Anti-Cancer vaccine (Gardasil) found safe

[CougarKing]

Wow. So this only applies for Cervical cancer?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24746068-29277,00.html

BREAKTHROUGH cancer vaccine Gardasil has been given the all-clear in a follow-up study of schoolgirls who fell ill after being injected with it.

The study took in 25 young women who were reported to immunisation authorities as suffering a "suspected hypersensitivity" reaction during the national roll-out of the cervical cancer vaccine.

After a range of skin prick and injection tests, only one young woman went on to develop a case of possibly unrelated hives when re-exposed to the vaccine.

"Only three of the 25 evaluated schoolgirls had probable hypersensitivity to the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine after 380,000 doses had been administered in schools," the research paper, published in the British Medical Journal, also concludes.

"Our data suggest that true hypersensitivity to the ... vaccine is uncommon and that suspected hypersensitivity reactions such as urticaria (hives) are often idiosyncratic."

The study was conducted by Dr Sharon Choo, attached to the Department of Allergy and Immunology at Melbourne's Royal Childrens Hospital, and fellow colleagues.

Gardasil, developed by former Australian of the Year, scientist Ian Frazer, provides protection against 70 per cent of cervical cancers by blocking two strains of the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus.

The national vaccination of females aged 12 to 26 got underway in April last year when it also sparked media reports of fainting and dizzy spells, even temporary paralysis among some schoolgirls.

The research paper also notes such reactions were typical during any mass vaccination effort, regardless of what was being injected.

"One study estimated that if 80 per cent of eligible US adolescent females were to receive a saline (sterile saltwater) injection ... three per 100,000 adolescents would require emergency care for asthma or allergy within 24 hours of vaccination."

 

[B0nes]

Thats what it sounds like to me... Although now that I think about it, its not very surprising they found a vaccination against it considering its created through a virus.

 

[Celticgirl]

Gardasil only protects against four of the 30 strains of HPV. Of those women who develop HPV (a sexually transmitted infection), only 10% go on to develop a more serious infection that can lead to cervical cancer, and only a small percentage of those cases actually go on to develop cervical cancer (I don't know the exact statistics).

This vaccine is very new and the long-term effects are not yet known, so speaking as the mom of a little girl, I won't be giving my consent for my child to get vaccinated with Gardasil. After years of research can prove that this is a safe vaccine and that the benefits outweigh the risks by a substantial margin, then I will consider it. Of course, my daughter will be an adult by then.

Condoms are a better option. Teach pre-teens and teens (both genders) to use them 100% of the time and we won't see the prevalence of HPV that we are seeing now, and thus, we won't be seeing cervical cancers very often either. {Note: I'm not suggesting we advocate sex for pre-teens and teens, but eventually they are going to do it, and they need to get the message early and often about condom use.}

Here's an interesting article I read a while back on this topic (Gardasil). Food for thought for parents of young girls: Our Girls are Not Guinea Pigs.

 

[KingKikapu]

Condoms are a better option. Teach pre-teens and teens (both genders) to use them 100% of the time and we won't see the prevalence of HPV that we are seeing now...

Condoms do not protect you entirely from HPV as it is a contact-transmitted virus.  That means if someone is infected on the perigenital area a condom won't protect at all.  That is why HPV is so prevalent.  While I am all for proper condom education, it is not an adequate solution to reducing HPV infection rates.  Fortunately for your daughter, she has some time for the research to mature on this front.  In many ways she is already much more protected than previous generations ever were (vaccine aside I mean). 

I wish you and your child many healthy years.

 

[George Wallace]

Condoms are a better option. Teach pre-teens and teens (both genders) to use them 100% of the time and we won't see the prevalence of HPV that we are seeing now, and thus, we won't be seeing cervical cancers very often either. {Note: I'm not suggesting we advocate sex for pre-teens and teens, but eventually they are going to do it, and they need to get the message early and often about condom use.}

;D

After reading the last couple posts, the picture of someone all wrapped in Saran Wrap came to mind. 

Sorry.   >



Now back to the serious topic.

 

[dapaterson]

Gardasil only protects against four of the 30 strains of HPV. Of those women who develop HPV (a sexually transmitted infection), only 10% go on to develop a more serious infection that can lead to cervical cancer, and only a small percentage of those cases actually go on to develop cervical cancer (I don't know the exact statistics).

The strains that Garadsil protects against represent roughly 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts cases.  The other are much less prevalent.

This vaccine is very new and the long-term effects are not yet known, so speaking as the mom of a little girl, I won't be giving my consent for my child to get vaccinated with Gardasil. After years of research can prove that this is a safe vaccine and that the benefits outweigh the risks by a substantial margin, then I will consider it. Of course, my daughter will be an adult by then.

True.  Long-term epidemiologies are lacking at this time.  Indeed, the long-term efficacity of the vaccination are unknown now as well - how long it protects hasn't been documented.  Short-term results suggest it has about half the routine incidence of serious reports following vaccination compared to other vaccines. (Note that this does not necessarily imply causation).

Condoms are a better option. Teach pre-teens and teens (both genders) to use them 100% of the time and we won't see the prevalence of HPV that we are seeing now, and thus, we won't be seeing cervical cancers very often either. {Note: I'm not suggesting we advocate sex for pre-teens and teens, but eventually they are going to do it, and they need to get the message early and often about condom use.}

As others have stated, HPV can be transmitted through other means as well.  Vaccination can be part of a risk mitigation procedure.

Here's an interesting article I read a while back on this topic (Gardasil). Food for thought for parents of young girls: Our Girls are Not Guinea Pigs.

The article is poorly written, researched or supported.  It's filled with innuendo and suggestion - "Emily got sick.  Therefore it was Gardasil.  (Oh yeah, she also got a flu shot)".

There are legitimate concerns abotu the introduction of any new preventive treatment.  This sort of hack journalism does nothing to help people make informed choices.

 

[KingKikapu]

I agree with the above.  That article is far too reactionary and lacks reputable scientific sourcing.

 

[Celticgirl]

Condoms do not protect you entirely from HPV as it is a contact-transmitted virus. 

I didn't meant to suggest that it was 100% fool-proof. We all know that condoms do not offer 100% protection against pregnancy either. They just lower the chances significantly, and I think increased condom use could be just as good as, if not much better than, this new vaccine when it comes to preventing HPV.

The strains that Garadsil protects against represent roughly 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts cases.  The other are much less prevalent.

So what about the other 30%? Condoms protect us more than 70% of the time (when used properly). While I agree that 70% is better than nothing, I am not convinced that this vaccine is safe, therefore if you add that to the fact that it's not 99-100% effective, like other vaccines, I don't see why I would take that risk with my daughter's health.

True.  Long-term epidemiologies are lacking at this time.  Indeed, the long-term efficacity of the vaccination are unknown now as well - how long it protects hasn't been documented.  Short-term results suggest it has about half the routine incidence of serious reports following vaccination compared to other vaccines. (Note that this does not necessarily imply causation).

Other vaccines have been used for many, many years. My daughter has had all sorts of vaccinations, but she won't be getting this one. If there were more 'knowns', then I would seriously consider it.

The article is poorly written, researched or supported.  It's filled with innuendo and suggestion - "Emily got sick.  Therefore it was Gardasil.  (Oh yeah, she also got a flu shot)".

There are legitimate concerns abotu the introduction of any new preventive treatment.  This sort of hack journalism does nothing to help people make informed choices.

It's food for thought, that is all. I've certainly read more than one article on this topic, and have spoken with medical professionals about Gardasil. My mind was not made up from this one article's findings, but I do find it interesting reading, innuendo and suggestion included. After all, what we have right now is 'only' speculation because we have very limited research and none of it is long-term as yet. In other words, the jury is still out and will be for a long time. We should be skeptical.

 

[KingKikapu]

The point that I was trying to make was HPV does not behave like other viruses.  Condoms can be terribly ineffective if the infection is perigenital (IE it won't protect at all!).  That is a far cry from a condom and the risk of pregnancy, which as you say, reduces the risk at least.  In some circumstances that isn't even true with HPV.