I feel extremely uneasy about both gardasil and hormonal birth control. Putting these things in our bodies and our daughters without serious personal research and investigation seems risky at best.

Drug companies number one goal is to make money.

It is important to remember that.

Once again, we find some alternative to talking about safer sex.

This study confirms my experience. I was afraid my conservative Christian mother would not allow me to get the HPV vaccine because of her opinions on premarital sex. To my surprise, she actually brought it up herself and asked me if I wanted to get it!

I have actually had the vaccine and it was my doctor who suggested it for all her of her female patients. My very conservative, very Christian mother was neither asked nor informed, but when my underage little sister was told to get one as well my mom actually did not have a problem with that at all.

They should be selling this vaccine to young men. Really just make a press release. Today MegoPharm is starting a long term study on the effects of HPV and penis cancer..Government payed vaccines would be available overnight and the Religious right would be crying out for compulsory vaccinations. .

I worry about this vaccine because it is expensive. The vaccines required for school enrollment aren't paid for by the schools, so parents have to pony up for every new vaccine. HPV is perceived as a reproductive health vaccine, will insurance even cover it? I see it as another example of drug companies playing on the fears of women to make money off them. It says on the ads for this drug that it doesn't even work for everyone, so why are all girls expected to get it?

I think it's a little sketchy as well. I have read that doctors have been paid to push the vaccine on women. I would feel better about it if it was cheaper, insurance covered all of it, or if there was a generic. I'm not a fan of big pharm. I would also want to wait a little longer to get the vaccine in case there are side effects that were not already known.

CJ: Early childhood vaccines don't work on everyone, either, but all kids are expected to get them because they do work on most people, and smallpox is bad.

It's just the nature of vaccines that they won't be effective on some people, or they'll give some people the disease they're supposed to protect against. That's a tiny, tiny fraction of patients, though. The real success of vaccines is what's called the herd effect: if enough people are vaccinated, the disease doesn't have a chance to survive in the population, so even the ones who aren't vaccinated, or for whom the shot didn't work, won't get sick.

My mom does not want me getting the vaccine. And she sites non-sexual reasons: Vaccines are not always bennificial. For instance, many children who had the chickenpox vaccine instead of getting chickenpox ended up contracting shingles at a young ages because they did not have immunity to the strain of the virus. In the long run, I would rather wait and see how things shake out with the medical community. On the note of penis cancer--HPV has been linked to some forms of throat cancer. Not sure if we should leak that news to the Christian right though--they would say its a God sent plauge for promiscous women and gay men, and women would have an even harder time with convincing boy toys to go reciprical on the oral.

Sketch:

the result reads sketchy: why arent moms getting their daughters vaccinated? lets do some research to figure this out, so we can further target all audiences, so that nobody is exempt.

its like polling women on what they think of politics, the 'women' vote, same deal, this is the 'mom'ness decision making.

I have a friend who is a a Chassidic Jew. This means that she believes there is a religious imperative for her daughter (and any son) to abstain from all premarital TOUCHING, and a requirement to follow religious rules about abstaining from sex during and after menstruation. She's getting her daughter vaccinated because as she put it, "Whatis g-d forbid, she's raped. What if g-d forbid her husband cheats on her and passes it on to her. What if she slips up--you can't do tshuva (repent) if you're dead!"

as much as I want to say "yes, bodily autonomy, choice, and really beware of big companies", I just can't get behind not vaccinating. It's not just your daughter you're putting at risk, it's everyone she sleeps with, and everyone they go on to sleep with. it's the same with earlier vaccines-only now it can be as much as people they come into contact with. I agree that vaccines should be free, and that's something to work on-as is greater access to medical care in general. But when it comes to choosing to vaccinate-the ratio of good to possible harm is just too high. vaccinate!!! the people you're putting at greater risk so that your precious child can avoid a tiny risk are someone's precious child.

i was also uneasy at first but decided to go ahead and get the vaccine. i just finished the third injection this past summer, and personally i'm glad i did it.

I've had both young women and their mothers refuse or defer the vaccine for a number of reasons. In my practice I'd say it's a slim majority who refuse because they want more info, but nearly as many who refuse because of their concern about premarital sex.

I'm no fan of Big Pharma, but this is the system we're stuck with. You won't find many studies like this funded by independent or public sources; most will be industry funded, as are most drug and vaccine studies in general in the US.

There's no evidence that the varicella vaccine increased the risk of shingles. That was a theoretical concern that has not been borne out by the evidence.

The HPV vaccine is not a live-virus vaccine and does not cause disease. We will know in the next few years if a booster shot is needed at five years. Is this too early to release the vaccine? I don't think so. We have reliable evidence of the safety of the vaccine. My daughter turns 9 next January and will be eligible for the vaccine; I may wait until she's 11 or 12 to have it given.

Insurance coverage is variable. Our insurance covers it. About 70% of the young women in my practice have had coverage for the vaccine.

hey guys, i'm currently getting a masters in public health and some of my profs are very interested in this HPV vaccine, so i have some stuff to add (i've only heard a bit about this though, so excuse if some of this is a bit off!).

first, most insurance companies (at least here in NC, and i believe nationwide) actually do cover this vaccine - and most who are not covered can get it paid for by federal programs. there hasn't been formal study on this yet, but one of the barriers that has been identified to getting the vaccine is that people don't know where to get it (not all doctors offices have it, and depending on your insurance, you might have to get the vaccine in another location), and they think it is going to be very expensive.

i'm a little wary of merck's extremely aggressive marketing efforts of this vaccine as well, but don't forget - this, just like any other drug, had to be vetted by the FDA before being released, and so far there are no significant or unusual side effects. i don't think being skeptical or critical of pharmaceutical companies means that we should reject the development of a vaccine that could essentially eradicate a type of cancer.

When the vaccine first came out and was declared mandatory by some school systems, it did not cover as many forms of HPV as the current version does. That was my big complaint about making the vaccine mandatory -- Merck was due to come out with an improved version soon and seemed to be using the first crop of girls as a big test pool. My main concern was the girls who only got the original version of the vaccine because it was required may think they were more protected than they actually were and not get the upgraded version. They would reasonably think that they had Gardasil already. The first wave of states that required the vaccine were more influenced by politics than science.

However, everytime I would try to defend my position that the vaccine in its then current version should not be mandatory, people assumed it was because of my religion (which is kind of odd, since I'm Buddhist). Even after explaining the science, most people fell back on the "logic" that some conservatives were against it so they had to be for it.

hey all, I actually just read an article in the NYTIMES about the HPV vaccine, here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/health/21vaccine.html?scp=2&sq=hpv&st=cse

It questions the vaccine. I for one am against this vaccine, I think its Big Pharma taking advantage of women.

“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug

the article continues:

"Researchers have not yet demonstrated how long the immunity will last, or whether eliminating some strains of cancer-causing virus will decrease the body’s natural immunity to other strains."

"More to the point, because cervical cancer develops only after years of chronic infection with HPV, Dr. Haug said there was not yet absolute proof that protection against these two strains of the virus would ultimately reduce rates of cervical cancer — although in theory it should do so."

and finally

"In developed countries, Pap smear screening and treatment have effectively reduced cervical cancer death rates to very low levels already. There are 3,600 deaths annually from cervical cancer in the United States, 1,000 in France and 400 in Britain."
"Cervical cancer, like skin cancer, can generally be caught at precancerous or non-invasive stages and treated. Because the vaccine prevents infection with only some of the cancer-causing strains, Pap smear screening must continue even in those who are vaccinated."

READ the article, its great and provides much needed insight!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/health/policy/20vaccine.html?fta=y

ohh this one is good too!

Count my vote for the "I don't trust Big Pharma and I'm not going to have this vaccine" group. This product is so new that there is absolutely no way of knowing what effects it could have down the road, and it seems like they're using young women as guinea pigs.

Anyone remember DES, the drug given to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages? It actually CAUSED many women to miscarry, and become infertile, and the children exposed to it as fetuses often had cervical, vaginal, and breast cancer. Companies are so excited about having a new money maker that they don't care about properly testing, or whose life they fuck up in their haste.

Kate: This may be hard to believe, but testing protocols have improved since 1940. It was the same type of FDA testing that Gardasil has gone through that finally proved that DES was a health risk for pregnant women. Does that mean that every new drug is perfectly tested and 100% safe? No, of course not, but drugs that reach the market are unlikely to have serious common side effects. You're probably right that, absent he FDA's strict testing regulations, pharmaceutical companies would happily rush dangerous drugs to market without properly testing them first. That's why we have an expensive and laborious testing system forced on them by a disinterested government agency.

And "a new money maker"? Try comparing the cost of a course of Gardasil shots to several years of chemotherapy. "Big Pharma" makes its money when people get sick, not when it stops them from getting sick.

I am really not sure about this one. My daughter will turn nine in October - which means she will be at the right age for the vaccine. I'm torn because I don't want to expose my daughter to a vaccine that is relatively new and may have yet undiscovered consequences, and yet I don't want my baby to have to deal with the horrible consequnces of some strains of HPV and/or cervical cancer. It's a very difficult decision that my husband and I have researched quite a bit. I trust our doctor, but I know that sometimes even well-meaning, good doctors can be decieved by pharm reps.

I really wish I knew what to do to best protect my baby.

I finished the Gardasil series at 19 years old, before I became sexually active, and I feel more confident that with the vaccination, on top of other protection I take during intercourse, I'll be fine. Just be smart, folks. And mamas, talk to your daughters.

My doc also recommended that to see if a male has HPV, a bit of vinegar on the sac will do. If white bumps show up -- apparently, haven't done this yet... -- think twice. And get him tested.

Side note: My friend's mother refused to let her get this vaccination for "sluts" who sleep around (thanks, Mrs. D. Appreciate the vote of confidence about my personality and my life choices!). I don't want to necessarily say "as a result," but my friend contracted HPV after sleeping with a few partners, several times unprotected. One wonders...

Economically and medically speaking, I don't understand why there isn't just a "safe sex" and "pap smears" campaign. The two combined would be much more effective than the sketchy effectiveness of this drug. Oh yeah, I forgot, the Christian right are against "safe sex".

As for trusting vaccines and testing methods being better now than before, I'm not convinced. The big companies new in 1991 that Thiomersal (or Thimerosal depending on what country you're in) was potentially very dangerous and could cause major problems. Despite this, they didn't remove it from their vaccines until 10 years later. So, FDA testing may be more strict than in 1940 but it doesn't mean that all drugs given to the public should be trusted. Remember, scientists and doctors are people too and they can be biased and make mistakes just like anyone else.

I just don't believe this study. I'm not a sociologist, but the reaction of every conservative mother I know has been that they don't want to "promote" premarital sex by vaccinating their daughters. You know, the same way that access to information about contraception "promotes" sex. In their alternate universe of purity balls and abstinence vows. Ugh.

I cannot get enough of this.

My daughter is approaching 10 so the time to make a decision is near. My OB thinks it's the most wonderful vaccine to hit the shelves and immediately vaccinated his own two girls.

I get nervous because it's new but I asked my mother about taking the pill in the 60's and she looked me in the eye and said, "We were all so happy to have sex without making a baby that we didn't care if we grew a beard."

Looks like not much has changed.

What? Really, commenters?

My first thought was that the Moms who said they were worried about getting more vaccine info were really worried about the s-word and thought themselves too cool to admit they didn't want to think about their young teenage daughters doing it.

But obviously, by looking at the comments, people are worried about the vaccine.

Regarding the comment that cancer develops only years after the chronic disease -- well sure, but the people who get the form associated with cancer still must undergo procedures to remove it or move steadily toward cancer.

Something like 75% of every adult has a form of HPV. I'm super surprised at the number of comments against vaccinating!

Incidentally, I'm also usually against Big Pharma. But I see this as revolutionary and important, like The Pill.

I forgot to mention that I'm also concerned about the viral population genetics involved with only vaccinating against select types of a virus. As is shown year after year when the pharm companies push for the flu shots, the population makeup of the virus just skews. Approximately the same number of people get the flu, a different variant than the ones contained in the vaccination simply emerge.

It's along the same lines as the super disinfectants and antibiotics. If you kill 99.9% of the germs, you are simply clearing out the competition for the 0.1% that you can't kill. Not really smart.

I am afraid that the long term consequences of the vaccine is that a new variant will emerge, cause a comparable number of infections and require a new vaccine. In other words, job security for the pharmaceutical companies.

I think it would be much preferable to drive home the message of physical prevention and early detection. These are unlikely to change the population dynamics to different, potentially new, potentially more virulent, surely less understood forms of HPV.

The big companies new in 1991 that Thiomersal (or Thimerosal depending on what country you're in) was potentially very dangerous and could cause major problems. Despite this, they didn't remove it from their vaccines until 10 years later.

Thimerisal was in vaccines because it acts as a preservative, giving them a longer shelf life and keeping the cost down. Removing it was a political choice which had absolutely no reference to any medical science.

*"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."
-- http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-retraction.htm

And, yes, scientists are fallible, and mistakes do happen, and drugs get approved when the risks are higher than pre-approval testing suggested; Vioxx comes to mind. I'm not suggesting that Gardasil must be safe, just because the FDA said it is; I'm just saying that you can't base your mistrust of it on a dangerous drug that was approved 67 years ago, or a safe drug that non-experts with no evidence want to blame for something.

Overall, the vast majority of drugs that reach the market are perfectly safe, if used as directed. Some have serious side-effects that affect a tiny proportion of people, often so tiny that it doesn't come to light until it's been used widely in the population at large. Sometimes these drugs are removed from the market, and sometimes they're so valuable that the best thing to do is to caution doctors to be more careful about prescribing them, and to watch out for certain symptoms. So new drugs do carry a very slightly higher risk than established ones, just because this final level of testing hasn't been carried out yet, and it might not be unreasonable to wait a year or two and see how it all shakes out. But, for those people in the "at risk" group, waiting a year or two may well be more dangerous than than taking a drug that has only gone through the extensive battery of tests that the FDA insists upon.

I think its absurd this vaccine is not available for every woman.

This vaccine was developed in australia. We've had it for a while and thankfully the vaccine is free to women 12-18 in schools and until june 09 to 18-26yrs. I fully support this vaccine and any other because if I had to choose whether my body was immune to some strands of a virus or none, I would always pick the vaccine. The vaccine has been extensively researched and developed. I know because I've been waiting a while for it to be avaliable. And no one is saying if you get this vaccine you don't have to get pap smears. They are still the number 1 defence we have against cervical cancer and I have never seen anyone recommend against them. As for this research publication, it was funded by the company so ofcourse it's going to be bias. I have no idea why you wouldn't get your daugther or yourself vaccinated just because you don't believe in sex before marriage because eventually you are going to have sex (hopefully). And you can't also be sure your partner is going to believe in no sex before marriage.