it causes deadly cancers, genital warts, and precancerous lesions which cause women to have procedures performed (like LEEP or colposcopies) which carry their own pain and risks such as complications in future pregnancies. I'm pretty sure getting cancer on your penis feels pretty serious too. 2) HPV is a major worldwide health issue. In developing countries, cervical cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in women. Because these women do not have access to regular Pap screenings, their cancers are not detected early and mortality rates are very high. In the US 4000 women still die from cervical cancer every year. Those deaths don't have to happen anymore. 3) HPV vaccine has been tested in numerous studies by groups not affiliated with Merk and been found to by 97% effective at preventing 90% of cervical cancer, many other cancers and 90% of genital warts, and very safe -- as safe as other vaccines. 4) Over 63 million doses of HPV vaccine have been administered without any serious side effects (side effects that some experience are sore injection site and fainting -- highly preferable to cancer, cancer treatment and death!). 5) While I agree wholeheartedly that Merk has significant financial interest in promoting their vaccine, and they were much too heavy-handed in pushing it onto the market in 2006, it has been nearly 10 years since then. This vaccine is well tested and safe. My desire to protect my children from the pain and suffering of cancer is much stronger than my desire to stick it to Merk. If we were going to avoid all health products developed for a profit, we would have to boycott virtually all medicine and scientific technology. 6) aluminum adjuvants have been previously tested for safety and found to be safe, so there was no need to test for their safety again in this vaccine. They have been used in vaccines for many decades. There are minuscule amounts of aluminum in vaccines compared to those you encounter in your daily environment, and their purpose is to make the vaccine more effective by improving your body's immune response. 7) just a note to clarify, pap smears are recommended once every three years for women between 21 and 65, or for women age 30 to 65 who wish to have less frequent pap testing, you may have a pap every 5 years combined with HPV testing. They anticipate changing these recommendations in the future to make pap testing less frequent for women who have been vaccinated against HPV, but have not done adequate testing yet to change national recommendations.
HPV has never been scientifically proven to cause cervical cancer. HPV is common and if you read the CDC's webpage on HPV it will tell you if a person, specifically a woman contracts HPV the body's immune system will clear it within a year. The majority of females who develop HPV never know it until some indication is shown on a pap. The CDC webpage also tells you that the pap is still needed and necessary to DISCOVER HPV if one has it.
From Gardasil vial package insert from Merck:
14 Clinical Studies
CIN 2/3 and AIS are the immediate and necessary precursors of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix, respectively. Their detection and removal has been shown to prevent cancer; thus, they serve as surrogate markers for prevention of cervical cancer. …CIN 2/3 and AIS were the efficacy endpoints to assess prevention of cervical cancer.
-Gardasil does not prevent cancer, instead it was shown to decrease CIN 2/3 and AIS. Most cases of CIN regress and are eliminated by the immune system without intervention. Most (90%) regress within 2 years. (Gardasil doesn't prevent Cancer so the marketing of this poison is fraudulent- “The marketing of Gardasil was much too aggressive. The ‘One Less’ campaign was deceptive.Quote from Dr. Diane Harper in the New York Times article cited above.”)
-Interestingly enough, the majority of women who develop CIN are 40-50, average 45 so you start giving this at age 9? Of course there are rare exception to any ilness but the average age of a woman who developes cervical cancer is 48. This is also on the CDC's webpage on cervical cancer also the American Cancer Society.
HPV Vaccines Less Effective For Black Women:
http://atlantadailyworld.com/2013/11/18/hpv-vaccines-less-effective-for-black-women/
The available vaccines only protect against four strains of HPV, which, according to this study from the Duke University School of Medicine, African-American women are half as likely as White women to carry.
“Compared with white women, we saw that African-American women had about half as many infections with HPV 16 and 18, the subtypes that are covered by HPV vaccines,” said study co-author, Adriana Vidal. “Since African-American women don’t seem to be getting the same subtypes of HPV with the same frequency, the vaccines aren’t helping all women equally.”
(Many in the Black community state this is another form of ethnic genocide because Black women aren't being told this information. Also, there are other ethnic groups that if infected by hpv maybe infected by the same strains as Black Women and therefore this stuff would be useless if they are injected with it.)
Merck’s Former Doctor Predicts that Gardasil will Become the Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-that-gardasil-will-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/
@Bodhisattva1 I don't mean any offense, because it's quite complicated and information about HPV vaccine was very poorly communicated to the public, but your information is incorrect. The strains of HPV that the nonavalent vaccine (Gadasil9) protects against have been proven to cause 90% of cervical cancers as well as cancers of the anus, penis, throat (oropharynx), vagina and vulva, and 90% of genital warts.
80% of people in the US will contract HPV at some point in their lives (about 50% of those contract it at their first sexual encounter). For the majority of these people, they will not experience symptoms from HPV infection and their bodies will kill the virus on their own. The consequences for those whose bodies do NOT kill the infection are very severe. So although there relatively few people who get HPV will get cancer or genital warts from it, most people would rather take a harmless and effective vaccine than risk being one of those 12,000 people who gets cervical cancer each year, or one of the 4000 who die from it. In addition, HPV-caused oropharyngeal cancers are rising steadily, mostly in men, increasing the impact of HPV-related disease.
HPV vaccine is much better than Pap smears because it PREVENTS you from getting the virus and thus prevents problems from developing, while Pap smears only DETECT when a problem has already started to develop. Pap smears detect precancerous lesions that are caused by the HPV, but not the HPV itself. Then women undergo colposcopies to determine whether the abnormal Pap is actually revealing cancerous tissue. Colposcopies are painful and carry risks such as complications in future pregnancies, so it is much better to prevent you from ever having to get one by being vaccinated. There is now HPV testing too, which women between 30 and 65 can use along with Pap smears to increase the length of time between their regular Paps from 3 years to 5 years. It is anticipated that the guidelines will change to increase the length of time between screenings for vaccinated women, but not enough research has been done yet to warrant changing national standards.
With regards to the effectiveness in African American women, it is true that cervical cancer in AA women is caused by types 16 and 18 (which the vaccine protects against) at lower rates than in white women. However, types 16 and 18 are STILL the most common causes of cervical cancer in AA women, just slightly less than in white women. This means that AA women also suffer higher rates of cervical cancer from other strains of HPV than white women do--strains that were not protected against in the original HPV vaccines. So while the previous vaccines still provided great protection for AA women, they did not provide as good protection as they did for white women. There is hope that the new vaccine will remedy some of this disparity because it covers the five other main cancer-causing types of HPV, which should result in better protection for AA women. We also need to emphasize the importance of improving AA women's (and other women of color) access to regular Pap smears to detect cancers early on and quality treatment when they are diagnosed so that their death rates from cervical cancer will not be so much tragically higher than white women's.
When it came out, my daughter was at that age that was too old to simply be told "you're getting this shot, now hush," but still a little too young to be considering it in the light of exposure through sex. I gave her the information on it, we talked about it, and she decided to get it. I was in favor of it. She was also one of the first in Atlanta to receive the chicken pox vaccine. Seems like the benefits outweigh the minimal side effects. I remember, at the time, that a friend of mine was horrified, and asked me if I didn't think that it was basically giving her permission to "sleep around." A supremely dumb comment from an otherwise intelligent woman. My comment was: "Hell, if the shot makes you want to have sex all the time, maybe *I* should get one, too!" ;-)
@DBOrig < Hi, I'm a reporter and would like to talk with parents who either got the vaccine for their children - or didn't. Why or why not. Please email me at spooloe@ajc.com. thanks
My 3 children got the vaccine on the advice if their pediatrician, who discussed risks vs benefit with us before administering the shots.
@Aquagirl - This blog title is called Debating the HPV Vaccine. And, now you are criticizing posters that respond to the blog questions? You're saying that only pediatricians can debate it? Then, why is the blog asking readers to debate it.?
How about we share are opinions respectfully without calling each other crazy? I am not opposed to the vaccine, but I am an analytical person and do look at all pros and cons and call out statements that are not based on research. Nowhere in my comments did I say anyone should vaccinate. I did state that we are in the infancy of research on it and that is a fact.
@Aquagirl Sorry mistyped "our opinions" and meant to type that I did not state that anyone should "not vaccinate".
@Aquagirl - As I said in my other post "Anyone considering the vaccine should look up HPV research and read as much as they can and determine, with their physician what is best for their situation." That is a reasonable statement, not crazy. Educate yourself and discuss with your physician.
@jupiter9 Yeah, sure you meant to type that....your Freudian slip is showing.
@RichardKPE - You really saying you read absolutely nothing about any of your illnesses or medical conditions? You don't research any options or treatments. I highly doubt that.
And, I didn't say that any opinion was formed without discussing with the physician. The reality is that many doctors are overworked and don't have time to read. My mother received treatment for ovarian cancer for 12 years. Her last doctor relied on his Physician Assistant to read up on experimental studies and attend medical conferences.
@Aquagirl Still abusive in style I see, accusing me of lying now.
@RichardKPE It's my body and I am going to be as informed as I can before I make decisions. Anyone who thinks that doctors are Gods and the only ones that can make health decisions are delusional. Yes, they are knowledgeable and professional, etc., but, in many cases, such as cancer, there are multiple treatment options and paths. The doctor presents the choices and the patient has input as to what feels right for them. There are all kinds of paths and choice in medical care, and what one person will desire or tolerate as treatment can be very different from another. Many doctors hand out literature for their patients to read. Respectable doctors want educated patients.
@jupiter9 @RichardKPE Fine, I'll put this another way:
Let's say you had cancer and went to an oncologist. Now, I'm sure you're doing some research on your own, and I'm betting the oncologist is explaining to you how that cancer is spreading, its effects, etc. He may even be giving you some pamphlet to read.
Now let me interject some reality. This oncologist's opinion is based on 4 years of undergrad education, 4 years of medical school, and as many as 30 years of professional practice. Are you really so delusional that by reading this pamphlet that you are somehow capable of understanding your condition in the same manner that he is? You think your opinion is "informed?" You think his level of knowledge can possibly be summed up in a pamphlet or a Wikipedia post edited by John Q Medicine? Your doctor is giving you the single most dumbed down explanation possible, and, most likely, he is doing this in such a way that it will drive you to the result that he prefers. If he explained it in the scientific language he's familiar with, you'd look at him as if he was speaking Chinese.
Also, don't think for one second that this tactic is only applicable to the medical profession. Your kid's teacher is doing this at a parent/teacher conference. An engineer is doing this to the marketer who has to advertise the product. The football color guy is doing this to the TV audience.
@Motheroftwins What, you consulted a DOCTOR instead of Jenny McCarthy or jupiter9? How crazy is that? /sarc
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl Actually, it is a scary opinion (unless you happen to be a medical professional). Any lay person forming their own medical opinion based on their own Google research is insane. We have people who engage in medical debates called "doctors" and "scientists." Some (to pick a random career) accountant coming up with their own medical opinion can hardly be described as "informed."
@Motheroftwins < Hi, I'm a reporter for The AJC and would like to talk with you about your decision to get your kids vaccinated. Please email me at spoole@ajc.com. thanks
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl < Hi, please email me at spoole@ajc.com, working on an article about HPV and would love to talk with parents. thanks SHelia
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl Other comments notwithstanding, groups not affiliated with the pharmaceutical companies have actually done extensive research about the vaccine's effectiveness and safety. It is 97% effective at preventing cancers and genital warts and it is extremely safe. Over 63 million doses have been administered over nearly 10 years with no serious side effects. The side effects that are experienced by some are soreness at the injection site and fainting. I think we can all agree that these are highly preferable to to the pain and suffering of cancer and death!
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl It is absolutely not crazy to do research on your own about medical conditions, however I would caution everyone seeking info on the internet--as most of us do-- to remember that it is not peer-reviewed or necessarily even written in good faith. The best way to find medical info online, I believe, is to read medical journals. This way, you know you have up-to-date information that is approved by a consensus of medical professionals and was determined through reliable studies. Some of it can be unintelligible to non-medical professionals, but there's usually a summary that's pretty straightforward. Then talk with your doctor and if you think they sound crazy based on what you've been reading, seek another opinion, because I'm sure we all know there are some very bad doctors out there.
Using healthcare is very different from using other kinds of "products" like toiletries or photographers, because it has a very direct impact on your health and well being and can involve very invasive procedures. Relying entirely on one medical professional when your gut is telling you they may not be right would be a very bad idea.
That said, the majority of the medical profession is competent, and latching onto unsupported facts from fear-mongerers that the medical profession as a whole has rejected is incredibly dangerous. And in the case of HPV vaccination, this is exactly what has happened, which has led many parents not to vaccinate their children, and sadly, for thousands of those children, that will mean that they die painful and early deaths from preventable cancers.
The issue with this vaccine is not the traditional anti-vaccine argument. The primary argument against this one is because HPV is spread exclusively by sexual contact with more than one person. This behavior is considered immoral by most Christians and they consider having their children vaccinated against this virus to be a backhanded nod that they expect their children to participate in this behavior. If there was another reasonable way that one might get infected then this would not be an issue.
Here is how I think it can be easily justified. It is horrible to consider but there is no guarantee your child will never be the victim of rape. As tragic as that would be how horrible would it be to get cancer from it. The other one is this. Suppose your daughter remains pure until marriage but the person she marries is not truthful about his past. The HPV vaccine is a mighty cheap insurance policy in either situation.
@thekimmer So by your logic, a vaccine for Hepatitis can only be justified because someone might shove their used drinking glass into your kid's mouth?
@thekimmer Yes, and it is sad that the simple logical response doesn't seem to have traction. You can get HPV from one sexual encounter or one sexual partner. You may believe that you can teach your child not to have sex before marriage, or even that getting HPV is a just punishment for non-marital sex, but you have no way to make sure your child's future partner (marital or otherwise) has not had some form of sex (HPV can be spread in many ways other than vaginal sex, like oral sex) or will always be faithful to your child. Without that assurance, your child can still get HPV from their future partner, even if there is only one. In fact, 50% of people who get HPV get it in their first sexual experience.
It has been proven in many studies that vaccinating against HPV has no effect on children's sexual activity--children are NO MORE LIKELY to engage in sexual activity if they are vaccinated, they're just much less likely to get cancer when they're older.
@RichardKPE @thekimmer It's not about justifying it in general, it's about justifying it to an unnecessarily resistant population. Unless you make an effort to understand it by their terms, you're not going to make any progress in protecting those kids from disease.
My younger daughter had the shot as soon as it was released. She also had the chicken pox shot as soon as it was released.
All three of my kids had the 2nd MMR as soon as it was recommended.
I got the shingles shot as soon as the health department would give it.
If you can forestall something like this, why not do so?
I had an aunt who died as a 10 year old of lockjaw from a compound fracture that was not properly cleaned. I recall my mother's description of her sister's death.
Too many (thankfully, i guess) do not remember the horrors of polio before the vaccine.
Your daughter must be at least 30; the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine has existed since the 1980s, and has been required in most states since the early 2000s. You obviously like patting yourself on the back, but the chicken pox vaccine is hardly a new item.
It is important that young girls and boys know that the CDC states that 30% of cervical cancers will not be prevented by the vaccine. Safe sex behavior and regular pap smears will always be critical. And, the vaccine does not protect against other STDs. Regular routine pap smears has resulted in greatly reduced cervical cancer deaths over the last couple of decades, before the introduction of vaccines. Having the vaccine should not make anyone complacent. There are around 100 strains of HPV and these vaccines only protect against a few critical ones. They do not protect against all strains related to cervical cancer.
@jupiter9 That statement is misleading in that it downplays the importance and benefits of the vaccine. The HPV vaccine is very effective and very important because it can reduce cervical cancer and genital wart rates to next to nothing. The quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil4) protects against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers and cancers of the penis, anus, throat, vagina and vulva. The new nonavalent vaccine (Gardasil9) protects against the strains of HPV that cause 90% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. This means that if ten people were going to get cervical caner, with the vaccine, only one will. That's a significant impact. 3,600 of the 4000 women who will die in the US each year from cervical cancer could be saved. That's 3,600 families that won't have to go through that pain and suffering of losing someone to a preventable disease every year.
So no, they won't prevent all cases of cervical cancer (or other HPV-related cancers) but they will have a HUGE impact on reducing those numbers. The strains of HPV not covered by the vaccine are mostly harmless or cause minor issues like finger and plantar warts.
You are correct, we should continue to promote other safe sex methods like condom use, to prevent against other STDs, because the HPV vaccine only protects against HPV. It should also be noted that condoms are not very effective at protecting against HPV, particularly because they are rarely used for oral sex, and HPV can be transmitted during oral sex.
Pap smears have indeed reduced cervical cancer deaths in the US, however 1) in developing countries cervical cancer remains the number two cause of cancer-related deaths in women and 2) there is still a high burden of disease on American women. For example, Pap smears test for problems that have already started to develop, which means they must be treated (through painful procedures that also have risks like complications in future pregnancies). In contrast, HPV vaccine prevents you from ever developing those issues so you do not have to suffer through those treatments and their risks.
Yes, it should be emphasized that Pap smears are still important, because the vaccine will not protect from 100% of cancers, and Pap smears allow us to detect cancers early and improve your chances of living. It is anticipated that guidelines will change to make pap smears less frequent for vaccinated women, but more research needs to be done before warranting a change in national recommendations.
Aslo this is Obamacare outta controll
There are pros and cons to this vaccine. Anyone considering the vaccine should look up HPV research and read as much as they can and determine, with their physician what is best for their situation. It's a new vaccine and whether it will reduce cervical cancer deaths will not be known for many years or decades. We are in the infancy of research on this vaccine. One study/headline that the CDC announced in recent years implied HPV vaccine success. But, if you read the full article, and get down to the fine details, you see this statement towards the end: “The decline in vaccine type prevalence is higher than expected and could be due to factors such as to herd immunity, high effectiveness with less than a complete three-dose series and/or changes in sexual behavior we could not measure,” said Dr. Markowitz. So, they don't know if the decline in this study was due to the vaccine or changes in sexual behavior. We need to, at least, sort that one out. The attention given to HPV in recent years may certainly lead to changes in sexual behavior, with or without the vaccine.
@jupiter9 This is also misleading or just honest misinterpretation of the information. 1) we have already seen a decline in the strains of HPV that are prevented by the vaccine BUT NOT IN THE STRAINS THAT AREN'T PREVENTED BY THE VACCINE. This is a strong indication that the vaccine is working as planned.
Furthermore, there is already evidence of an impact on HPV-related diseases. You're right we can't say cervical cancer rates are declining because cervical cancer takes decades to develop. This means that the first group of vaccinated girls is not yet old enough to show the effects of the vaccine on cancer rates. However, pre-cancerous lesions precede cervical cancer development (this is what Pap smears and colposcopies check for) and develop much earlier. We HAVE seen a significant decline in pre-cancerous lesions of the cervix, particularly in women who were vaccinated as girls. The reason we would see a smaller, but still significant decline in lesions in unvaccinated women is that herd immunity allows for some degree of protection of unvaccinated people by reducing their chances of being exposed to the disease. This would bring the total impact up. Impact could also be increased because we did not account for good protection with 1 or 2 doses instead of the recommended 3 doses (the US has not studied whether the number of doses significantly affects the effects of the vaccine, but other countries have done so and have found very good protection with only 2 doses).
In addition, in countries where vaccination rates are very high, genital warts have nearly disappeared.
Again, many studies have shown that vaccination has no effect on sexual activity. Other national studies have found no significant changes in sexual behavior that could account for this decline, so it's incredibly unlikely that sexual behavior is the cause. We are 99% sure that the vaccine caused decreases in vaccine-type HPV (there is no other logical explanation!), but until we are 100% sure, the CDC isn't going to make an absolute statement, because that's just not how we do things the medical research world.
Im agianst vaccienes and wont let my chilred get them cuz it mite cauze barin damage and stun there groth. That last thig we need is dumm kids.
It causes pre-teen onset autism and government mind control.
@jarvis1975 I assume you're going to provide some scientific study that backs this up?
@RichardKPE - I think he's being sarcastic.
It can prevent cancer. What's the debate, aside from fearmongering or other idiocy?
@Aquagirl If teh vaccenation cauze UR kids 2 be retraded why wuld U do it?
@Aquagirl Actually, that hasn't been proven yet. This vaccine is new and whether it reduces cervical cancer deaths will not be known for many years or decades. When these teenagers who first received the vaccine are in their 40's and 50's, we will know more. We don't know how many years the vaccine will last, if it wears off, if the virus will mutate, etc.
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl The science knows that HPV can cause cancer. Vaccines are not new, and science has all but eradicated many diseases due to vaccinations. (since there are some who are against any vaccinations, we see a resurgence of previously prevantable diseases making a comeback.
Vaccines provide a cure with extremely low risk. It should not be stopped just because you don't think results will be shown for many years.
@LogicalDude I'm not suggesting it be stopped, just that we stick with known facts when we discuss any vaccine.
And, your statement about resurgence of previously preventable diseases is misleading as well. Scientists have learned that pertussis is cyclical and new outbreaks are at times related to that cyclical nature and not necessarily tied to non-vaccinations. Also, the baboon study by the FDA showed that vaccinated persons can transmit the disease. THis was not known until recent years. Researchers have also learned that some outbreaks are due to the vaccine effectiveness waning. There are some outbreaks related to travelers and non vaccinated persons, but many outbreaks have been due to other reasons. It is more complex than many realize.
With the HPV vaccine, we don't yet know if it lasts more than 4-5 years. The manufacturers do not guarantee it past that time period and it has not been approved by the FDA for adults over age 26 (or been tested on people over that age), so what happens to the risk of these men and women at age 30? I am not suggesting this is a reason to not vaccinate, but we don't know the long term results.
Also, the HPV vaccine does not cure cancer. It prevents some types of HPV that are related to cervical cancer, but not all types of cancer related HPV. The majority of women with HPV will never get cervical cancer. In most cases, the body rids itself of the virus on its' own. This has been verified in mainstream research. For those women who do progress towards cervical cancer, the majority of those cases can be prevented with regular pap smears that catch things in the pre-cancerous stage. According to WHO, 80% of cervical cancer deaths occur in impoverished areas of the world. Access to routine pap smears and medical care is key.
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl The HPV vaccine isn't new. It's nearly 10 years old. Normally vaccines are mandated for school about 2 years after they are approved by the FDA because any previously unknown side effects will arise within the first 1-2 years of being available for a large population.
Over 63 million doses have been given without any serious side effects.
We have already seen declines in the strains of HPV prevented by the vaccine and in the lesions that precede cervical cancers.
We're not going to wait 30-40 years for cervical cancers to develop to use a medicine that will prevent thousands from dying of cancer. That's much more harmful than the infinitesimally small chance of discovering an unknown serious side effect at this point in the vaccine's development. I'm certainly not going to use that incredibly flawed logic to put my child at risk of suffering and dying from a disease I could have prevented.
@jupiter9 @Aquagirl Also, if we waited to see if viruses would mutate we would never make ANY vaccines. Viruses, like all other things, are always evolving (and yes, they mutate at faster rates than most other organisms). We can NEVER say, "hey, this virus is done mutating! We can create a vaccine that will work forever!" So instead we make vaccines for the virus in its form now, and if the virus mutates in a harmful way or a way that makes the vaccine ineffective, we stop using that vaccine and develop an alternative.
@jupiter9 @LogicalDude You're right that vaccine outbreaks are caused by many factors, but it is clear that unvaccinated people have a very large role to play in those outbreaks. We know this because outbreaks occur more often and in larger sizes in areas where there is a cluster of unvaccinated people. E.g. a school with a group of kids who are unvaccinated is much more likely to experience an outbreak of that disease than a school with no or only a few unvaccinated children.
I say we leave those few allowable unvaccinated spots for children who CAN'T get vaccines because they're already going through chemotherapy or have an allergy.
HPV was approved for use in 2006. We have almost 10 years of data showing its long-term effectiveness, and we have already seen a significant decline in the lesions that precede cervical cancers, indicating that in the future, there will be a decline in cervical cancer rates. And not vaccinating because you think it might not work forever is not logical. TDaP doesn't work forever--that's why we get booster shots. If we find out that HPV wears off after 20 years, we will research vaccinating older individuals with booster shots. If those don't work, well you got a good 10, 20, 30 years of protection.
Yes, HPV vaccine prevents the virus that causes cancer--it doesn't cure cancer once it has developed or cure HPV after you contract it. But your comments are misleading. Pap smears were a wonderful contribution to women's health and have drastically reduced the number of women who develop full-blown cervical cancer. However, there are still 12,000 women every year in the US who get cervical cancer and 4000 who die from it. Their lives matter too, and their suffering and deaths are now preventable.
In addition, Pap smears detect pre-cancerous lesions, while HPV vaccine prevents you from ever having to develop those lesions. These cervical lesions can be thought of as a disease burden in their own right. Have them tested to see if they are already cancerous and treated is a painful and scary process which comes with its own risks such as miscarriage in future pregnancies.
So while Pap smears are wonderful and expending access is a hugely important goal, HPV vaccination is better.