HPV vaccine

[StratusRose]

Many people seem to be lacking common sense these days, should I expect the same with facts?

Well, obviously if it ‘only’ protects against 70% then it does not protect against the other 30%. What I took issue with is how you focused on the ‘negative’ part of the vaccine (only protects against X of Y strains) while ignoring the ‘positive’ part (those strains cause 70% of cervical cancers). Instead of harboring a false sense of security, your post gave the false sense of futility. That is quite disingenuous. Since the vaccine is not mandated, people are free to choose either way. Why not accurately present both the pros and cons?

I don’t trust it because the vaccine is relatively new and the long term side effects have not been documented or established. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have positive affects, but you will note that I said I am leery of it in my original post.

 

[HouseArrest]

I just checked it out on wikipedia, which is by no means reliable, but they do list their sources, so they may be accurate. According to them,

So you’re not really protecting yourself against much. Then again, cervical cancer is a pretty bitter pill to swallow if you could have prevented it but didn’t.

Another couple of stats I found interesting:

I’d probably get the vaccine. Yes, it is protecting against an STD, but all it takes is for either you or your spouse to have made one mistake in the past… It’s better to be safe than sorry.

If 80% of women contract HPV wouldn’t there be more than 3,900 deaths each year because of it? Or do a small % of the cases of HPV cause the cancer? Can a man find out if he carries it? This may sound rude of me but in my twenties I would not have continued to date a man if I found out he carried something that could cause me to get cervical cancer. What if the strain he had wasn’t one of the 4? Can he find that out, too?

There just seems to be something wrong with this statistic.

 

[Benedictus]

I guess I don’t understand HPV either. If a man carries it, is there nothing he can do about it?

Even if there were a treatment for HPV, there is no test for HPV in men, and most men will show no symptoms.

 

[Benedictus]

If 80% of women contract HPV wouldn’t there be more than 3,900 deaths each year because of it? Or do a small % of the cases of HPV cause the cancer?

Only a small number of the strains of HPV cause cervical cancer. There are over 60 strains of HPV. Of those, 15 are considered high-risk for cervical cancer and 3 are considered “probably high-risk”. However, some of these strains are more common than others. Two of the high-risk strains (strains 16 and 18) cause over 70% of cases of cervical cancer, and it is these two strains that are covered by the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines (Gardasil also protects against two strains, 6 and 11, that cause 90% of cases of genital warts but are considered low-risk for cervical cancer).

Not all women infected with one the strains considered high-risk will get cervical cancer.

Can a man find out if he carries it?

Generally, no. There’s no test for HPV in men. A man will only know he has HPV if he notices a symptom (e.g. genital warts).

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Facts might be cool, but I personally don’t like wikipedia as a source of facts. Sometimes facts on wiki are opinions or just plain made up. I know many schools on term papers and the like insist that wiki not be cited as a source; or if wiki is used, there must be at least one reliable backup source.

These are the results of of googling, “How many women in U.S. get cervical cancer?” It came from the American Cancer Society, a much more accurate site if ever there was one.

Now then, as of 2006, there was a prediction that 11,150 women received a diagnosis of cervical cancer in 2007. The ACS says 3670 would die of cervical cancer in 2007. They don’t say how they know that, so let’s just go with the 11,150 who were diagnosed.

The Census Bureau says there are about 303, 297,254 people in the United States as of ten minutes ago. As of 2005- 150,400,000 were women and girls. 11,150 women are alleged to be diagnosed with cervical cancer. 0.003676% of the entire U.S. population contracted cervical cancer in 2007, allegedly. 0.00741% of all women AND girls in the entire U.S. are alleged to have contracted cervical cancer. The odds of getting cervical cancer are 1:13,489.

Further, there is evidence that it is not only sexual transmission, but also government evidence of a genetic predispostion to cervical cancer. As far as I know, there is no available vaccine for genetic disposition.

Gardasil is only effective 70% on 4 HPVs. The FDA and the manufacturer, Merck, don’t know if there will be a need for booster vaccines in the future. A series of 3 immunizations is required, at a cost of $360. There is still a need for cervical cancer screening (PAP tests and exams). People on blood thinners should not receive the vaccine at all, and those with a wekaned immune system. They just don’t know if it harmful to unborn babies, and they don’t know if it passes to breast milk. The side effects that are known can include, but not necessarily are: pelvic pain, swelling in joints, swelling at the injection site, vomitting, dizziness, diarrhea, muscle pain. The age recommendation is 9-26.

If it was me: I would wait for the Euro/ Aussie vaccine, after checking out its statistics. I don’t plan to get it for my daughter when she turns 9 this year. I am not against vaccines persay, but I want a lot more data, and I have the time to wait. Being well out of the age group to receive it, I’ll keep up my annual PAPs, thank you. If one comes along for older women, I will wait until I am fairly sure ther are suficient facts to prove it does something.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’d like to add that I had this test done last year, prior to moving to Florida–as part of my annual visit to the ob/gyn. She recommended that I be tested, even though I have been married for 16 years–because my husband could have contracted it before our marriage, and could carry it up to 20 years! My husband thought it was a stretch–but I had the test done. It came back negative, thankfully–but, if it came back positive, she said they provide treatment, and a woman’s pap smear can turn up negative, even if she has a strain of HPV…So, I encourage women on here to at least be tested specifically, BEYOND YOUR NORMAL PAP, if you or your husbands had even just one sexual partner before your marriage. Most insurance picks it up, now, because doctors are recommending these tests.

I wanted to add that because if you do test positive for HPV–it doesn’t mean it will automatically lead to cancer. My doctor last year told me that HPV is often cleared up on its own in women, but when it isn’t…that’s when the HPV test can detect early signs of it…and treat it. I personally did not want my 11 year old daughter getting a vaccination at this point, as my doctor also recommended against it for her age, as she did for her own children–because of the unknown side effects. However, I can see if someone is dating/about to marry someone who had a past sexually prior to them…wanting to have the vaccine.

 

[HouseArrest]

Thanks for the information. That does clear up a lot. The whole situation is just sad - that we have to worry about where our children’s husbands have been. I just don’t know what I would say to my 12 year old if I decided to get it for her.

Believe me it will be part of our talks - especially with our SONS!

 

[EeyoresButerfly]

One of the things my mother (who works in a hospital) was telling me was that even if you do not get cervical cancer, a diagnosis of HPV prevents you from having a vaginal birth. I believe she also said it means a lifetime of testing to monitor the disease. Those are some of the reasons she wants me to get it. I have talked with her about the possibility of longterm side effects, I have a B.A. in psychology and we have had extensive discussions of the dangers of new medicine, but looking at how the vaccine is manufactured (very similar to vaccines for other diseases) we are not too worried about that possibility.

I work with a lot of families with autism and I know that several vocal researchers and parents have tried to make vaccines look unsafe, but I do not buy their arguments. Overwhelmingly studies have shown that vaccines are not responsible for the neurological disorders they are being blamed and the chemical in question is almost never used anymore. I am not concerned with the safety as much as I wasy the ethics.

 

[Teakafrog]

I am very leery of this vaccine for 2 reasons.

1. HPV has hundreds of different “strands”… kind of like the flu virus. From what I have read, the vaccine only protects against 3 of these strands.
2. This vaccine has not been on the “market” for very long and I am concerned about long term side effects. Seems to me that companies like Gardisil (makers of the vaccine) are scaring young women into getting it with out weighing the short and long term side effects. Also, I think it harbors a false sense of security.

What she said. Plus, I think it’s like giving condoms to kids–encourages the behavior you’re trying to teach them is wrong. You’re essentially saying, “Don’t have sex–but we know you’re going to anyway”

 

[LilyM]

I understand the reasoning behind someone getting the vaccination in adult years, even if she plans to live a chaste life up until marriage, because one’s spouse might pass it to her during the marriage, from a sexual past that he had. (It’s passed the majority of the time through sexual contact) But, a spouse could also have HIV, and other diseases–should we use condoms? I mean…if a person leads a chaste life, he/she could marry someone who didn’t…and could be open to many diseases, but we as Catholics don’t believe in contraception in any form, or using condoms. So, it’s a strange thing, this HPV vaccine, because it presents a moral question when it comes to looking at other diseases as well. I thought about that last night, reading this thread.

Just my ramblings!

Condoms are not quite the same thing as a vaccine - vaccines don’t prevent conception either as an effect or a sideffect. If I intended to get married or have sexual relations with someone, knowing as I do now, I’d probably not sleep with them without them and myself being tested for STIs, but I digress.

If there was a vaccine against AIDS, chlamydia or any other STI I would almost certainly get vaccinated. God didn’t give me my life or my health to play Russian roulette with - if a disease is preventable, prevent it!

Lord knows there is STILL enough risk of STI out there to scare any sensible person into chastity. Those who indulge in risky or immoral behaviour because of a vaccine against ONE type of STI are those who would do so anyway.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

One of the things my mother (who works in a hospital) was telling me was that even if you do not get cervical cancer, a diagnosis of HPV prevents you from having a vaginal birth. I believe she also said it means a lifetime of testing to monitor the disease. Those are some of the reasons she wants me to get it. I have talked with her about the possibility of longterm side effects, I have a B.A. in psychology and we have had extensive discussions of the dangers of new medicine, but looking at how the vaccine is manufactured (very similar to vaccines for other diseases) we are not too worried about that possibility.

I work with a lot of families with autism and I know that several vocal researchers and parents have tried to make vaccines look unsafe, but I do not buy their arguments. Overwhelmingly studies have shown that vaccines are not responsible for the neurological disorders they are being blamed and the chemical in question is almost never used anymore. I am not concerned with the safety as much as I wasy the ethics.

Well, ethically I would have to sort it out. But, to my mind, a less than 1/1000th of a percent of a chance of contracting cervical cancer with the necessity of a genetic predisposition not enough reason to go around insisting every little girl from 9 years to 17 get it. It makes me angry with merck, quite frankly.

I am going to doublecheck that about people who show positive for HPV not being allowed to have a vaginal birth.

OK, this is what I found:

Some/ rare instances of c-section instead of vaginal birth for HPV IF warts are present, and bleeding or blocking the birth canal:

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/stds_hpv_pregnancy.html

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/stdhpv.htm#16

Remove warts before the birth:

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/sti/hpv.htm

Neonates at a slightly higher risk for HPV through vaginal birth:

http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/92

So, it is possible that a c-section would be indicated in some instances for HPV, but not always.

 

[dixieagle]

This is a very topical and important subject. According to the Centers for Disease Control**, “by age 50 more than 80% of women will have acquired genital HPV infection”** !!! (Says a LOT about morality today, doesn’t it, as it is transmitted through genital contact.)

Although only a small percentage of women with HPV will eventually develop cervical cancer, most cases of cervical cancer are directly traceable to HPV infection.

Decisions about whether young daughters should get the vaccine are complicated, for sure. My only misgiving is that it hasn’t been around long enough to determine any long-term consequences.

I have told my daughters that I have NO moral qualms about it; even if they are 1) a virgin 2) a virgin now in a monogamous marriage with another previous virgin, there is the awful possibility of sexual attack, rape, etc. My gut feeling is to go with it, but it is such an individual decision (not one I would solely leave up to an 11 year old, however.)

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is a very topical and important subject. According to the Centers for Disease Control**, “by age 50 more than 80% of women will have acquired genital HPV infection”** !!! (Says a LOT about morality today, doesn’t it, as it is transmitted through genital contact.)

I looked it up at cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm .

This is where I have a problem with your logic to my mind:

1.) It does not say which types of HPV.
2.) It does not give specific numbers based on how many women in the United States are over 50, or a breakdown on when they seem to acquire HPV.
3.) It doesn’t say that’s how women over 50 die.

So, if 80% of women acquire some HPV, do they all acquire cervical cancer? Based on the figures from the American Cancer Society and the Census Bureau, no.

The CDC says it’s heart disease, followed by cancer. It does not break down which cancer kills women.

On another page, 36.2% of all death of women in the United States in 2004 was from cancer between the ages of 45-54. It’s 41.5% between the ages of 55-64, drops for heart disease ages 65-74, then comes back for 65-74. After that, it’s heart disease all the rest of the way.

Even so, the CDC does **not **separate out how many women in 2004 died of what types of cancer. There is no way to tell if it’s from lung cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, etc. There are no numbers, just percentages off a total. I would need to know just how many women died in 2004 in the US.

Getting a cancer, or getting a virus, does not mean death. Further, Gardasil has no effect on women over 26. We have to rely on good PAPs (not a swaby-by so to speak) and virus checks.

I want more stats before I let my daughter receive Gardasil. She has time.

I think a 24 year old woman could receive it, if she is aware that it won’t wipe out everything, and might not even stop the 4 that Gardasil is supposed to stop. I would also look into the Euro/Aussie vaccine and see if it does a better job than Gardasil.

 

[lawlerml]

It is not that Gardasil has no effect on women over 26. The clinical trials were done up to age 26; thus the CDC(ACIP) recommemded its use based on the clinical trial information. Approximately 74% of HPV cases annually occur in ages women ages 15-24. Also, keep in mind that the newer vaccine cervarix covers fewer strains of HPV.
I think it is important to do what we can to prevent disease. We have tools to prevent and treat all sorts of diseases. This is one of the few vaccines to prevent cancer. I often wonder if these types of discussions would occur if the vaccine was for diabetes, or heart disease?

 

[hasikelee]

I don’t understand the moral troubles over this…I suppose people hear “sexually transmitted” and get worried.

Maybe some women will get the vaccine and think they can more freely have premarital intercourse…too bad for them!

Wait on the vaccine and watch what happens. Then make a more informed choice. Merck got this drug slammed through the red tape very quickly with a lot of money changing hands.

There is much to be found out about it before getting it!

 

[DiannaK]

One of the things my mother (who works in a hospital) was telling me was that even if you do not get cervical cancer, a diagnosis of HPV prevents you from having a vaginal birth. I believe she also said it means a lifetime of testing to monitor the disease.

I have to disagree with her … I’ve been diagnosed with HPV, to the point of high-grade dysplasia. (Pre-cancerous cells, left untreated, that would eventually develop into cancer). I’ve had two LEEP’s (laser surgery on my cervix) to treat these areas of dysplasia. My OB knows about my diagnosis, and I’ve never been told I couldn’t have a vaginal birth. I’ve had 1 vaginal birth since the diagnosis, and am planning on having another.

As far as a lifetime of testing … it does mean more frequent Pap smears, if you are showing dysplasia. I went through a period of 2 years, where I was having Pap smears every 3 to 6 months. Currently, my Paps have looked fine, so I’m back to yearly monitoring.

I’ll get the vaccine for my girls, but only after 1) it’s been on the market for a few more years, and 2) I have more time to research the side effects.

 

[twk001]

As a nurse, I’m looking at it from the standpoint of research. In relation to other vaccines out therre, Gardisil was barely researched. Only 1000 girls for something like a 5 year period. Hardly enough research. I need to KNOW that if I get my daughter vaccinated that in 20 years we won’t find out that she suffers from infertility or bone loss or some strange side effect that hadn’t been found during trials. This actually happens a LOT. Remember Thalidomide? It was given like crazy in the 70’s and early 80’s for morning sickness during pregnancy and almost 90% of those babies were born with severe and deadly birth defects. It was only researched for a few years also. Remember DES? It was given in the 60’s and 70’s. Females who’s moms took it will pass on the negative effects for 3 or 4 more generations. Research on that drug took just 24 months. Yes, these are meds with little research behind them. Same with the vaccine. As a nurse, I firmly refuse to give it to my kids. Case closed. twk

 

[Delphinus85]

I have sort of a dilemma. My mother is really encouraging me to get the HPV vaccine before I lose my opportunity (I’m 23 and right now 25 is the oldest you can be to get it.) She works in the lab of a hospital and sees on a daily basis how life-changing a diagnosis of HPV is. She also knows that I am saving sex for marriage. I talked to her on the phone tonight and she had a good point. She told me that just because I am not sexually active does not mean my future husband isn’t. I know there are many otherwise “good” catholic men (and women) who have engaged in premarital sex at some point in their life. She tells me I shouldn’t bet my reproductive health on my husband being honest with me about his sexual past.

Even so, I do feel kind of conflicted about the idea. I know it’s for my own good, but at the same time, it sort of feels like I’m saying “I trust you to be honest with me about your past, but I’m going to protect myself in case you’re not”, almost like getting a pre-nup. Advice?

This is no different than getting a MMR vaccine or anything else. You are just protecting yourself from an infection, and a dangerous one at that. It has nothing to do with your future husband or anything like that. STDs are USUALLY transmitted by sex, but that isn’t ALWAYS the case, it’s better to be safe than sorry. It’s not like you are getting it to make sure you can sleep around. It’s just a protective measure against whatever could happen.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

vran.org/vaccines/hpv/hpv.htm

some info on Gardasil for anyone interested. Some points that really stuck out to me:

FDA approval was NOT based on actual cancer prevention: FDA did not approve Gardasil based on the vaccine’s actual prevention of cervical cancer but on the prevention of precancerous lesions. How effective is Gardasil in decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer? No one knows because this question has not yet been answered. As of April 2007, ** Gardasil vaccine has never been proven to decrease the actual incidence of cervical cancer**. ([See article in Cancer Monthly.](http://www.cancermonthly.com/(name removed by moderator)/view.asp?ID=169))

Lack of testing in 9—13 yr olds: The Gardasil monograph states: “efficacy of the vaccine in this age group [9—13 yr olds] has not been demonstrated”.

Rate of targeted HPV infections is extremely low: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), the panel of “experts” who recommended funding of Gardasil states: “It [HPV infection] is not a nationally notifiable disease in Canada and, to date, no population-based studies have been published.” A study estimating the American population prevalence of HPV infection published in the Feb 28, 2007 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that only 3.4% of women aged 14—59 yrs were infected with one of the HPV types in Gardasil; only 2% were infected with one of the two types that are in the vaccine and are associated with cervical cancer.

Incidence of cervical cancer is low: Annually, U.S. statistics (and we can assume that Canadian statistics follow suit) show only 3—4 cases of cervical cancer per 100,000 females aged 9—26 years. In her article “Not So Miraculous”, Dr. Moira Terese Dolan, M.D. states in reference to the U.S.: “Gardasil’s reduction of pre-cancers by 12.2% in the general population would mean that instead of 30—40 cases of cancer, there would only be 26—35 cancers. So it would take vaccination of a million girls to prevent cancer in 4—5 girls. About 37% die from cervical cancer, so that would prevent 1—2 deaths. So **$360 million in vaccine would prevent 1—2 deaths.”

continues…**

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

this one is thought provoking:

HPV is usually benign: The March 21, 2007 article on fwdailynews.com states: “75% or more of girls and women may test positive for HPV at some points in their lives. But, in adolescents, in 75—90% of those cases, the virus clears up on its own within 8—12 months, including those that may be cancer-causing”.
**
so to the OP, do your research…make an informed decision. Not one based off of fear or pressure from your mom. She loves you and wants to see you safe and healthy but she may not have all of the facts. maybe you could learn about it together?

Malia**