Vaccine for Cancer-Causing Virus Could Spark Controversy

CNS News ^ | 4-28-05 | Patrick Goodenough

[FlyLow]

A newly developed vaccine for a virus linked to cervical cancer is likely to be widely welcomed as a crucial tool in the war against the killer disease - but also looks set to trigger a new ethical debate.

Manufacturers of the vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) say that in order to be effective, it must be taken before girls become sexually active, and so should be given to pre-teens.

HPV is a common sexually transmitted infection, which has multiple types, including types that are the leading cause of cervical cancer.

Health authorities say it's the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer, and in developing countries, more women of reproductive age die from cervical cancer -- about 250,000 a year -- than from any other form.

Although deaths in the U.S. are dropping each year as Pap smears become more routine, the American Cancer Society estimates that 3,710 women in America will die of cervical cancer in 2005.

Drug makers Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are both testing vaccines -- tradenamed Gardasil and Cervarix respectively - and successful small-scale trials have been reported.

GSK's product has been shown to protect against the two types of HPV mostly responsible for cervical cancer, while Merck's aims to protect against those two types, plus another two that are responsible for genital warts.

Earlier this month the medical journal The Lancet Oncology reported that a small-scale trial of Merck's vaccine found it had cut infection rates for cervical cancer and genital warts by 90 percent

[blackdog]

Discover a vaccine for testicular cancer which must be given to boys pre-puberty, and you will see the controvercy over HPPV immunization to little girls vanish like a fart in a windstorm.

[MeanWestTexan]

Why not give the vaccine to boys, anyway.

Generally speaking, it takes two to tango.

[tortoise]

I'm always for new vaccines. And beside which, vaccinations are much more robust solutions than cures in the current state of medicine.

While I see why they are giving it to women, I don't see why they would not give it to men as well since they are carriers. You'll squash the transmission in the general population better if you smack down the virus for both genders.

[Squawk 8888]

It's beyond me why giving the vaccine to kids would be controversial. It's a VIRUS for Pete's sake.

[DumpsterDiver]

Why not give the vaccine to boys, anyway.

I was wondering the same thing and the article didn't mention anything about it.

Further down in the article it quotes Christian Medical and Dental Associations' associate executive director Dr. Gene Rudd as follows:

Rudd also pointed out the risk of marrying a spouse who was already infected.

"Even parents who teach and expect their child to be virtuous should allow for the possibility that their child might someday marry a person who had previously acquired HPV," he said. "We would want protection in that circumstance."

[ruiner]

What do I not understand here . . .

Obviously a drug protecting against an STD should be ideally adminstered before sex occurs. They don't explicity say why sex or age "ruins" the ability of the vaccine to work. Why can't a girl be sexually active, not take the vaccine, change her mind and then be protected from then on?

[ruiner]

^^ Re my previous post, the example assumes she isn't infected .

[MD_Willington_1976]

MMR already somewhat does that, since mumps can cause orchitis, which in rare cases can lead to sterility and testicular cancer. Rubella, if a woman gets it during the first trimester of pregnancy, her child has an 85 percent chance of blindness, deafness, heart defects, or mental retardation.

So why not give children this shot too..then give them a booster in Highschool just like all the other boosters in high school?

I have no beef with this, and neither would my wife, we have an almost 3 year old boy and a daughter on the way..

MD

[Old Professer]

Taking back sex is like taking back a trip over the falls.

[BMIC]

Merck has never been one to shy away from producing vaccines using human fetal cell lines. Does anyone know if this one is made using such cells, initially derived from aborted fetuses? Please note I'm NOT saying that it is, but I really want to know, and unfortunately it wouldn't surprise me.

[leoncaruthers]

I read up on the research a while back, and I don't believe that's the case here. HPV is actually about 60+ virii that all live in skin cells rather than the bloodstream, which is why they are so hard to treat (normal warts and plantar warts are caused by other strains of the same virus that this vaccine is intended for). The technique they use is a virus-shaped shell of protein that basically shows the immune system what to look for in skin cells, and the synthesis of the shells does not involve embryonic tissue.