T Nation

HPV Vaccine Controversy...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1579707,00.html

Just curious as to what everyone’s opinion on this is? A vaccine to prevent 2 strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer which killed approximately 1/3 of those infected last year. Kids are already required to get Hepatitis B vaccines (I know I had to get it when I moved here in high school), which is a blood or sexually transmitted disease.

Is there really a big deal of this? Or are people just trying to make 1? I can see where they are coming from asking why a 10 year old girl needs a vaccine for an STD, but in 15 years she will no longer be daddy’s little girl but very possibly Tony’s little nympho.

Anyone have some more information and insight on this?

[quote]Ren wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1579707,00.html

Just curious as to what everyone’s opinion on this is? A vaccine to prevent 2 strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer which killed approximately 1/3 of those infected last year. Kids are already required to get Hepatitis B vaccines (I know I had to get it when I moved here in high school), which is a blood or sexually transmitted disease.

Is there really a big deal of this? Or are people just trying to make 1? I can see where they are coming from asking why a 10 year old girl needs a vaccine for an STD, but in 15 years she will no longer be daddy’s little girl but very possibly Tony’s little nympho.

Anyone have some more information and insight on this?[/quote]

The only question you need to ask with any vaccine is who paid for the study to show its efficacy

[quote]Ren wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1579707,00.html

Anyone have some more information and insight on this?[/quote]

The vaccine has merit and it would be better if it were more strains/coverage, ideally it would largely displace the need for pap smears and be wildly popular and end the debate. But I believe it’s more important that people should be free to choose. And even more important than that is that I have the right to tell them they’re stupid for not getting it.

And to call Hep B an STD is slightly askew from reality. It’s a blood-born pathogen and I’ve never bled as on as many people in my life as I did in HS wrestling. I think it’s interesting that they’re only vaccinating women as it only causes cancer in women (it tells me they aren’t trying to get rid of the disease, at least not with this vaccine. Rather, prevent the cancer in those vaccinated).

[quote]storey420 wrote:

The only question you need to ask with any vaccine is who paid for the study to show its efficacy[/quote]

Wow, so if an independent study shows that it cures cancer instantly and in the FDA trials it’s discovered that it kills everyone three yrs. after injection we can put you down for it?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
storey420 wrote:

The only question you need to ask with any vaccine is who paid for the study to show its efficacy

Wow, so if an independent study shows that it cures cancer instantly and in the FDA trials it’s discovered that it kills everyone three yrs. after injection we can put you down for it?
[/quote]

Huh? You do realize that the majority of the vaccines studies are funded by their manufacturer or a subsidiary of them, right. Besides anyone that actually believe you can create a vaccine for cancer that would somehow make you impervious to cancer is a moron

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Besides anyone that actually believe you can create a vaccine for cancer that would somehow make you impervious to cancer is a moron[/quote]

Maybe. Or not. But what’s that got to do with anything?

The article mentions a vaccine that prevents HPV which causes 70% of the cervical cancers. So even with the vaccine, those in the remaining 30% will still develop the cancer.

The vaccine has nothing to do with the cancer directly; it prevents one of the major causes of it.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
storey420 wrote:

The only question you need to ask with any vaccine is who paid for the study to show its efficacy

Wow, so if an independent study shows that it cures cancer instantly and in the FDA trials it’s discovered that it kills everyone three yrs. after injection we can put you down for it?

Huh? You do realize that the majority of the vaccines studies are funded by their manufacturer or a subsidiary of them, right. Besides anyone that actually believe you can create a vaccine for cancer that would somehow make you impervious to cancer is a moron
[/quote]

You are actually a true moron. No one is talking about being impervious to cancer. HPV is an STD that increases the risk of developing cervical cancer for a variety of reasons. This vaccine prevents HPV. No HPV, lower risk of develping cervical cancer.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Ren wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1579707,00.html

Anyone have some more information and insight on this?

The vaccine has merit and it would be better if it were more strains/coverage, ideally it would largely displace the need for pap smears and be wildly popular and end the debate. But I believe it’s more important that people should be free to choose. And even more important than that is that I have the right to tell them they’re stupid for not getting it.

And to call Hep B an STD is slightly askew from reality. It’s a blood-born pathogen and I’ve never bled as on as many people in my life as I did in HS wrestling. I think it’s interesting that they’re only vaccinating women as it only causes cancer in women (it tells me they aren’t trying to get rid of the disease, at least not with this vaccine. Rather, prevent the cancer in those vaccinated).[/quote]

HPV [Humpan Papillomavirus] and Hepatitis B are two different diseases. HPV is basically genital warts. And some strains that it causes promote cervical cancer. It basically does nothing to guys who express no symptoms but can be carriers. I sort of agree with you though. Vaccinating men as well would help prevent the spread. Though I guess if it causes no problems in men, vaccinating all women might serve the necessary objective. I have seen stats for women with HPV as high as 80%. It’s very odd to me. Much greater than any other STD. I wonder if it’s someone resistant to condoms in ways that other diseases aren’t.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
storey420 wrote:

The only question you need to ask with any vaccine is who paid for the study to show its efficacy

Wow, so if an independent study shows that it cures cancer instantly and in the FDA trials it’s discovered that it kills everyone three yrs. after injection we can put you down for it?

Huh? You do realize that the majority of the vaccines studies are funded by their manufacturer or a subsidiary of them, right. Besides anyone that actually believe you can create a vaccine for cancer that would somehow make you impervious to cancer is a moron
[/quote]

Wow, moron, try to learn some biology, or at least learn to look up journal articles, which acknowledge where their money comes from. Grants don’t grow on trees. Do you know what a retrovirus does? Do you know why they can cause cancer? Obviously, no. Do you even know what a vaccine is?

Anyway. I don’t see how one can justify a rape victim’s death vs. the supposed increase in promiscuity that the vaccine would cause. (Which is probably near zero).

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Huh? You do realize that the majority of the vaccines studies are funded by their manufacturer or a subsidiary of them, right. Besides anyone that actually believe you can create a vaccine for cancer that would somehow make you impervious to cancer is a moron
[/quote]

Um, that doesn’t change the fact that it passed FDA trials (which all the other vaccines you’ve had in life do). If you want to raise those standards, say so.

If you want to say it’s still unsafe, say why. Don’t say that because somebody paid for a study and met FDA standards that their drug is unsafe without any data to back it up. Claims require evidence and fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

HPV [Humpan Papillomavirus] and Hepatitis B are two different diseases.[/quote]

Understood, Ren said this wasn’t a big deal as Hep B vaccinations are already required. More my point was that HPV (at least the strains that cause genital warts and related diseases) is by and large an STD whereas describing Hep B the same way would be a fallacy.

As far as vaccinating men, I assume they aren’t vaccinating them because it’s only effective against two of the 30-some genital strains. All you would do is bias the strain pool (on this continent) and render the vaccine ineffective. And my understanding is that condoms are ineffective (or much less so) against the spread of HPV as it isn’t aptly described as a blood-born pathogen.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
HPV [Humpan Papillomavirus] and Hepatitis B are two different diseases. HPV is basically genital warts. And some strains that it causes promote cervical cancer. It basically does nothing to guys who express no symptoms but can be carriers. I sort of agree with you though. Vaccinating men as well would help prevent the spread. Though I guess if it causes no problems in men, vaccinating all women might serve the necessary objective. I have seen stats for women with HPV as high as 80%. It’s very odd to me. Much greater than any other STD. I wonder if it’s someone resistant to condoms in ways that other diseases aren’t.
[/quote]

HPV can be transmitted just from a skin-to-skin contact, so condoms do not protect well. Most of HPV strains, though, are harmless and are eliminated from you body in 1-2 years. They say if you had more than 3 partners than more likely than not you have/had HPV. That’s why you see 80% stats.

I think the real reason why they only want to give it to women is that it costs something like $300 per dose and giving it to women universally would effectively eliminate the strains covered from the relevant population. It only starts to make sense to give it to men broadly if it isn’t used nearly universally among women.

My 9 year old daughter will be getting this vaccine sometime within the next 2-4 years. I personally can’t imaging any responsible parent not wanting to get their daughter vaccinated. That said, I’m not sure I’d agree with it being a “mandatory” vaccination.

Other than to prevent the “this will promote promiscuity” morons from having any influence in the decision making process. That is like arguing that a vaccine that will prevent 70% of lung cancers encourages smoking.