H.P.V. Shots for young girls.

[lsfoster]

:-o btw - i'm incredibly dumb when it comes to chemistry.

Haha, yeah, most people aren't that interested in chemistry until they find out that they're paying for my degree. Then they wish they'd picked a "real" major.

 

[lsfoster]

I understand where you're coming from. With that said, It also does worry me too when there are limited information that are based on from the research alone to consider mandatory vaccinations. As for the patent laws, One has to show that it is refuted which makes it harder for them to be able to profit the pharmaceutical stuffs.

I think, When it comes to being overzealous about marketing thier products; They only are trying to 'register' the automatic thoughts in our head to assume that it is safe when some of the time it always is not the case.

It's also hard because a patent only lasts for 20 years from the day you file it. That means that you only have 20 years to produce a product, test it, get it reviewed and approved, then mass produce and market it. Tends to make them a little anxious.

 

[Babyblue]

I'm not sure where you think I said any of that. I never said to stop them, and I never said they were a failure. I think they are being marketed as more than they are, and I think most people will not know enough to realize that this isn't going to just stop cervical cancer. It's much more complicated than that. I think it's easier for people to just take what is being thrown at them by advertisements than to actually educate themselves on the topic, and I think that if there is less public awareness of how much still needs to be done, it will be harder for the research that still needs to happen to get funding and be done.

It is beyond the "advertising" state
Don't you think?

It is not the company that came up with this.

CDC, FDA, and DOH. Plus more. You are treating this like some sales ad.

It is not. It has been tested on people before FDA even approved of it.

I have looked on both sides of the research and based my opinion on it.

Make sure you do the same.

By saying that. Is that you keep saying to the effect. That it is nothing but a marketing sale.

Been mentioned before in this thread. If you feel this way about modern medication then how are we suppose to move on finding cures?

Fear is a major setback. Especially with the ones that are afraid to move on.

 

[Babyblue]

It's also hard because a patent only lasts for 20 years from the day you file it. That means that you only have 20 years to produce a product, test it, get it reviewed and approved, then mass produce and market it. Tends to make them a little anxious.

Huh?

So it took 20 years to approve the other vaccinations?

Or 20 years to see results of the HPV vaccination?

Please clarify.

 

[Babyblue]

I understand where you're coming from. With that said, It also does worry me too when there are limited information that are based on from the research alone to consider mandatory vaccinations. As for the patent laws, One has to show that it is refuted which makes it harder for them to be able to profit the pharmaceutical stuffs.

I think, When it comes to being overzealous about marketing thier products; They only are trying to 'register' the automatic thoughts in our head to assume that it is safe when some of the time it always is not the case.

It is just not marketing.

The FDA, CDC, DOH and more approve of this vaccine.

Its been approved since 2006. Been tested years beforehand.

 

[Jolie77]

It's also hard because a patent only lasts for 20 years from the day you file it. That means that you only have 20 years to produce a product, test it, get it reviewed and approved, then mass produce and market it. Tends to make them a little anxious.

Yeah, Also it takes 14 years for a design patent to be termed from the day it is filed.

 

[Jolie77]

It is just not marketing.

The FDA, CDC, DOH and more approve of this vaccine.

Its been approved since 2006. Been tested years beforehand.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that no matter how much is being said in the market, it does not mean that it automatically register as a safe thing to take. Sometime we have to risk some or we don't. Even though it is approved, it does not mean that it is 100% safe. It just also means that we have to approach it in a cautious manner and to be well informed of it.

 

[Babyblue]

Yeah, Also it takes 14 years for a design patent to be termed from the day it is filed.

Would you deny any other "new" medical promises that may benifit you or a love one?

 

[Jolie77]

Would you deny any other "new" medical promises that may benifit you or a love one?

That's a good question. Actually, I would be kind of skeptical about it since it is 'new'. I'd make sure I'm well informed of the 'new' medical promises that may benefit me or a loved one. So, in other words, I would not deny it because I would want to look into it but I also would not proceed quickly either.

 

[Babyblue]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that no matter how much is being said in the market, it does not mean that it automatically register as a safe thing to take. Sometime we have to risk some or we don't. Even though it is approved, it does not mean that it is 100% safe. It just also means that we have to approach it in a cautious manner and to be well informed of it.

Right!

Just like any children's vaccination. Some of those are even scarier than the HPV vaccination.

Those vaccination been around for years Haven't we benifited from them? We nearly eliminated majority of childhood viruses that killed.

 

[Babyblue]

That's a good question. Actually, I would be kind of skeptical about it since it is 'new'. I'd make sure I'm well informed of the 'new' medical promises that may benefit me or a loved one. So, in other words, I would not deny it because I would want to look into it but I also would not proceed quickly either.

That is why information is out there.

Plenty of links from guardisal, CDC, FDA, and the DOH. Plus more. They honestly tell you the possible side effects and who to report to if you do.

It is not a gimmick or advertisement. It is prevention.

But after one reads the information it is up to them.

 

[Babyblue]

It has also been approved by the American Cancer Society
.

 

[vallee]

My ten year old daughter already had her first shot. She goes back on the 17th of December for her 2nd shot.

After a lot of research and knowledge of family history, I decided to have this set of shots for her. After reading all the debate, I still agree with my decision. Oh and my insurance pays 100% of the cost.

 

[Babyblue]

They provide the vaccinations for HPV for free at the Health Dept.

 

[Cheri]

My ten year old daughter already had her first shot. She goes back on the 17th of December for her 2nd shot.

After a lot of research and knowledge of family history, I decided to have this set of shots for her. After reading all the debate, I still agree with my decision. Oh and my insurance pays 100% of the cost.

 

[lsfoster]

It is beyond the "advertising" state
Don't you think?

It is not the company that came up with this.

CDC, FDA, and DOH. Plus more. You are treating this like some sales ad.

It is not. It has been tested on people before FDA even approved of it.

I have looked on both sides of the research and based my opinion on it.

Make sure you do the same.

By saying that. Is that you keep saying to the effect. That it is nothing but a marketing sale.

Been mentioned before in this thread. If you feel this way about modern medication then how are we suppose to move on finding cures?

Fear is a major setback. Especially with the ones that are afraid to move on.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say at all. First of all, there is a lot of sales and marketing still happening. Have you seen the "One less" commercials? The whole pitch is, "Get the Gardasil vaccine, and be one less woman who has to battle cervical cancer". They very gingerly address the fact that it can't actually prevent cervical cancer, and then obviously any side effects, like in any commercial.

I know fear is a major setback. But so is complacency. The fact is, however good Gardasil is, it can't actually claim to prevent cervical cancer, because they still don't understand all the causes or factors that lead to cancer. But making people think it can will take the emphasis off of future studies and research, and make it harder for people to get funding for those studies. That worries me.

I'm not saying I'm against modern medicine, and I'm not sure where you would get that from any of my posts. What I'm saying is that one new development should not make it seem like they've "solved" an entire problem when they haven't. Have they done something? Yes. But there is still more to be done, and it's hard for people to see that when all they're being shown is "the cure for cervical cancer".

 

[lsfoster]

Huh?

So it took 20 years to approve the other vaccinations?

Or 20 years to see results of the HPV vaccination?

Please clarify.

No, once you file a patent on something, you have 20 years during which nobody else can make or sell that drug. So when they came up with the idea for Gardasil, they had to patent it to keep their rights to it. But from that time, the 20 years is counting down, so while they're getting it reviewed and approved, and while they're doing testing, that's all time that they can't sell the product, and they only have 20 years total to make exclusive profit from it. After that, anyone can make similar or generic brands. The patent laws right now make it hard for anyone to want to do extensive testing, because it takes time away from their sale time.

 

[jillio]

I've been reading this thread for a while now and I find some valid arguments that are quite interesting.

I wanted to clear this up to find the surface underneath all this. If they are clearly bending the truth on the fliers then why would they bend the truth only to jeopardize the welfare of other's health when it comes to the vaccines?

While I can understand the importance of marketing but certainly, when it comes to marketing; Shouldn't the health come first before they impede the propaganda of the marketing aspects in order to make sure it is ensured?

The truth is not being bent. It is being phrased in a manner that the majority of the public will understand. Most people do not have an advanced degree in chemistry or microbiology, and therefore, the pamphlets have been explained in a way that the majority of people will easily understand. It is much the same as a doctor telling you "Your gall bladder is bad." Instead of "You have cholisistitis." Both mean the same thing, but one is technical, and one is phrased so that the average person can understand.

 

[jillio]

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination — Reasons for Caution
Charlotte J. Haug, M.D., Ph.D.

Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. Several strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer, and two vaccines directed against the currently most important oncogenic strains (i.e., the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes) have been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that the overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. As Kim and Goldie1 point out in this issue of the Journal, the real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades.

Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007, first in the Journal2 and 1 month later in the Lancet.3,4 The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.5,6 For instance, will the vaccine ultimately prevent not only cervical lesions, but also cervical cancer and death? How long will protection conferred by the vaccine last? Since most HPV infections are easily cleared by the immune system, how will vaccination affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what implications? How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response? The studies with clinical end points (i.e., CIN 2/3) involved 16- to 24-year-old women. How will vaccination affect screening practices? Since the vaccines protect against only two of the oncogenic strains of HPV, women must continue to be screened for cervical lesions. Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening. How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes.

Resolving the first essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women. The last question may be answered sooner. Published reports of trials show an increasing trend of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV serotypes other than HPV-16 and HPV-18.2,4,6 The results were not statistically significant, however, possibly because there were too few clinically relevant end points in the observation periods reported. If randomized, controlled trials involving vaccinated and unvaccinated women continue for a few more years, we will most likely be able to tell whether this is a true trend. If so, there is reason for serious concern.

By the summer of 2007, there were definitely promising results with regard to the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in the prevention of precancerous lesions (i.e., CIN 2/3) caused by the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes. However, serious questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in the protection against cervical cancer remained to be answered, and more long-term studies were called for before large-scale vaccination programs could be recommended.5,6 Unfortunately, no longer-term results from such studies have been published since then.

In the meantime, there has been pressure on policymakers worldwide to introduce the HPV vaccine in national or statewide vaccination programs. How can policymakers make rational choices about the introduction of medical interventions that might do good in the future, but for which evidence is insufficient, especially since we will not know for many years whether the intervention will work or — in the worst case — do harm? One way to provide decision support is to develop mathematical models of the natural history of the disease in question, introduce various intervention strategies, and use cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the costs and health benefits associated with each clinical intervention. The results are typically expressed in terms of the amount we will have to pay for the extra health benefit of the treatment — that is, in dollars per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Cost-effectiveness analyses are tools for decision making under conditions of uncertainty. These analyses do not in themselves provide evidence that medical interventions are effective. In this issue of the Journal, Kim and Goldie present a model of HPV vaccination, and they use a cost-effectiveness analysis to make projections of the possible health and economic implications of the use of the vaccine.1

To evaluate the quality of a cost-effectiveness analysis, it is essential to appraise the model's input variables, the uncertainties, and the choices the researchers have made. To set up such an analysis of a preventive medical intervention — in this case, a vaccine given to healthy 12-year-old girls — that might have an effect on the incidence of cervical cancer decades from now is extremely complex. The analysis has to model the natural history of HPV infection in this cohort of girls over their lifetime, the effect of the vaccine over all those years (whether it is the same effect or one that is waning), the effect on other HPV strains, the effect of the vaccine on the natural immunity against HPV infections, the sexual behavior of the girls and women and their partners, and finally, women's cervical-cancer screening practices.

The model presented by Kim and Goldie is well done and ambitious, and it includes most of these factors. They conclude that under certain assumptions, vaccinating 12-year-old girls is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,600 per QALY gained, whereas adding a catch-up program for older girls and women is not cost-effective. However, their base-case assumptions are quite optimistic. They presume lifelong protection of the vaccine (i.e., no need for a booster dose), that the vaccine has the same effect on preadolescent girls as on older women, that no replacement with other oncogenic strains of HPV takes place, that vaccinated women continue to attend screening programs, and that natural immunity against HPV is unaffected. Whether these assumptions are reasonable is exactly what needs to be tested in trials and follow-up studies. If the authors' baseline assumptions are not correct, vaccination becomes less favorable and even less effective than screening alone. For example, as shown in the article, if the protection of the vaccine wanes after 10 years, vaccination is much less cost-effective and screening is more effective than catch-up programs.

With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


NEJM -- Human Papillomavirus Vaccination -- Reasons for Caution

And, another one, it's 24 long pages :

A Judicial Watch Special Report
Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf

Here's where your confusion lies, Maria. Gardisil is not a vaccine to protect against "cervical cancer". It is a vaccine to protect against HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, the consequence of which can be, for some, mutation into cervical cancer.

 

[lsfoster]

Here's where your confusion lies, Maria. Gardisil is not a vaccine to protect against "cervical cancer". It is a vaccine to protect against HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, the consequence of which can be, for some, mutation into cervical cancer.

And this is why I don't like their marketing. Here are a few quotes directly from the flier provided before.

"There is no treatment for HPV infection, but the conditions it causes can be treated."
"HPV vaccine can prevent most genital warts and most cases of cervical cancer."

Combine that with their "one less" campaign, and I find their methods misleading.