HPV vaccine ? Should all women get it?

[Melissa426]

I didn't know if I should post this here or in women's forum, so if Moderators thinks it needs to be moved, then by all means, go ahead.

I read on a website yesterday that an HPV (human papilloma virus) might be on the horizon. HPV is associated with genital warts but more worrisomely, it is highly linked to cervical cancer. It is sexually transmitted. It is extraordinarily common, too, easily passed from one person to the next because most people don't realize they have it.

The article suggested a few options.

a. giving it to all females between ages 9 and 25
b. making it mandatory for middle school
c. making it mandatory for college entrance
d. making it mandatory for women in military

What do you think? Especially those of you who are parents, or who fit one of those categories. I am not certain yet about my feelings, but I am leaning towards the idea it should not mandatory, but it should certainly be offered by physicians, after a lengthy discussion with the woman and/or the parents.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[raedyn]

I also heard a suggestion that men should also get the vaccine because they are carriers of the virus.

from women's health Jounal Watch

Because of its potential to reduce preinvasive and invasive genital cancers, the development of what appears to be a safe, effective vaccine against HPV-16 represents a major step forward in women's (and men's) health. The most appropriate target population for an HPV vaccine might be teenagers who have not yet initiated sexual activity. Unfortunately, this vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted oncogenic HPV types.

One can anticipate a number of challenges to widespread use of such a vaccine: In the U.S., where the federal government supports vaccination of children, will there be political obstacles to funding a vaccine that makes sex safer? Given that the main beneficiaries of an HPV vaccine will be women, will parents of teen boys balk at having their sons vaccinated? In less developed countries where invasive cervical cancer is most prevalent, will cost considerations and the need for 3 injections limit vaccine use?

from webMDhealth

The study showed that among women who received all three doses of the HPV vaccine, it was 100% effective at preventing persistent HPV infection with either HPV 16 or HPV 18 strain.

But the study also showed that the vaccine was also highly effective when women received only one dose or didn't follow the recommended vaccination schedule. Among these women, the vaccine was 95% effective in preventing persistent HPV 16/18 infection.

From the reading I've done on this, this vaccine really should be administered to young girls because it is only effective if the woman/girl getting it has never been exposed to HPV. Therefore it's most effective if it's administered prior to any sexual activity. And since 24% of girls are sexually active by age 15, it has to be administered young - probably younger than we want to admit.

The exciting thing about this - ladies take note - is that if this vaccine was administered the need for annual pap smears would evaporate. These tests are currently used to screen for 'abnormal cells' ultimately, looking for pre-cancerous lesions. But this vaccine would prevent what causes these lesions in the first place. The cost of the vaccines should be offset by the savings of not requiring pap smears for the rest of a woman's life, and I believe most women would trade the annual exams for 3 shots in the arm over a 6 month period.

 

[shesulsa]

But this vaccine would prevent what causes these lesions in the first place. The cost of the vaccines should be offset by the savings of not requiring pap smears for the rest of a woman's life, and I believe most women would trade the annual exams for 3 shots in the arm over a 6 month period.

Is HPV the only cause of lesions? I don't think it is.

After having one child become vaccine damaged, I am very wary of any and all vaccines.

Also, the annual exam does not only include the PAP smear - visual and digital examination are also involved to monitor structural flaws and changes, appreciation of masses in, on or around the ovaries, integrity of the cervix, etcetera. So, I don't think that will go away. To me, the PAP is the simplest part of the whole exam - except the darn speculum - can't they make those a little easier on the bits?

Still - all told - I'll deal with the annual, thank you very much.

 

[raedyn]

You are correct, shesulsa, this vaccine would not eliminate the need for gynecological pelvic exams, just the pap smear portion. To those of us that are already sexually active and may have already been exposed to the virus, we will have to stick to our annual tests. But in the future, there are possibilities.



I've spent a lot of time this morning attempting to answer the question "is HPV the only cause of cervical cancer?" It's hard to get a straight answer on this. Many many websites (including the National Cancer Institute and National Cervical Cancer Coalition) say HPV is the precursor to Cervical Cancer and that it there is a "recognised causal relationship", but I'm having difficulty finding anything more specific or detailed.
from about.com

Twenty-four million Americans may have the human papillomavirus (HPV), yet more than 76 percent of women in the United States have never heard of this sexually transmitted virus which causes approximately 93 percent of all cervical cancers.

from webMDhealth

"There is such as strong association between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer that the assumption would be that the great majority of cancers associated with these HPV strains could be prevented by vaccination with vaccines that target those strains," say Christopher P. Crum, MD, director of women's and perinatal pathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

 

[Melissa426]

As a women's healthcare advocate, I think it is a great idea.

At first, 9 y.o. sounded a bit young for me, but that might certainly capture a group of girls at risk because of sexual abuse, pedophilia, incest, whatever.

I brought this up with a pastor friend of mine, who has 9 y.o. and 5 y.o. daughters.
He said that although he hopes (and is teaching his daughters) they choose to remain sexually pure till marriage, he is realistic enough to know that his daughters might choose otherwise, or their future husbands may not be virgins at the time of the wedding. He'd rather protect them.

He did make an interesting comment. He thought he might give the vaccinne to the almost 10 y.o. but not tell her exactly what it's for,so that she'll still retain a healthy respect/fear about the other STD's.
Hmmm.

 

[Lisa]

I don't know... I am wary of "new" vaccines. Have they been tested enough to be truly safe? You hear all sorts of conflicting adivice. Me, I can wait and see what happens.

The "mandatory" thing will open a whole can of worms... but that is another thread all together.

 

[Flatlander]

The "mandatory" thing will open a whole can of worms... but that is another thread all together.

Not at all, it belongs in this thread, as the lead post refers to the concept. :asian:

 

[Lisa]

Not at all, it belongs in this thread, as the lead post refers to the concept. :asian:

Okay....

That will be a cold day in ....ahem... somewhere warm... that anyone will force me to get my daughter vaccinated just to attend a public school.

 

[SenseiBear]

What about making it part of the childhood regiment of vaccines? I think that would make it far more likely that people would keep their fear of other std's... No one thinks much about the things we are all vaccinated against. It wouldn't have a sexual connotation then... and it IS so prevalent and potentially so harmful that I think it could be argued is a public health issue.

 

[raedyn]

No one thinks much about the things we are all vaccinated against.

well, most people don't. but there are people who have expressed concerns with vacination programs. and they might have a point. some people chose to opt out of vacination programs for their children siting concerns about relatively rare but potentially horrible side effects. see shesula's post, above.

 

[shesulsa]

Ho boy. This was already hashed out on another thread and I risk rising someone's Irish by posting these things again, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Okay.

I was successfully vaccinated against childhood disease and was a poster child for them. The only disease I ever got was chicken pox. So I happily carted my little two-month old firstborn off to doctor to get all shot up.

I will never, ever, ever allow another thing I can control to go into my children's body again without researching it.

I am intolerant of the Diphtheria portion of the DPT vaccines and the DT vaccines (just in case you don't know, that's the tetanus shot you get every five to ten years). I get an anaphylactic reaction that comes on slow - it's like being choked slowly. My son had the same reaction. He also has heavy metal toxicity from being unable to dump metals that store up in his liver and inflammation in the brain.

Now, I believe in vaccination - SAFE vaccination. I know that the standard-issue vaccines are not the only vaccines drug makers make - they do make vaccines for people who cannot tolerate portions of the multiple vaccines, they are also made without mercury now, though the stock pile of mercury-laden vaccines is not quite exhausted. Though laws have been passed restricting the use of mercury-based preservatives in the making of vaccines, no law has been passed mandating the disposal of or cessation of use of the stockpiles that do contain mercury.

And though the feds want to screen every single child for mental health, they supposedly can't fund immunity screening for every single child. They don't want to measure titers, allergies, immune dysfunction before injecting baby within 24 hours of birth. We supposedly can't fund it - but we sure can fund delving into Johnny's head.

My oldest falls into the "acceptable risk" category. I recognize there is a necessity for such a category when there is no other choice. But, I have another choice.

I don't get flu shots, I special order my tetanus shots directly from the manufacturer and pay cash for them, donating the remaining 9 doses in the vial to the public health department because, even though my doctor and the local hospital says there's no need for it, the health department gets people on a regular basis with similar needs.

If the vaccine is indeed safe and effective, we will find out about it in about thirty years after it has become a mandated portion of the multi-jab given to our eight-year-old daughters.

Okay - that's my rant and my position and I'm sure I've offended a fair portion of health care workers and advocates who believe in the established system and that's too bad and sorry. When you have become part of the acceptable risk category and you know prevention is a few dollars away, you may or may not feel differently.

VACCINATE SAFELY.

 

[SenseiBear]

I'm not offended - and I think both positions are correct. We need such public health initiatives as vaccinations. Yes, a small percentage will react badly, but the amount of people hurt without vaccinations is far greater than with. You can opt out, luckily in your case the adverse reactions were not fatal, and not everyone is as lucky... And I agree with you. If there are screening test that can be done to make them safer, that should be a high priority.

 

[shesulsa]

Thanks, Sensei Bear.

 

[Flatlander]

And though the feds want to screen every single child for mental health, they supposedly can't fund immunity screening for every single child.

This was an intriguing insight. Here is where we see the priorities quite obviously displayed. Given this circumstance, who is the major winner? The companies that profit by providing treatments, not the citizenry.

 

[shesulsa]

Indeed, oh beholden splendid one. Mass-produced prophylaxes distributed amongst the general population makes for increased income and monopolization which usually means decreased quality.

I don't mean to advocate against HPV prevention here, but sheesh. Can't we just slap condoms on every 10-year-old's desk? Oh wait - that's right - we can use sex to advertise music, Pepsi and clothing, but they'd better not want to have it.

Okay I'm going to my room now.

 

[raedyn]

Also, condoms aren't nearly as effective in preventing HPV infection as they are in preventing the spread of more serious diseases such as AIDS because condoms don't cover up all the areas where the virus lives.

 

[shesulsa]

Good point - how about the female condom which covers the female genitalia? Although it does require manual support at times.

 

[shesulsa]

Also, there are many different types of HPV and only a few cases of women who have HPV develop cervical cancer.

Here is one source.

Here is Planned Parenthood's information on HPV.

Here is the CDC's info on HPV.

 

[raedyn]

There's also many strains of HPV, up to a hundred, depending who you ask. Only about 30 of them are STD's and only a handful are responsible for cervical cancer. This vaccine targets the two biggest culprits with regards to cervical cancer HPV 16 & HPV 18. So it wouldn't be a vaccine against the genital wart causing strains.

 

[Melissa426]

I don't mean to advocate against HPV prevention here, but sheesh. Can't we just slap condoms on every 10-year-old's desk?

:idunno:
What Raedyn (I think ) said is true. "Safe sex" is a very important message, but it has fooled a lot of folks into believing they are completely safe. But, alas, they are not.


( I didn't see her reply till I had already typed mine, so I edited a bit. Good discussion. Why aren't more men involved? Hmmmm...)

Peace,
Melissa