By Dennis Thompson
EmpowHer's HealthDay Reporter
FRIDAY, April 18 (HealthDay News) -- For the first time, a doctor's arsenal now includes a vaccine that can actually prevent cancer.
Gardasil targets human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer and is present in one in four American women.
And health-care providers are beginning to integrate that vaccine into the schedule of other immunizations that children receive during childhood and adolescence.
About 13 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed globally since its approval in June 2006, said Kelley Dougherty, director of public affairs for Merck & Co., the company that created Gardasil. Of those, 10.5 million doses have been distributed in the United States.
"We estimate between 3 to 5 million girls have been vaccinated with Gardasil, but that is a very rough estimate," Dougherty said.
The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,150 new cases of invasive cervical cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2007, and 3,670 women died from the disease.
Cervical cancer used to be one of the most common causes of cancer death for U.S. women, but the death rate declined by 74 percent between 1955 and 1992. That was largely due to increased use of the Pap test, which can detect cellular changes in the cervix before cancer develops, the cancer society says.
"Women for so many years have heard the message that they need Pap tests, it's almost equivalent to seeing a gynecologist," said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancers for the American Cancer Society. "I think for breast exams, many women wait for their doctor to recommend it, whereas for the Pap test, they're more likely to go get one."
The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by almost 4 percent a year, thanks to the Pap test.
But doctors now believe they are poised to deal cervical cancer a knockout blow, thanks to the HPV vaccine.
In the nearly two years that have followed its approval, Gardasil has been added to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccination recommendations for girls ages 11 to 12. The vaccine, designed for females from ages 9 to 26, requires three shots taken within a six-month period.
Researchers have also discovered that the vaccine guards against vaginal and vulval cancers. HPV is present in 80 percent of the 6,000 cases of vulval and vaginal cancers diagnosed each year.
It's hard to know how many girls have actually received the vaccine. Merck bases its estimate on anecdotal reports from the field, but the American Cancer Society has no estimates of its own.
"We don't know how many [vaccines] are sitting in a refrigerator somewhere, versus in a girl's arm," Saslow said.
New research is looking at other ways the vaccine could be used to guard against cancer.
For example, Merck is studying whether the vaccine would work in women as old as 45, Dougherty said. The company also is exploring whether the vaccine works against other strains of HPV beyond the four it was originally meant to target.
Research also is under way to see if boys should receive the vaccine, as a way to protect girls from HPV. While males obviously can't get HPV-linked cervical cancer, they can help spread the sexually transmitted virus.
"Because males can transmit HPV to their partner, putting their partner at risk for developing cervical diseases, we have had a male research program going for some time now," Dougherty said.
The vaccine may also prove to be a way to protect men as well. HPV has been shown to be a cause of throat cancer, which affects both sexes.
"We just know the vaccine is safe in males, but we need to prove that it works," Saslow said. Test results for males are still two to three years away, she said.
For older women, the best way to prevent cervical cancer is through the Pap test.
Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife, with half of women diagnosed between the ages of 35 and 55, according to the American Cancer Society.
Under current cancer society guidelines, all women should begin cervical cancer screening about three years after they begin having vaginal intercourse but no later than age 21. Testing should be done every year with the regular Pap test or every two years using a newer liquid-based Pap test.
Beginning at age 30, most women who have had three normal Pap test results in a row can space out their screenings to every two to three years.
Most women 70 or older who have had three or more normal Pap tests in a row and no abnormal Pap test results in the last 10 years can choose to stop having the test.
Gardasil/HPV4--The Facts
HPV is nothing new. Women have been getting PAP smears for years to check for the Human Papillomavirus, transmitted through sexual intercourse, which, if contracted, will usually CLEAR ON IT'S OWN within 2 years.
Here are some facts about Gardasil (HPV4):
Gardasil, developed by Merck, is an intramuscular vaccination licensed for use in females 9-26 years of age. Of the 100 known strains of HPV worldwide, Gardasil is designed to prevent four of these strains---6, 11, 16 and 18. Of those four strains, only 2 are found in the US, and only 3.4% American women contract HPV.
Use:
Gardasil is administered in 3 intramuscular injections over a 6 month period.
The clinicals:
• Gardasil was tested on just 20,541 women worldwide ages 16-26.
• Less than 1,200 were girls under the age of 16.
The stats:
According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), an agency managed by the USCDC and the FDA, there have been 7 deaths reported following Gardasil injections which are currently under investigation.
Side effects include asthma, fever, headache, pain, dizziness, fainting, collapsing, facial paralysis, seizure, skin problems, depression, neurological symptoms, tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs. Check VAERS for cases.
Concerns:
• Merck has not published any test reports for carcenogenicity (cancer).
• Merck has not published any test reports for reproductive capacity (fertility).
• Merck has not published any safety studies that it shouldn't be administered with other vaccines. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) claims Gardasil can be used in conjunction with other vaccines. VAERS has reports which negate this claim.
• Merck has not published any safety studies that it shouldn't be administered with other medications.
And this is just the beginning:
• How long will it last? It was only tested for 4 years. The 9 year olds who are receiving these injections have a long way to go before turning 39, the age when cervical cancer can start to show up.
• A 'booster' vaccination is already in the works.
• A vaccine for boys is in the works.
• Like other vaccines, Gardasil opens up the possibility/probability to create other strains of the virus which are more aggressive. The current vaccine will get rid of the weak, affected cells and the stronger will rise to the top. Have we learned nothing from the Flu shot?
Pharmaceutical Marketing; A History:
• Orginally intended to create products to capture the elderly, largely to treat pain.
• Has been targeting the middle age market since mid 1900's to take an average of 7 prescription drugs for life by age 40.
• The next market share of the pharmaceutical industry are TEENS.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for HPV4 include:
• routine vaccination for 11-12 year-old girls
• catch-up vaccination for 13-26 year-old females
• girls age 9-10 may receive the vaccine at provider discretion
Insert information that no one is talking about:
Gardasil contains 675mcg of aluminum, a known Central Nervous System toxin. It also contains Polysorbate 80, which is reported to cause anaphylaxis on repeated doses.
The numbers:
• Gardasil means a $360 reimbursement for your doctor's office.
• Gardasil is currently estimated at a $1.4 Billion addition to Merck, and will add $17 Billion in revenue to Merck by 2017.
Parents frequently asked me about their children's schools mandating vaccinations. Here are a few things you should know:
• 1853 - the start of the Anti-Vaccination Movement
• 1907 was the year of the first vaccination exemption
• Exemptions include
- Medical
- Religious
- Philosophical
These still hold true.
NO ONE can mandate vaccinations in the United States. It is against the law.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Posted: Tue., June 3, 2008, 05:03 pm
Re: Gardasil/HPV4
I am curious: you mentioned that there have been 7 deaths related to the administration of the Gardasil vaccine, but did not mention what the denominator is. How many women who have been given Gardasil have NOT died?
When I read stats like the above, that are more scare-tactic than providing all the facts for the intelligent reader to decipher for themselves, it makes me not want to read further. Which, would be a shame because you have some great information.
I appreciate your viewpoint on the vaccine, but am worried that when giving "facts", that some of the facts are left out in order to prove your point.
I learned some new information from your post, and would LOVE to read a post from an expert that includes both the pros and cons (not just the cons heavily weighted).
So, here is a pro:
There is actually a PREVENTION for CANCER! This is incredible in our lifetime! And, it's for WOMEN! And on top of that: it is a preventative measure that can help guard against a sexually transmittable infection in women. (Some people think women still are not supposed to have sex, so any medical advancement in this area is not good news to them...it will just "promote" women having sex...which is obviously absurd! I am afraid they will read your post and use it as more ammunition against women...).
You suggest that the vaccine is not needed, as most HPV infections clear up on their own, which is correct. However, you did not mention that up to 80% of sexually-active women will be infected with HPV within their lifetime. Yes, luckily, most of these infections will clear up on their own. However, this large percentage creates a large actual number of women who may "get" one of the HPV strains that does not clear up on its own: those strains can cause genital warts, or worse, cervical cancer.
Again, thanks for the post, and I would just like to see information from a Naturopath that includes the potential cons AND pros on all types of medical--and non-medical-- treatments. That would help me find your information even MORE credible and readable.
I look forward to the day when MDs can provide positive information on "alternative" treatments, and Naturopaths and others can provide positive information on "medical" treatments.
Thanks for listening.
Posted: Thu., June 5, 2008, 01:14 pm
alison b....
Let's review your comments point by point:
1. AB: I am curious: you mentioned that there have been 7 deaths related to the administration of the Gardasil vaccine, but did not mention what the denominator is. How many women who have been given Gardasil have NOT died?
KM: The stats on deaths were reported on VAERS. Feel free to go to their site and read the reports for yourself. If you're truly curious, I'm confident you will find the actual number of those who have been inoculated. It may be a challenge, as those numbers are only estimates and rise daily. Let us know how you make out. VAERS has, however, reported increasing cases with a wide range of negative side effects, including paralysis.
2. AB: When I read stats like the above, that are more scare-tactic than providing all the facts for the intelligent reader to decipher for themselves, it makes me not want to read further.
KM: This is not a scare tactic. These are widely published facts. You didn't ask what my sources are, but I'm a giver, so I'll share---they are Merck, VAERS and several very well known and highly regarded Medical doctors who were lecturing on this subject at a symposium I attended earlier this year.
Here's another report furnished by the National Institute of Health (NIH):
"More than 100 different types of HPV exist, most of which are harmless. About 30 types are spread through sexual contact and are classified as either low risk or high risk.
Some types of HPV cause genital warts--single or multiple bumps that appear in the genital areas of men and women including the vagina, cervix, vulva (area outside of the vagina), penis, and rectum. These are considered low-risk types.
High-risk types of HPV may cause abnormal Pap smear results. They could lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis."
Summary:
• Most of the 100+ strains are harmless
• It's sexually transmitted
• SOME low-risk types cause genital warts
• High-risk types MAY cause abnormal Paps and COULD lead to cancers.
As you can see, there are no absolutes here. Why exacerbate the issue with a vaccine that has been reported (in an extraordinarily short timeframe) to cause many serious side effects, including death?
There's more. Here's a February 22, 2007 report from medicalnewstoday.com that may be of interest:
"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) today released a new analysis of the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of serious health problems following HPV vaccination (Merck's GARDASIL) during the last six months of 2006. Out of the 385 individual GARDASIL adverse event reports made to VAERS, two-thirds required additional medical care and about one-third of all reports were for children 16-years-old and under, with nearly 25 percent of those children having received simultaneously one or more of the 18 vaccines that Merck did not study in combination with GARDASIL. NVIC is calling on the FDA and CDC to warn parents and doctors that GARDASIL should not be combined with other vaccines and that young girls should be monitored for at least 24 hours for syncopal (collapse/fainting) episodes that can be accompanied by seizure activity, as well as symptoms of tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs, all of which should be reported to VAERS immediately.
"Because Merck only studied GARDASIL in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a GARDASIL vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine."
According to NVIC's report, a majority of GARDASIL adverse event reports to VAERS involved those who suffered fever, nausea, headache or pain; 14 percent were for syncopal episodes with or without neurological signs; and 8 percent experienced tingling, numbness and loss of sensation, facial paralysis or Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Although adverse event reports to VAERS do not prove causation, they can provide an early warning sign that a new vaccine may be causing health problems that could be important. For example, reports to VAERS of bowel blockage (intussusception) in babies following receipt of Merck's Rota Teq (rotavirus) vaccine prompted the FDA to issue a public warning to doctors and consumers on Feb. 13.
"About 4 reports per day were filed with VAERS in December 2006 for the HPV vaccine," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "Some of these girls are being injured when they collapse after getting the vaccine and others are complaining of neurological symptoms that should not be ignored. Doctors and nurses should take note of the patient safety issues related to giving this vaccine. Giving GARDASIL simultaneously with any of the 18 vaccines Merck did not study in combination is not an evidence-based guideline and should involve informed consent and a signed patient release. To avoid unnecessary injuries, teenage girls should be vaccinated laying down, not be left unattended and probably should not walk or drive themselves home from the doctor's office after they get vaccinated."
NVIC also found that there were several VAERS reports of HPV infection, genital warts and cervical lesions after GARDASIL vaccination. It is unknown if the girls were infected with HPV before being vaccinated or if GARDASIL failed to protect them. One case of HPV infection occurred in a 22-year-old girl who had participated in a Merck GARDASIL trial in 2003 when she had shown "strong conversion to all 4 vaccine types" but "tested positive for high risk HPV" in 2006, according to the VAERS report.
In a May 18, 2006 Background Document for the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRPBAC), the FDA staff stated that Merck clinical trial data indicated there may be "the potential for GARDASIL to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination." Girls and women now being vaccinated with GARDASIL are not routinely being tested for active HPV infection before vaccination.
The FDA staff also questioned whether the "HPV types not contained in the vaccine might offset the overall clinical effectiveness of the vaccine." There are more than 15 types of HPV associated with cervical cancer but GARDASIL only contains HPV types 16 and 18. It is unknown whether non-vaccine HPV types will become more dominant in the future. However, there are indications this could occur because some of the seven strains of pneumococcal contained in Wyeth's PREVNAR vaccine, which was recommended by the CDC for universal use in all babies in 2000, have been replaced by some of the more than 80 other pneumococcal strains not contained in the vaccine.
VAERS is a passive surveillance system and depends upon voluntary reporting of serious health problems following vaccination, even though safety provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 mandated that health care providers report vaccine adverse events. There have been estimates that fewer than 10 percent, even as low as 1 to 4 percent, of adverse events which occur after prescription drug or vaccine use are ever reported to government adverse event reporting systems.
"If only 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events associated with GARDASIL vaccination are being reported to VAERS, there could have been up to 38,000 health problems after GARDASIL vaccination in 2006 which were never reported," said Fisher. "How many girls are really having short-term health problems associated with getting this vaccine that could turn into long-term neurological or immune system disorders? And how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all? We just don't know enough to be mandating GARDASIL for anyone, much less vulnerable 11 to 12 year old girls entering puberty."
I hope this sheds more light and you feel more comfortable knowing that the information is from a Medical source as well as a government agency (NIH). There are also many websites regarding vaccines including The National Vaccine Information Center, an organization dedicated to vaccine education. Go to www.nvic.org for more information.
Knowledge is power. Don't let the facts scare you. We are not afraid of what we know. Become a well informed and 'intelligent' reader as well as a prepared and 'intelligent' rebutter.
3. AB: I appreciate your viewpoint on the vaccine, but am worried that when giving "facts", that some of the facts are left out in order to prove your point.
KM: No worries, Alison. By now, I'm sure you realize this is not about 'my viewpoint'. Furthermore, I have nothing to 'prove'. I volunteer my time and share my reports with many, including the readership of this site, with the intention of educating (empowering) women and men. I don't intentionally omit valuable information to color opinion in any way. Sometimes facts are difficult for us to emotionally digest.
When reporting facts on Gardasil, it was necessary to strip away the catchy 'I wanna be one less' tag line and slick sepia-toned montage of chanting, flag-waving young women, carefully crafted and positioned to come across on camera as 'strong' and 'independent'. No doubt, it's a clever and memorable ad campaign. It makes girls want to be 'that' and mothers hope their daughters will be 'that', too. And despite all the medical disclaimers toward the end, that widely-aired TV commercial scenario does not detail all the facts. It's just a vehicle to sell a pharmaceutical product. You may not like the way that sounds either, but hey, it's the truth.
4. AB: There is actually a PREVENTION for CANCER! This is incredible in our lifetime! And, it's for WOMEN! And on top of that: it is a preventative measure that can help guard against a sexually transmittable infection in women. (Some people think women still are not supposed to have sex, so any medical advancement in this area is not good news to them...it will just "promote" women having sex...which is obviously absurd! I am afraid they will read your post and use it as more ammunition against women...).
KM: Stating that Gardasil is a 'prevention for cancer' is a misnomer. Merck does not even make that claim.
Merck states, and I quote:
"GARDASIL is the only vaccine that can help guard you against 4 types of HPV".
What does this really mean? Let's break it down:
Fact: Gardasil is a vaccine
Fact: Gardasil is the ONLY vaccine (of it's type today)
Manufacturer Claim: Gardasil "CAN HELP GUARD AGAINST 4 strains of HPV"
There's nothing about 'prevention' stated. There is nothing in this statement that says that 'it WILL help guard against'. Rather, it is clearly stated that 'it CAN help guard against'. That is an ambiguous reference. There's a difference between facts and marketing. Don't be fooled. Maybe that's how they came up with the name 'Gardasil'...it will only 'guard'. Otherwise, they may have trademarked it as 'Preventasil' or 'Curasil'.
You should also know that only 2 of the 4 HPV strains this product 'can help guard you against' are specific to the US. Remember, there are over 100 strains worldwide.
I don't know how to respond to the rest of your comments in this paragraph, as you lost me with the 'sex' and 'ammunition' editorial.
5. AB: You suggest that the vaccine is not needed, as most HPV infections clear up on their own, which is correct. However, you did not mention that up to 80% of sexually-active women will be infected with HPV within their lifetime. Yes, luckily, most of these infections will clear up on their own. However, this large percentage creates a large actual number of women who may "get" one of the HPV strains that does not clear up on its own: those strains can cause genital warts, or worse, cervical cancer.
KM: Yes, I've read this, too. I didn't mention it because it's vague. But we can break this down, too...OK, 80% sounds like alot, right? Your statement was, "UP TO 80%...." So what does this really mean? Are we talking 3%? 46%? 72%? It's not clear. And even then, "Up to 80% of sexually active women will be infected...." under what conditions? Frequency of sex? Number of sex partners? Safe sex? We could go on and on listing variables. Using vague statistics is a marketing strategy. It works. It got YOU all excited! I studied Marketing and Advertising at Harvard University--I know something about how it works.
To set the record straight, I have suggested alternatives to Gardasil to assist people in making sound, well informed decisions for themselves---the 'other' side of the coin, so to speak. Merck has uber advertising resources and they stand to increase their revenues in the billions when this is all said and done. By comparison, there's not a whole lotta dollahs in the alternatives, so you don't hear a lot about them on TV. But that doesn't diminish their importance or their efficacy.
Not everyone wants to be, nor do they need to be vaccinated. And that's another reason NOT to have vaccines mandated---Freedom of choice. Generally speaking, there are no guarantees that vaccines prevent disease (Flu shot). But if your belief system is that they do, and you choose to have your family inoculated, then why wouldn't you also believe that your family will be spared of disease even if you come into contact with others who have not been vaccinated? Think about it. If you think the vaccines work so well, why worry?
You also should know that 'luck' has nothing to do with the clearing of HPV. Our bodies are truly amazing, largely self-healing machines. As for the remainder of your comments, read the facts...it is reported that only 3.4% of women get cervical cancer in the US. The thought of mandating this vaccine is unconscionable.
Good hygiene is essential to everyone's health. Men AND women. And, as an alternative, use a condom!
When properly used, they're efficacious, easily accessible, affordable, don't require the time and expense of an office visit (including gas!) and they don't create the extra burden of heavy metal (mercury) toxicity on the system, as in the case of vaccines. And then there's the ripple effect of those escalating health care and insurance costs to consider, but that's another topic for discussion.
NOTE: I'm not 'against' vaccinations and other pharmaceutical products. I've acknowledged the life-saving achievements and advancements in the medical and pharmaceutical communities. That said, even with the information that has been provided by Merck, there is nothing to date to substantiate facts that Gardasil will be of any consequence to disease prevention achievements. However, it has already established itself a colossal money-maker! The equation is lopsided.
You may be interested to know that there are many ways of protecting from the spread of viruses short of vaccination. At the risk of sounding rudimentary, an increased immune function is the best defense we all have to protect against contracting viruses. Start with basic (and inexpensive) lifestyle changes. There's no need to load the body up with a lot of stuff it doesn't need and is unable to process, which will (really!) jeopardize good health and could lead to disease. I know. I see it every day.
6. AB: Again, thanks for the post, and I would just like to see information from a Naturopath that includes the potential cons AND pros on all types of medical--and non-medical-- treatments. That would help me find your information even MORE credible and readable.
KM: There's plenty of 'medical and non-medical' information in this post for your edification. Rather than waiting to hear from another Naturopath, why don't you do the research yourself? Why wait for others to formulate the 'credible and readable' information you seek?
7. AB: I look forward to the day when MDs can provide positive information on "alternative" treatments, and Naturopaths and others can provide positive information on "medical" treatments.
KM: The training for the two professions is very different. Medical doctors are trained to practice medicine, which means treatment using "allopathic" treatments, which by definition excludes holistic, natural, non-medical, non-drug, non-surgical forms of treatment. Naturopaths are trained to educate and assist you with applying natural lifestyle approaches to facilitate the body's healing and health building potential. One does not replace the other.
I enjoy my close partnerships with the Allopathic (MD) and Holistic (Complementary) communities, and I share your positive thoughts for more a more integrated future for health care and education in our country and around the world.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Posted: Sun., June 15, 2008, 01:37 pm
Great info, Kristin!
Thanks for taking the time and trouble (you too, Alison!) to speak your mind. I read this with great interest.
I very much agree that flag waving 'girl power' mantras of "I want to be one less!" can give us all a boost but in reality these logos can give a false sense of safety.
I am also a firm believer that this vaccine should not be made mandatory! In a country where bumper stickers of "Keep Your Laws Off My Body!" abound, I believe the Government has no right to enforce this medication and chemistry on anyone.
You mentioned condoms - let's not forget HPV is transmitted via the skin. Condoms will not protect anyone against HPV (or herpes and several others) so a false sense of security alert there too!
Not that I am Alison's mind reader but I understood from her post that she is saying Gardasil can indeed prevent certain strains of the cancer-causing HPV strains in certain women. And that is surely something to be glad of. Nobody believes (I hope!) that Gardasil has cured cervical cancer (and I certainly hope no teenage girls out there believe it, which is why they should all be members of Empowher.com!) but this vaccination is surely a step in the right direction?
Posted: Sun., June 15, 2008, 03:24 pm
Hi Susan...
The experts disagree with you. You may be interested to know that condoms (barriers) are a proven method of preventing the spread of STD's (think Trojan's), including HPV. Here are some reports, including information on the transmission of HPV through oral, vaginal and anal sex, as their references:
STD Risk
Chlamydia, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis (multiple strains), and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)—including HIV—can be transmitted through oral sex. (University Health Center, Sexual Health, Oral Sex)
Prevention
Due to disease risks, many medical professionals advise the use of condoms or dental dams when performing or receiving oral sex with a partner whose STD status is unknown. A makeshift dental dam can be made out of a condom. Using a real dental dam is preferable, because real dental dams are larger and the makeshift version may be accidentally poked with the scissors during the cutting procedure. Plastic wrap may also be used as a barrier during oral sex, but many find that the thickness of the plastic dulls sensation. Certain kinds of plastic wrap are manufactured with tiny holes to allow venting during microwaving, which may allow transmission of pathogens.
Condoms
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that "While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."[1]
According to Marcus Steiner and Willard Cates in the New England Journal of Medicine, "the protection that condoms offer cannot be precisely quantified."[2] However, in a study reported in the same issue,[3] of 82 female university students followed for eight months, the incidence of genital HPV infection was 37.8 per 100 patient-years among women whose partners used condoms for all instances of intercourse, compared with 89.3 per 100 patient-years in women whose partners used condoms less than 5% of the time.
The researchers concluded that "Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."
Other studies have suggested that regular condom use can effectively limit the ongoing persistence and spread of HPV to additional genital sites in individuals who are already infected.[4][5]
Thus, condom use may reduce the risk that infected individuals will progress to cervical cancer or develop additional genital warts.
Planned Parenthood recommends condom use to reduce the risk of contracting HPV.[6]
Sources:
1. STD Facts - Human papillomavirus (HPV). Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
2. Markus J. Steiner and Willard Cates, Jr. (2006). "Condoms and Sexually-Transmitted Infections". N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (25): 2642-3.[4]
3. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, et al (2006). "Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women". N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (25): 2645-54. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa053284. PMID 16790697.[Free online]
4. Moscicki AB (2005). "Impact of HPV infection in adolescent populations". The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 37 (6 Suppl): S3-9. PMID 16310138.
5. Bleeker MC, Berkhof J, Hogewoning CJ, et al (2005). "HPV type concordance in sexual couples determines the effect of condoms on regression of flat penile lesions". Br. J. Cancer 92 (8): 1388-92. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602524. PMID 15812547.
6. Planned Parenthood - HPV. Retrieved on 2007-08-17.
-----------------------------------------------
You wrote: "Not that I am Alison's mind reader but I understood from her post that she is saying Gardasil can indeed prevent certain strains of the cancer-causing HPV strains in certain women. And that is surely something to be glad of."
Yes, we could be 'glad of' it, if the statement were true. But it's not. And Alison has not presented her credentials. And even if she had, the statement is still false. Here's the truth, straight from the goat's (Merck's) mouth:
"IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT GARDASIL
GARDASIL is the only cervical cancer vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV): 2 types that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. GARDASIL is for girls and young women ages 9 to 26.
Anyone who is allergic to the ingredients of GARDASIL should not receive the vaccine. GARDASIL is not for women who are pregnant. GARDASIL does not treat cervical cancer or genital warts.
GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important to continue routine cervical cancer screenings. GARDASIL will not protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV.
The side effects include pain, swelling, itching, and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and fainting. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months.
Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter."
--------------------------------------------------
OK, I'm buggin' that they presume that a parent of a minor girl, or woman over 18 cannot make this decision for herself, but rather "ONLY a doctor or healthcare professional"! Their statement infers that women cannot be responsible for their own decisions. Hmmmmm.....Why not? Do they want to maintain control? Do they not want you to be educated about your body or your health? Maybe if you know too much, you'll decide not to have the vaccine.
AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT YOU'D BE EMPOW(H)ERED TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS!
But back to your point....
Note the chosen phraseology in the first sentence of Merck's statement is "GARDASIL is the only cervical cancer vaccine that helps protect against...." It's as plain as day...."HELPS PROTECT AGAINST". NOT 'prevents against'. As a matter of fact, the only time the word "prevent" is used is when they state that it "does NOT PREVENT all types of cervical cancer".
You and Alison can believe whatever you want. "Prevent" is a strong word, and it's legally-binding. Merck has chosen the phraseology "guards against". I'm going with Merck on this one.
As for your statement about Gardasil being "a step in the right direction", We are a hopeful people and would like to see ALL disease eradicated. But injecting 675 mcg of mercury and other known toxins is NOT a step in right direction. It increases toxic burdens on the body, which leads to more disease. These diseases can play out later as various cancers, memory difficulties, insomnia, mental issues, sexual dysfunction, diabetes....it's a long list. I see a lot of these cases. It keeps me in business.
Bottom line: I don't believe that adding toxic burdens to the body is a step in the right direction for anyone or for any (good) reason.
I don't know of too many teenage girls OR their mothers who have done their due diligence in researching pharmaceuticals. That could be because of the repeated prime-time mantra "ask your doctor about..." So, off they go to their doctor, thinking that they'll get education, but instead are pushed through the rapid succession of office personnel and end up just getting the drug and not-so-much information.
I know of many teenage girls who have been inoculated with Gardasil. Many of their mothers now regret their decision because they've learned more facts and/or have dealt with its side effects. It's sad to hear the angst in their voices expressing the guilt they feel and sense of self-doubt over taking such a strong measure with such a toxic impact, and not knowing enough up front to have known better. They had the best of intentions, but made a hasty and regrettable decision without knowing the whole story. It reminds me of a case where a woman was fed up with having heavy periods and bad cramps, so she had a hysterectomy. She had terrible complications from this procedure and regretted her (irreversible) decision. She didn't have all the facts and perhaps made an emotional decision rather than taking her time and making a fact-based decision.
My hope is to see your EmpowHer site grow because you provide solid, truthful information to properly educate and empow(her) all generations of women.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Posted: Mon., June 16, 2008, 02:53 pm
Post new comment here