Posted on 12/22/2011 5:35:47 AM PST by markomalley
Organised HPV vaccination combined with screening could potentially prevent most cervical cancer. Vaccinations alone will not prevent cervical cancer unless their efficacy is longer than 15 years; if the duration of efficacy is shorter and efficient boostering is not organised, the onset of the cancer in women is merely postponed. Previous studies have already shown that a willful cessation of screening in a generation of women who had little contact with friends who were developing or dying from invasive cervical cancer has resulted in increases in cervical cancer rates measurable at the population level. Misunderstanding of the benefits of individual HPV vaccination is real. If even more young vaccinated adolescents mature into women who willfully refuse cervical cancer screening, the population rates of cervical cancer will increase.The underlined portion I attribute specifically to you. Once the HPV vaccination is as safe in the field as an MMR, has a proven efficacy of fifteen years or longer (organized boostering is a non-starter), and organized screening is ingrained in the population, I'll support it. Evidence exists that none of these requirements have been met and therefore I do not. I do not expect you to understand this simple logic, but I do believe the vast majority of readers that follow along will -- despite the level of intelligence you attribute to us. Those sharing your one-sided point of view may well, and unintentionally, increase in the incidence of the disease you so despise. I do not find that irony amusing; it is indeed heart-wrenching.
If you want to call me "delusional" because I immediately saw your thinly veiled judgmentalism for what it was, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that you've displayed a callous disregard for women's health, and nothing you can say or do at this point changes that. Nevermind that those little girls for whom you profess such concern grow up into the women you don't give a hoot about.
It also seems that you're jealous over the fact that I'm smarter than you, and that, thanks to my experience in HPV research, I know more about the subject than almost anyone outside of the medical research community. Envy is a sin; get over it.
What's your point in posting that quote? It doesn't say anything that contradicts a single thing I've said. Without specifying vaccination status, it says that women who don't get screened develop invasive cancer at a higher rate than women who do get screened. That's a no-brainer; I've never said otherwise. If you really did look at my past posting history, you would have seen that I have *never* said that HPV vaccination is a substitute for PAP tests, and I *have* said that I would be concerned that the vaccine would give a false sense of security, points which are brought up in that Lancet article. The vaccine only prevents 2 of the dozen or so HPV strains that cause cervical (and other) cancer; of course screening is still needed. The current recommendation is for vaccination and routine PAP tests--exactly the position I try to communicate. As for the length of protection given by the vaccine--it *is* a good sign that several years after the introduction of the vaccine, immunity still seems to be going strong. Although it has not been established yet whether a booster will need to be given at some point, that is a non-issue--many vaccines require periodic boosters. I'm up-to-date on all my boosters--are you?
Oh, yeah, congratulations on finding a link to a genuine peer-reviewed medical journal. That's MUCH better than HuffPo. Also, you might try looking at pubmed.org, a database where millions of medical research articles are indexed, and just stay away from sensationalist, agenda-driven media.
Once the HPV vaccination is as safe in the field as an MMR...
It's actually safer than both the MMR and the DTaP vaccines.
...has a proven efficacy of fifteen years or longer (organized boostering is a non-starter)
That's a non-issue; booster shots are required for a number of vaccines.
and organized screening is ingrained in the population, I'll support it. Evidence exists that none of these requirements have been met and therefore I do not.
"Organized screening" has been promoted by the gynecological community since Dr. Papanicolaou first developed the test back in the 1940s. Screening does not prevent disease; it catches disease while it is still curable. In many areas of the world where women are not screened, the HPV vaccines have the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives annually, without screening.
I'll admit to a little bit of curiosity about what you think "my side of the coin" is. I'm a medical research doctor; I have a strong interest in promoting accurate scientific knowledge. I'm a member of several scientific societies, all of one of which promote scientific literacy and human health. What would be the other side of the coin? Quacks who want to sell snake oil for a quick profit? Agenda-driven websites posting all kinds of pseudo-scientific jargon with the sole purpose of hoodwinking people? I think I'll stick to my side of the coin, thank-you-very-much.
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.