Booster Shots

Oddities, musings and news from the health world

« Previous Post | Booster Shots Home | Next Post »

HPV vaccine pays off for pre-adolescents but long-term value remains uncertain

August 21, 2008 |  2:32 pm

The makers of a new vaccine aimed at protecting against cervical cancer are aggressively advertising Gardasil for a wide range of girls and young women, and many state and national officials are calling for broad public campaigns of inoculation with Gardasil. But private insurers and administrators of public insurance programs such as Medicaid are debating whether inoculating women with the costly vaccine will pay off in long-term healthcare costs.

     A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine says it will -- if you inoculate girls at age 12, presumably before they become sexually active.

    That's not the only if, and the other conditions that make widespread inoculation with Gardasil a good bet are big ifs, writes Dr. Charlotte J. Haug in an editorial published alongside the study. The latest economic calculation of widespread Gardasil vaccination for young women assumed that Gardasil provides lifelong immunity from Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which can give rise to cancerous lesions in the cervix -- an assumption not yet proven. It assumed that vaccinated women would still get pap smears to screen for early signs of cervical cancer -- a prediction not yet borne out in practice. And it assumed that nature will not respond to the new vaccine by devising clever ways to work around it by, for instance, spawning vaccine-resistant forms of cancer-causing HPV. That's something that is not likely to be known for many years. (For a recent discussion of issues surrounding this, check out an Aug. 11 Health section story by Linda Marsa and one Aug. 19 in the New York Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

   "With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs," writes Haug, who is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Assn.

   Also raising concerns about widespread vaccination with Gardasil are reports made to the federal government of a range of health problems experienced by women newly vaccinated with Gardasil, although cause and effect have not been established.

-- Melissa Healy

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments (4)

I think that there is very valid points made against the vaccine in this article. Should we really vaccinate young children against an entirely preventable sexually transmitted disease, when the vaccination was not adequately studied in children, the disease is not proven to cause cancer, and safe sexual practices like abstinence or condoms would prevent the problem in the first place. HPV is not chickenpox.

hi, i took the vaccination, but not the gardasil but the cervarix. it's the same.
and i think that taking it does not stop us from doing the frotis test every year, otherwise it pure ignorance.

so if we are not sure of the pros and cons yet, its a matter of choice to take, but still to make tests every year, even every 6 months.

and why doctors who are against it are saying that woman have the probability of getting the cervical cancer because they no more do tests?
WHY DIDNT THEY LONG BEFORE THE VACCINATION TALKED ABOUT DOING A YEARLY TEST FOR 12 YEAR OLD GIRLS?

they just woke up or what?

As the article noted, the manufacturer has been heavily pushing for a product, that they are the only proprietor of, to be a part of the health plan for females, who currently make up approximately 200,000,000 people in the US. What a nice little annuity wrapped in a "its for the children" package. Lets see which politician gets this companies campaign money and how much. How about taking care of bigger issues first while we wait out the 18 years of patent protection, till this can be in a generic form? In the mean time, if this is such an issue, that my fellow taxpayers think they have the right to increase my health premiums, THEY can fork the money out of their own pocket.

The book "Fatal Probe" warned women about this vaccine several years ago. It also cautioned people to beware of Vioxx and numerous other drugs and medical procedures... including non-sterile gyn instruments.



Advertisement


The Latest | news as it happens

Recent Posts
test |  March 15, 2011, 4:00 pm »
Booster Shots has moved |  July 12, 2010, 6:02 pm »


Categories


Archives