Posted on 08/26/2009 5:11:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
I sat at a picnic table listening to various mothers discussing their hectic schedules trying to keep up with teenage daughters, all on the same sports team. When one mother told of squeezing in an appointment that morning to get her daughter the HPV shot that her doctor recommended, the conversation turned to the necessity to "protect" their girls in such troubling times. I stayed quiet, hoping to learn the values guiding these parents' decisions. Predictably, they had not thought through the issues, nor did they know the facts.
Those mothers were merely following doctors' recommendations and that of all the experts. Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, was approved in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for females as young as nine and up to age 26. It has been marketed as a protection against four types of the human papillomavirus (HPV). Merck, the company that makes Gardasil, claims that the drug will protect against two types of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers and two types that cause 90 percent of genital warts. Every federal health authority recommends the shots and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about a quarter of the nation's 13-17 year olds have received the immunizations. The vaccine is on the CDC's vaccine schedule for 11- and 12-year-old girls, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends it.
Even so, some physicians remain wary of the trend to give young children a new, largely untried drug. A study in a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research revealed that about half of the doctors in a survey of over a thousand physicians in Texas did not routinely recommend Gardasil for their pre-teen patients.
What those Texas doctors suspected, we now know for sure - that serious concerns are legitimate regarding the use of Gardasil. The highly-promoted, so-called breakthrough vaccine that was recommended for all girls and given to numerous children and teens to prevent possible future cases of cervical cancer, is related to "adverse events" experienced by thousands of girls after taking the vaccine.
In a just-released article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, federal researchers report that after analyzing 12,424 "adverse events" [out of the 13,758 reports of problems as of May 1] voluntarily reported by girls vaccinated with Gardasil that two problems are common. One - fainting - is not inherently serious, but can be if the girl falls and hits her head. The other side effect - "dangerous blood clots" - is quite troubling. Most of the problems with Gardasil (93 percent) are minor: headache, nausea, and fever. But a disturbing seven percent included hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death.
"Adverse events" is a terribly clinical sounding description of such tragic outcomes. Perhaps more people should read the personal account of Jenny, a University of California, Berkeley professor's daughter who lost her life after getting the shot. (See Jenny's blog here)
Few parents would want their child to be among the 39 deaths to girls who had just taken the Gardasil shot. Nor would most parents want their child to take the risk of hospitalization, disability, or a life-threatening illness. Accurate information has not been forthcoming, including the fact that many additional reported cases of "adverse effects" had too few details. Thus, those cases were excluded from the study.
Even with the new information, numerous questions remain about the safety as well as the efficacy of the drug. Further, there are questions about the marketing of the drug. In fact, cervical cancer is relatively uncommon in the United States. The American Cancer Society reports under 4,000 deaths per year compared to the 250,000 deaths in other areas of the world, primarily in poor countries.
Plus, there are questions about Merck's grants to professional medical associations who promoted the vaccine's use without fully explaining the risks involved with taking the drug. Some doctors ask if the big push to sell Gardasil is Merck's method of making up the lost sales after their popular anti-pain medication Vioxx was banned. These facts raise questions about the appropriateness of recommending such a high-risk drug for widespread use among American children and teenagers.
In the wake of all the side effects, Merck has added warnings to the label on the drug. The warnings on all the labels state that some children receiving Gardasil have subsequent problems, such as autoimmune diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, paralysis, and seizures. Further, some doctors worry that not enough young girls were included in the clinical trials of the drug; they believe that there is really no way to know how pre-teen and teenage girls will react to such a high-powered vaccine. Merck acknowledges that the drug is effective for only five years, so giving the drug to 11 to 12 year olds hardly seems warranted.
Critics are especially concerned about the risk-benefit ratio of taking the HPV vaccine. Gardasil is very costly and most physicians recommend that women continue to get Pap smears, even if they have taken Gardasil. The known benefit of the regular Pap smear screening in preventing most cases of cervical cancer makes the benefit of the HPV risk uncertain.
In fact, Those mothers around that picnic table and the thousands of other parents concerned about the well-being of their daughters need to have all the facts and know the risks involved before subjecting their little girls to this new vaccine. States need to have these facts before discussing the possibility of mandating the vaccines for all pre-teen and teenage girls.
Thanks for your input but my husband and i have already discussed this with various physicians and we have made our decision. my soon to be 21 yo has made her own decision not to have the vaccine.
That’s great! But this is a discussion that you entered voluntarily, I assume. I know I did.
Of course. but again, the implication that those who are not in favor of vaccinating their daughters are somehow ignorant of the facts surrounding it, is offensive. I wouldn’t presume to impugn the intelligence or judgment of those who are willing to risk the vaccination of their children. I assume everyone has decided what they think is best for their children, after fully informing themselves.
Why?
It alledgedly only protects against 4 of the 11 viruses and comes with significant risk.
It only “protects” for 5 years, so could your actions be viewed as permission prior to graduating high school?
Thanks for your post with a good summary of facts. I did research on this awhile ago (my girls are 12). Decided not to do it. If anything, we might wait a few years and see how the vaccine works out.
OK. Where did I claim otherwise? I didn't claim this vaccine would prevent all cancer. You're fighting a straw man here.
That's true, but beside the point. Do you drive without a seatbelt because SOME kinds of accidents will be fatal anyway? I sure don't. Strong protection against SOME cancer is still a big win in my book.
(2) It lasts only five years.
Does that make the vaccine worthless? Is five years of protection worthless?
(3) You only get the virus from intimate contact. You can't get it from casual contact.
And, of course, we all know that children who are raised in good homes and taught abstinence will NEVER have intimate contact. Just like we know that our kids are taught to drive safely, so there's no point in telling them to wear their seat belts.
Let me put it this way: Do you feel that cervical cancer is an appropriate punishment for a daughter who messes up and goes too far? Better to leave her unprotected so she gets what she deserves?
It's my observation that you came into this discussion with a lot of angst about what you think people are thinking about your decision. My comment was extremely considerate of your views and your reaction in this thread suggests to me that maybe you aren't all that confident about your position.
Can we still stone her, though?
And there in lies the crux of my issue with the pushing of this vaccine. They are pushing it on PRE pubescent girls.
There has not been enough study on long term effects of this given to girls who are premenstrual and I have no intentions of subjecting my 11 year old to it, and our family doctor was thrilled to hear that, as he is not comfortable with the early push for it.
I think you are pushing the envelope a bit much here.
The majority of those of us who are not having our daughters vaccinated are making the decision based upon research.
I think the vaccine is a wonderful idea and could prove to be a great medical break through. However, I am not satisfied with the research done on girls that are still children in all sense of the word and that is where I draw the line in regard to the mandates.
In a few years, when she has actually reached adolescence, and there has been more study done, then we will discuss it. However, at the age of 11 I see absolutely no reason to subject her to it at this time, state mandate be damned.
What ARE the effects of this going to be ten or fifteen years from now? Will women be unable to get pregnant or have children with severe birth defects because they were given a vaccine that they NEVER NEEDED?
The idea that this needs to be mandatory due to rape is as absurd as the idea that 1.3 MILLION abortions are necessary because 3 to 5 THOUSAND of them are performed on rape victims.
Less than four thousand women die from cervical cancer each year. Yet THOUSANDS of girls are suffering severe side-effects (often serious) from a vaccine that WILL NOT eliminate cervical cancer.
This IS NOT polio, or even mumps, chicken pox or the measles. This is a vaccine for a PREVENTABLE virus.
Wow! This sounds EXACTLY like Zero's rationalization for murdering a baby every 24 seconds.
I do agree with you there.
Yeah, except a baby really isn't punishment. Cancer really is.
I doubt that a point by point examination of our respective positions is going to yield much.
I chose to get my daughters vaccinated because I weighed the various options, with full recognition of the possible dangers. The fears, in my situation, twice over, were unfounded.
What you choose to do with your daughters is for you to decide.
As for permission to have sex, did you get it from your parents prior to your first time? Or did you behave as a willful young person and do whatever you were going to do, consequences be damned?
So, where are the studies of the long-term effects of this wonder drug?
And for you to suggest that pediatricians (one of the poorest paid specialties) are ghouls who push unnecessary and harmful vaccines to make money on "well visits" is as reprehensible as Obama suggesting that surgeons amputate limbs for Evil Profit. And it's an insult to physicians who read their journals, attend their continuing education, and meet with their colleagues to provide the best possible care for their patients. You should be ashamed of that last paragraph of yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.