Posted on 06/23/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW
Gardasil Facts-By Peg Luksik, PhD
Gardasil is a vaccine for 4 types of HPV developed by Merck. It is currently being marketed to parents as a way to “protect your daughter’s future from cervical cancer and genital warts”. In fact, on the Merck web site for Gardasil, the vaccine is headlined as “the only cervical cancer vaccine.” (Appendix A, p 1) Merck is also involved in an intensive state-by-state lobbying campaign to have Gardasil mandated for girls as young as 9. (Appendix B)
Is Gardasil a “cervical cancer vaccine”?
No. Gardasil has no effect on cervical cancer whatsoever.
Does Gardasil actually “protect your daughter’s future from cervical cancer and genital warts”?
No, it doesn’t.
Why not?
Gardasil offers SOME protection against SOME of the Types of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer.
There are over 40 Types of HPV, and 15 of them have been linked to cervical cancer and/or genital warts. Gardasil has been developed to vaccinate against the 4 Types that have the highest correlation with cancer and genital warts.
However, unlike the smallpox vaccine, for example, Gardasil does not grant full immunity to those 4 Types of HPV. Additionally, in the studies offered to the FDA in Merck’s application for approval, data indicated that Gardasil MAY INCREASE your daughter’s risk of developing cervical disease if she already had one of the relevant strains of HPV at the time of vaccination (Appendix E, p13 & 25).
Gardasil offers no protection against the other 11 strains of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer. Those strains currently account for 30% (Appendix A, p6, Appendix B, p8) of the diagnosed cervical cancer cases. The continuing potential risk for the non-vaccine strains has led the FDA to require that Merck conduct further studies to determine whether the long-term effect of Gardasil will be nothing more than a shifting in the dominant cancer-linked HPV strains (Appendix C, p1 & 7).
How does Gardasil work?
Like other vaccines, Gardasil stimulates the body to produce antibodies to protect the person from getting the virus when they are exposed to it. There must be enough antibodies in the blood to protect against infection when an exposure happens. The antibodies remain in the blood for some period of time, and the protection remains in effect as long as enough antibodies are there. Some protections last for a lifetime, so the vaccine does not need to be repeated. Others require periodic booster shots to ensure that enough antibodies remain in the blood to protect against infection. The level of antibodies can be measured through a blood test. It is reported as a Titer count.
To determine the duration of effectiveness of a vaccine, one needs to know what Titer count is necessary to ensure protection against the disease, and how long that Titer count will be maintained through a vaccination.
What Titer count is needed to protect my daughter against HPV?
Merck doesn’t know.
Its testing data indicates that Gardasil elevates the Titer count for the 4 Types of HPV targeted. It also indicates the Titer count drops after 7 months and continues dropping until 24 months post-vaccination. The studies only report Titer count levels for 36 months. Merck states that because so few subjects were tested, and therefore too few disease cases developed, they were unable to establish the minimum antibody levels necessary to protect against clinical disease caused by the 4 Types of HPV Gardsil targets. (Appendix D, p5)
The last thing that I read a few months back was some idiot statement like "80% of women over 50 have the virus and don't know it". WHAT? Then how do THEY know these women have it?!
Ummm ... ever heard of statistical extrapolation?
Hubby started a rant. He asked the woman why not just teach your daughters to keep their knickers on?
I find this unbelievably offensive. How about you teach your sons to keep it in their pants? Girls do not bear the brunt of responsibility for having/not having sex; in fact I would guess that girls are not the initiators of teenage sex most of the time. And it's not girls who rape, by and large, now is it? This was an offensive, chauvinistic, misogynist remark, which "Hubby" had no right to make concerning someone else's children.
Not all, which you admit later in your post.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing.
My point is that the 'advertising' and 'promotion' around this virus is misleading to parents. They should be given ALL the facts.
The father in the post did a service. He told the truth.
Yup. Most of us call it guessing. And "guesstimates" are not fact.
That's exactly what it is. . .hype. The manufacturer is trying to cash in while their patent is good. . .playing on people's fears while not telling the whole truth about HPV or about their vaccine.
Assuming you mean he has HPV when they marry, then I would suggest the following to all women:
Don't have sex until you are married.
Know the guy well before you marry him. Don't marry out of that rush of emotion - use your head.
Get him tested.
There are no guarantees she won't get HPV from her husband. . .or AIDS, or anything else. But people who refuse to be ruled by their hormones stand a much better chance of remaining free of STDs than those who refuse to use the brain God gave them.
By the way, the vaccine doesn't guarantee a female won't get HPV either.
Yippee Skippy for you. Telling girls that there is a vaccine for an STD virus is the wrong way to go about teaching them.
Girls do not bear the brunt of responsibility for having/not having sex;
They have to say "yes" if asked?
And it's not girls who rape, by and large, now is it?
Scare tactics. And why not? It works for the left.
This was an offensive, chauvinistic, misogynist remark, which "Hubby" had no right to make concerning someone else's children.
Comprehension is important. Read my post again.
See my post 127. Someone else asked the same question.
Go to the link in my post 121. There’s some straight info.
Forgot to tell you, the link in 120 says they stand to make $4billion. How many suits would lie to rake in that kind of money for their company? A lot.
Absolutely.
If we did not release any medication without making absolutely certain it had no side effects, we would not have any medications. We have excellent treatments and even cures for many conditions that previously were fatal. All of these were made possible by careful studies followed by public release.
And there is a LOT of money to be made.
Well of course. It is a business. Drug manufacturers are not in it for charity. I don't begrudge them their profits because it is profits from drug sales that drive research and development of new drugs. Usually only a few drugs a company makes turn a profit, some never recoup their R&D costs and run a loss. Blockbuster drugs that make large sales are necessary in order to subsidize research for these other drugs, which otherwise would never be made.
They have to say "yes" if asked?
Your implication here is exactly the point I was making--there are 2 people involved in sex, and one party should not be taking responsibility for both. Besides, many girls are not even asked; they are wheedled, bullied, and sometimes forced. Better education of boys would go a long way towards fixing that.
Scare tactics
If stating the blunt truth is a scare tactic, sure.
Comprehension is important. Read my post again.
It certainly is. Is there something you need me to clarify for you? The part of your post which I quoted is offensive, chauvinistic, and misogynist--moreso on a second reading.
It’s a wonder he wasn’t ejected in the first place, but it was Wal-Mart. I don’t get the point of arguing the safety of a medication with a minimum wage retail rep. It’s pointless. Belligerent and pointless.
In the FUTURE I trial,5 rates of grades 1 to 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ per 100 person-years were 4.7 in vaccinated women and 5.9 in unvaccinated women, an efficacy of 20%. Analyses by lesion type indicate that this reduction was largely attributable to a lower rate of grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in vaccinated women; no efficacy was demonstrable for higher-grade disease,
In the larger FUTURE II trial,6 rates of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were 1.3 in vaccinated women and 1.5 in unvaccinated women, an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.
Another factor explaining the modest efficacy of the vaccine is the role of oncogenic HPV types not included in the vaccine. At least 15 oncogenic HPV types have been identified,4 so targeting only 2 types may not have had a great effect on overall rates of preinvasive lesions In contrast to a plateau in the incidence of disease related to HPV types 16 and 18 among vaccinated women, the overall disease incidence regardless of HPV type continued to increase, raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18. An interim analysis of vaccine trial data submitted to the FDA11 showed a disproportionate, but not statistically significant, number of cases of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia related to nonvaccine HPV types among vaccinated women. Updated analyses of data from these ongoing trials will be important to determine the effect of vaccination on rates of preinvasive lesions caused by nonvaccine HPV types
What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did not enroll subjects in this age group.
I didn't know abstinence was so offensive. Imagine that.
Not when parents asking questions get some truth about Gardasil. See post 136
In this issue of the Journal, reports on two large, ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show the effect of this vaccine on important clinical outcomes, including rates of adenocarcinoma in situ and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after an average of 3 years of follow-up.5,6 Investigators in these trials have hit their mark soundly: the vaccine showed significant efficacy against anogenital and cervical lesions related to vaccine type in women with no evidence of previous exposure to vaccine-specific types; the vaccine also appeared to be safe. In addition, the studies report outcomes in all subjects regardless of HPV status at baseline and regardless of whether outcomes were related to HPV types targeted by the vaccine. Policymakers now have more evidence to assess the benefits and risks of widespread vaccination.
. . .Policymakers, clinicians, and parents have a keen sense of urgency about HPV vaccination. On one hand, the vaccine has high efficacy against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection. On the other hand, a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time. HPV vaccination has the potential for profound public health benefit if the most optimistic scenario of effectiveness is realized.
When I snickered, he said, "A lot of people have requested it, and we give it if they do, but my feeling is that there's not enough research to justify vaccinating nine-year-olds."
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.