justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 12, 2015 16:09:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure I would call almost 5000 deaths a year and most of those treated for cervical cancer not able to get pregnant a handle...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:20:32 GMT -5
I don't get regular mamograms either. There is nothing in the lit so far that convinces me it is an effective tool. I am not a big sunscreen user. It has a small place in our plan to protect our skin from burning, but I'm not convinced it is an effective tool in combatting skin cancer. I would not circumcise my son if I was making the choice today... There is just no medical reason in America to do so. And yes, we have pretty much handled cervical cancer in the US with routine examination. So, if it's only that cancer and only a few strains of HPV, and untested over time and initial reports of side effects are potentially major ... Yes, I'm not going to rush right out and say stick me...
Now, as the vac is tested by time, as more strains are in lauded, as we learn more about HPV... Might I suggest to m kids they get it... Might. We'll see I guess.
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Feb 12, 2015 16:24:15 GMT -5
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,371
|
Post by imawino on Feb 12, 2015 16:26:40 GMT -5
I don't get regular mamograms either. There is nothing in the lit so far that convinces me it is an effective tool. I am not a big sunscreen user. It has a small place in our plan to protect our skin from burning, but I'm not convinced it is an effective tool in combatting skin cancer. I would not circumcise my son if I was making the choice today... There is just no medical reason in America to do so. And yes, we have pretty much handled cervical cancer in the US with routine examination. So, if it's only that cancer and only a few strains of HPV, and untested over time and initial reports of side effects are potentially major ... Yes, I'm not going to rush right out and say stick me... Now, as the vac is tested by time, as more strains are in lauded, as we learn more about HPV... Might I suggest to m kids they get it... Might. We'll see I guess.
But the thing is - it's not one type of cancer, it doesn't prevent only a few strains, and there is no evidence of major side effects (the early reported deaths could not be linked to he vaccine)
From CDC regarding cervical cancer:
In 2011, the overall U.S. incidence rate was 7.5 per 100,000 women (12,109 new cases), ranging from 4.5 in New Hampshire to 13.7 in DC (Figure). In 2011, the overall U.S. death rate was 2.3 per 100,000 women (4,092 deaths), ranging from 1.2 in Utah to 4.8 in West Virginia (Figure).
Certainly not the worst odds ever - but I wouldn't call it cured.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:30:27 GMT -5
Why shouldn't medical treatment and prevention be made on a case by case basis? To me it's crazy to think just because you've done one at such time means you automatically say yes to all... I didn't say it shouldn't. I said I was interested in why there was a seemingly higher rate of concern about this particular vaccine. End of story. Maybe there are life threatening side effects I had somehow missed out on hearing since this vaccine was not around when I would have been the age to get it, and I don't have kids. I made an assumption that people who chose not to get it (for themselves or dependents) had an actual reason for the choice that they might share. But there is apparently not a reason or people are oddly ashamed to share it. is the reason really "cervical cancer ain't so bad"? it has nothing to do with cervical cancer not being so bad....it's the fact that the chances of getting cervical cancer from one of the HPV strains that the vaccine could protect against is extremely low.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:32:40 GMT -5
I don't get regular mamograms either. There is nothing in the lit so far that convinces me it is an effective tool. I am not a big sunscreen user. It has a small place in our plan to protect our skin from burning, but I'm not convinced it is an effective tool in combatting skin cancer. I would not circumcise my son if I was making the choice today... There is just no medical reason in America to do so. And yes, we have pretty much handled cervical cancer in the US with routine examination. So, if it's only that cancer and only a few strains of HPV, and untested over time and initial reports of side effects are potentially major ... Yes, I'm not going to rush right out and say stick me... Now, as the vac is tested by time, as more strains are in lauded, as we learn more about HPV... Might I suggest to m kids they get it... Might. We'll see I guess.
But the thing is - it's not one type of cancer, it doesn't prevent only a few strains, and there is no evidence of major side effects (the early reported deaths could not be linked to he vaccine)
From CDC regarding cervical cancer:
In 2011, the overall U.S. incidence rate was 7.5 per 100,000 women (12,109 new cases), ranging from 4.5 in New Hampshire to 13.7 in DC (Figure). In 2011, the overall U.S. death rate was 2.3 per 100,000 women (4,092 deaths), ranging from 1.2 in Utah to 4.8 in West Virginia (Figure).
Certainly not the worst odds ever - but I wouldn't call it cured.
and what is the age breakdown and how many got annual exams?
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Feb 12, 2015 16:33:26 GMT -5
I think helping with genital warts is a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:35:22 GMT -5
Most invasive cervical cancer is found in women who do not have regular pap exams.
Ive said repeatedly that it is incidence of other cancers... Although they are all listed as RARE... Which might make me consider it.
It actually does only prevent a few strains, there are 70-100 strains, so if it's 14 now instead of 4... I didn't see that link? ... It's still only some... They are some of the more common, but again it's certainly not stopping them all.
Yes, I know the disclaimer... Just because someone had something bad happen after the vaccine doesn't mean it's the vaccine... It's always there.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 12, 2015 16:42:52 GMT -5
I didn't say it shouldn't. I said I was interested in why there was a seemingly higher rate of concern about this particular vaccine. End of story. Maybe there are life threatening side effects I had somehow missed out on hearing since this vaccine was not around when I would have been the age to get it, and I don't have kids. I made an assumption that people who chose not to get it (for themselves or dependents) had an actual reason for the choice that they might share. But there is apparently not a reason or people are oddly ashamed to share it. is the reason really "cervical cancer ain't so bad"? it has nothing to do with cervical cancer not being so bad....it's the fact that the chances of getting cervical cancer from one of the HPV strains that the vaccine could protect against is extremely low. 99% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV, 70% of that 99% is caused by 2 strains that are in the vaccine. www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/cervical-cancer-hpv-what-women-girls-should-know
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:47:13 GMT -5
but not all HPV causes cervical cancer......
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,371
|
Post by imawino on Feb 12, 2015 16:50:27 GMT -5
But the thing is - it's not one type of cancer, it doesn't prevent only a few strains, and there is no evidence of major side effects (the early reported deaths could not be linked to he vaccine)
From CDC regarding cervical cancer:
In 2011, the overall U.S. incidence rate was 7.5 per 100,000 women (12,109 new cases), ranging from 4.5 in New Hampshire to 13.7 in DC (Figure). In 2011, the overall U.S. death rate was 2.3 per 100,000 women (4,092 deaths), ranging from 1.2 in Utah to 4.8 in West Virginia (Figure).
Certainly not the worst odds ever - but I wouldn't call it cured.
and what is the age breakdown and how many got annual exams? If they didn't get a regular exam, does it change whether or not the vaccine could have prevented them from getting the disease that causes cervical cancer? Does it make the vaccine more or less dangerous? I'm sure that most of the medical community agrees that women should be getting an annual pap, but that doesn't change the effectiveness of the vaccine or the causal relationship between HPV and cervical cancer. And quite honestly, getting genital warts sounds pretty sucky in and of itself. Having a piece of your cervix biopsied or lasered off because you have abnormalities that are caught during an annual exam sounds like a lot less fun than a shot in the arm, too. Not all the treatments that prevent HPV from turning into full blown cervical cancer are a walk in the park.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 16:52:21 GMT -5
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,371
|
Post by imawino on Feb 12, 2015 16:52:25 GMT -5
but not all HPV causes cervical cancer...... But effectively all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. I cannot even figure out what your point is. So if it gives you genital warts but not cervical cancer, it's cool?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,225
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 12, 2015 16:57:43 GMT -5
Having a piece of your cervix biopsied or lasered off because you have abnormalities that are caught during an annual exam sounds like a lot less fun than a shot in the arm, too
It can also affect your ability to carry children to term because each time you have a piece lasered off it can weaken the cervix. I'll gladly have my DDs get Gardasil rather than deal with that BS for the rest of their lives. Just because it doesn't develop into full blown cancer doesn't mean carrying HPV is no big deal. It can be a fairly big nuisance in your life.
If other people don't want to opt for their kids to get it that's fine. Personally for me I'll take my chances having my daughters get the vaccination than cross my fingers they don't have to deal with the BS.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 12, 2015 16:59:00 GMT -5
but not all HPV causes cervical cancer...... But HPV does cause penile, mouth and throat cancers, not to mention giant grape-like clusters of genital warts. I really don't understand why any parent would risk that for their child. Maybe because they believe Michele Bachman?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 12, 2015 17:00:01 GMT -5
but not all HPV causes cervical cancer...... No, but you don't get to pick and choose which strains you are infected with. Most people are infected with HPV. I know I am and have been tested. I know I'm not infected with a strain that is a higher risk of causing cervical cancer, but this does not stop me from getting a pap smear.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 17:00:24 GMT -5
But they still have to deal with it! They still need routine pap exams. That's one thing I do worry about that the vaccine makes people think they are safe and then they don't bother with exams... Kind of like sunscreen hasn't really reduced cancer and maybe one Eason is a false sense of security...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 12, 2015 17:02:39 GMT -5
But they still have to dla with it! They still need routine pap exams. That's one thing I do worry about that the vaccine makes people think they are safe and then they don't bother with exams... Kind of like sunscreen hasn't really reduced cancer and maybe one Eason is a false sense of security... Try getting prescription contraception without a pap smear and exam. I seriously doubt that many forgo exams just because they have been immunized.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,371
|
Post by imawino on Feb 12, 2015 17:05:55 GMT -5
But they still have to deal with it! They still need routine pap exams. That's one thing I do worry about that the vaccine makes people think they are safe and then they don't bother with exams... Kind of like sunscreen hasn't really reduced cancer and maybe one Eason is a false sense of security... I'm pretty sure she means dealing with HPV, not dealing with annual exams.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,225
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 12, 2015 17:07:16 GMT -5
That's one thing I do worry about that the vaccine makes people think they are safe and then they don't bother with exams...
To be honest dealing with HPV has made going in to the doctor far less attractive. It's not fun to go in and wonder if you'll be in again in two weeks to have pieces cut out of you. I still go though because it's been drilled into my head that I need to.
I have the strain that has a high risk of causing cervical cancer. I also have had pieces of my cervix lasered off. That was out patient surgery to tune of $6k.
I was beyond pissed my gynecologist did not disclose to me that having a LEEP can affect your ability to carry a pregnancy to term. I didn't get that awesome news until I was pregnant with Gwen. Fortunately I had no problems.
DH is my one and only partner so that didn't protect me. There is no way to screen DH and he would have picked it up long before they tested women for it.
I'm getting both girls the vaccination anything so they don't potentially have to deal with the crap that I have. For whatever reason it's cleared up since I had the kids, I'm hoping it stays dormant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 17:07:26 GMT -5
Where are people getting 14 strains? GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases. GARDASIL also helps protect girls and young women ages 9 to 26 against 70% of vaginal cancer cases and up to 50% of vulvar cancer cases. GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, nor will it protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important for women to continue routine cervical cancer screenings. GARDASIL does not treat cancer or genital warts. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months. m.gardasil.com/?WT.mc_id=GL0LI
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Feb 12, 2015 17:09:40 GMT -5
You just told me. Thankfully I was done having kids anyway, but yeah, that is good info to get up front.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Feb 12, 2015 17:13:11 GMT -5
Apparently genital warts aren't usually caused by the types of HPV that cause cancer. Would probably be easier if they were, because detection would be likelier.
I don't think the fact that 99% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV by itself is a useful number. If the incidence of cervical cancer was 1 in 100,000 and the incidence of serious side effects of the vaccine was 1 in 10,000, we should consider it a bad gamble. If HPV only affected 5% of the population, and cervical cancer only occurred in 0.001% of people who had HPV, similarly, not so big a deal.
These aren't the numbers, of course. HPV is pretty common.
I probably wouldn't be on the bleeding edge of adopting a new vaccine, unless it was for something with a pretty high mortality/complication rate, but I think by the time my son is old enough, the HPV vaccine will have had enough time that I think it will be worth it for him to get it.
I have had a biopsy done, and I'm now a bit irritated with it. if I ever have an irregular pap smear again, I'm going to go with colposcopy ONLY and second pap smear in 6 months. From what I've read, super aggressive testing leads to more complications than it's worth.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 12, 2015 17:15:40 GMT -5
The argument that the vaccine would make women think they're safe and not go to the doctor sounds very similar to the argument it will make them promiscuous and less likely to use protection. Though the recent study that proved it to be a false concern.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,371
|
Post by imawino on Feb 12, 2015 17:16:18 GMT -5
Where are people getting 14 strains? GARDASIL is the only human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of HPV. In girls and young women ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 2 types of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. In boys and young men ages 9 to 26, GARDASIL helps protect against 90% of genital warts cases. GARDASIL also helps protect girls and young women ages 9 to 26 against 70% of vaginal cancer cases and up to 50% of vulvar cancer cases. GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, nor will it protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV. GARDASIL does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important for women to continue routine cervical cancer screenings. GARDASIL does not treat cancer or genital warts. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months. m.gardasil.com/?WT.mc_id=GL0LINot sure about the 14, but it's at least 9
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant) for the prevention of certain diseases caused by nine types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Covering nine HPV types, five more HPV types than Gardasil (previously approved by the FDA), Gardasil 9 has the potential to prevent approximately 90 percent of cervical, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers.
Gardasil 9 is a vaccine approved for use in females ages 9 through 26 and males ages 9 through 15. It is approved for the prevention of cervical, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, and for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 or 11. Gardasil 9 adds protection against five additional HPV types—31, 33, 45, 52 and 58— which cause approximately 20 percent of cervical cancers and are not covered by previously FDA-approved HPV vaccines.
“Vaccination is a critical public health measure for lowering the risk of most cervical, genital and anal cancers caused by HPV,” said Karen Midthun, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “The approval of Gardasil 9 provides broader protection against HPV-related cancers.
A randomized, controlled clinical study was conducted in the U.S. and internationally in approximately 14,000 females ages 16 through 26 who tested negative for vaccine HPV types at the start of the study. Study participants received either Gardasil or Gardasil 9. Gardasil 9 was determined to be 97 percent effective in preventing cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers caused by the five additional HPV types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). In addition, Gardasil 9 is as effective as Gardasil for the prevention of diseases caused by the four shared HPV types (6, 11, 16, and 18) based on similar antibody responses in participants in clinical studies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 17:19:40 GMT -5
I guess i'd like to see that the vaccine has actually reduced incidences of cancer.
This will be hard though, when currently the vast majority of people who develop cervical cancer are those who do not get routine exams. Since few people get cervical cancer anyway and since the populations that do are probably less likely to get vaccinated, i'd guess it will be quite a while before any impact on cervical cancer can be demonstrated.
We can look for secondary factors like if this reduces the incidence of abnormal Pap smears.
Also it will be interesting to see if it has an impact on other cancers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 31, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 17:20:50 GMT -5
Why is it approved in males only till age 15?
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Feb 12, 2015 17:31:46 GMT -5
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/vac-faqs.htmaccording to cdc it produces higher immune response to preteens. I don't see anywhere where is says the cut off age is 15. The cdc says 26 years of age for women and 21 years for men.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 12, 2015 17:33:30 GMT -5
I guess i'd like to see that the vaccine has actually reduced incidences of cancer. This will be hard though, when currently the vast majority of people who develop cervical cancer are those who do not get routine exams. Since few people get cervical cancer anyway and since the populations that do are probably less likely to get vaccinated, i'd guess it will be quite a while before any impact on cervical cancer can be demonstrated. We can look for secondary factors like if this reduces the incidence of abnormal Pap smears. Also it will be interesting to see if it has an impact on other cancers. The vaccine has already demonstrated a decrease in precancerous lesions seen in women. If you don't have to go through the screening of those lesions (and they're not fun, I've had them done), then that's not a bad thing. For some, they're even worse.....ask Drama about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 12, 2015 17:35:14 GMT -5
Why is it approved in males only till age 15? I suspect it's probably an arbitrary age with regards to being sexually active. Once males become sexually active, there is no way to determine whether or not they harbor HPV. Once they are infected, the vaccine is not useful.
|
|