Gardasil for boys

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi, if you think you can evaluate scientific papers better than my husband fine, but I’m going along with his recommendations.

</p>

<p>Did I ever claim I could evaluate scientific papers better than your husband? I answered to your statement that “DH (cancer researcher) was persuaded by the doctors that he collaborates with that Guardasil is absolutely critical to help prevent all sorts of cancers in both men and women.” You did not state that your DH had reviewed scientific but that he had been persuaded by other doctors, and that … “Guardasil is absolutely critical to help prevent all sorts of cancers.” </p>

<p>Obviously, I happen to find the “absolutely crtical part” of the claim regarding Gardasil questionable. </p>

<p>Hence my reply:</p>

<p>

@Xiggi

It seems the makers of Gardasil can rest assured of how well-oiled the promotional machine works. The vaccine works very well but people should not overstate its VERY limited effects and understate the inherent limitations of its scope. good to remember the vaccines only work on TWO or FOUR subtypes of HPV and are ineffective for patients that have contracted the virus. This is why the companies have pushed for vaccination of preteens in the poorer countries. Claims of ancillary benefits of Gardasil remain unproven.</p>

<p>While easily contracted, only a very small percentage of HPV resists the natural defenses of the body, and only a very small percentage of the patients progress to cervical or other cancers.

</p>

<p>Feel free to disagree with my post. And feel free to point out any fallacies in what I posted above.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>xiggi, what you posted above is misleading. The vaccine protects against the most common subtypes of HPV. Also, of course the vaccine only works for the uninfected (like most vaccines), which is why the recommendations are for vaccination of those who are not yet sexually active. As for this:

While easily contracted, only a very small percentage of HPV resists the natural defenses of the body, and only a very small percentage of the patients progress to cervical or other cancers.

But a small percentage of half of the people in the country is still a large number of people. Cervical cancer continues to be a significant problem. According to the CDC, in 2007 over 12,000 women in the US were diagnosed with cervical cancer, and more than 4000 died from the disease. (The CDC also says that about 1% of sexually active adults have genital warts at any given time.)</p>

<p>If you are saying that you don’t think it’s worth being vaccinated for HPV, I just think that’s a mistaken opinion. Of course, I’m still not sure you’re actually saying that.</p>

[Skyhook]

<p>

He had had the meningitis shot 4 years ago and I didn’t realize that he needed another. That’s a big one to be on top of for college.

</p>

<p>Hello. Is there a follow-up meningitis shot? I didn’t know that. I better start googling.</p>

<p>Btw, my son is in process on the Gardasil shots. When I heard about the risk of head and neck cancers that sealed the deal for me.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi, what you posted above is misleading.

</p>

<p>Hunt, with all due respect, could you please explain what part of my post is misleading? </p>

<p>Fwiw, your statement about percentages is different from mine. I talked about percentages of HPV infections that progress to cervical cancer; you seem to talk about percentages of people who might become infected. </p>

<p>In an added fwiw, you accused me of making elliptical statements. You really must not like the ellipsis! I will thus answer your question about my view on the vaccination. I believe it to be effective and efficacious, but with more than a few limitations and possible dangers. One of them being an over-reliance on the vaccine at the expense of the more traditional examinations. Ditto for the testing tools such as </p>

<p>I also believe that most discussions (such as the few that have appeared on this forum) to overstate the scope of the protection offered by the current vaccination. As noted here, as well as in the documents both you and I made references to, Gardasil offers protection to uninfected candidates for FOUR strains of the HPV virus, namely 6, 11, 16, and 18. While covering about 70 percent of common prevalence, the four types are only a small part of 150 recognized types, and still a small part of the 15 most common types that appear in cervical cancer diagnoses. The list includes 16, 18, 45, 31, 33, 52, 58, 35, 59, 56, 39, 51, 73, 68 and 66.</p>

<p>On a last note, there are plenty of issues that remain unproven. For instance, how many long term studies are there available on the duration of the protection? Does Gardasil remain effective after 5 years? Ten years? Do we know if the vaccination has reduced the incidence of cervical cancer since its launch? And … is there even a way to measure this reduction and correctly distributing the possible reasons for a reduction of cervical cancer between improved despistage, vaccination, reduction in smoking, and more aggressive treatment. </p>

<p>As far as the question about the effectiveness for boys, I prefer to point to the existing reseach, and let everyone draw their own conclusions.</p>

[momofthreeboys]

<p>To me there is a world of difference between airborne diseases that we now routinely vaccinate against and vaccines that are available that people can choose to receive or not. I don’t pass judgement on those that choose to have their babies immunized against Hep B but conversely I don’t wish to be judged for waiting or forgoing Hep B. I’m grateful all three had chickenpox before that one came along as I was concerned about the efficacy over time. We have generations of research of what happens to people who have actually contracted chilckenpox, not so much about those who were vaccinated. With boys, I feel that it’s a choice whether or not to immunize for HPV. Frankly I think a condom will protect them well against many forms HPV as well as a host of other sexually transmitted diseases and an unwanted pregnancy. HPV is just one more reason to use condoms.</p>

[myturnnow]

<p>the problem is many young people do not always consistently use the protection they need, that’s simply a reality. Also, even once in a relationship some risk can remain.</p>

[woody]

<p>“One of them being an over-reliance on the vaccine at the expense of the more traditional examinations.”
I totally agree with xiggi on this one.
As I said earlier, a decrease in the incidence of cervical cancers is not necessarily in the future. A decrease in the incidence of false positive Paps is.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

As I said earlier, a decrease in the incidence of cervical cancers is not necessarily in the future. A decrease in the incidence of false positive Paps is.

</p>

<p>And hopefully in the future we will see a decrease in genital warts and the painful treatments many of these outbreaks require.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>xiggi, I think what is misleading about your first post–somewhat less in the latest post–is the emphasis on the limitations of the vaccine. While it doesn’t cover all the strains of HPV (or rather, it hasn’t been shown to cover them), it does cover the most common ones responsible for the bulk of disease caused by the virus. There are vaccines in development that are expected to have broader coverage–when they are approved, the drug companies will promote them instead. In the meantime, this is a valuable vaccine. I agree that it doesn’t substitute for screening, but it’s possible that down the road screening recommendations will change for those who have been vaccinated. As of now, there has been no such change.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Hunt, I have to disagree with your analysis of my posts. I stated that Gardasil provided immunization against four types of HPV strains and were limited to uninfected patients. Every part of my post was (and is) factually correct, including the comments on the inherent limitations of the current crop of vaccines. </p>

<p>I’d be happy to discuss the sources of my information via PM. </p>

<p>X</p>

[TKsmom]

<p>In think the reason that some insurance companies did not cover the vaccine for boys a year or more ago is because it was not yet FDA approved for boys. It is now approved so most should cover it. County health departments will often provide it for free or very low cost to those without coverage and often even to those with coverage. ( think greater good, public health benefit)</p>

<p>The reason that the vaccine is not recommended for women over age 26 is because it was not studied in that group AND because most women are sexually active before then so they likely would not benefit since the vast majority of them are already infected with HPV.</p>

<p>Condoms do not protect against HPV.</p>

<p>The vaccine that covers more subtypes is under investigation and when the studies are down, the FDA will review it. But if you have a kid who may become sexually active soon, you may want to vaccinate now, rather than wait.</p>

<p>The reason to vaccinate boys is that they are vectors and can transmit the disease just as girls can. And boys can get anal and head/ neck cancers and they can get genital warts. Boys definitely don’t want that!</p>

[MD_Mom_1]

<p>Talked with a pediatrician at a track meet today. She said get the vaccine. She also added that if you were to ask anybody who currently has cancer whether they would have taken a vaccine with the potential to prevent their cancer, all would say yes. She also added that throat and anal cancers are often very aggressive cancers.</p>

[northeastmom]

<p>Update: Our insurance company is apparently now paying for these vaccines. I called our insurance company about 2 months ago and still it was not covered. DS just went to the doctor he told DS that it is covered by our insurance (FWIW, he claims that he has not had a problem with insurance paying on any of his patients).</p>

[saintfan]

<p>D has had it and S will have it. It may not cover every single strain, but who cares. Some immunity is better than no immunity.</p>

[saintfan]

<p>p.s. I paid for D’s vaccination out of pocket at the time because I thought it was that important. It was a financial stretch at the time, but one that I was willing to make.</p>