This is so true. I got for it my daughter. The really important message to spread is that boys need it too. My friend's husband went though a year of vey difficult treatment on his throat for this type of cancer. He is now cancer free, but the treatment was brutal. The bottom line is get this vaccine.

I am very sorry for your friend's husband, Sheep mommy.

I should be angry about this article, but I'm not. Just very sad and disappointed. I keep looking for motivations for all this irresponsible rumor-mongering and I come up empty.

Why would anyone want to spread lies about a successful vaccine for cancer? Why?

You can thank former Playboy model turned scientific crusader Jenny McCarthy for a lot of the hysteria. She's just following in the footsteps of Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich and the anti-fluoridation crusaders. Succeeded by the global warmists, or excuse me, climate changists. Because, you know, we're all going to die.

...and even if the vaccine did correlate with an uptick in promiscuity, that would not be a rational reason to deprive a person of cancer-preventing health care.

I do believe that most of the resistance boils down to, "My daughter
will never have sex (or, never admitted: at least I don't want to
think about her ever having sex)." Any excuse to skip the vaccine
is a welcome sop to this mindset.

"Irresponsible Fear-Mongering "
as opposed to the responsible fear- mongering?

My "problems" with the HPV virus were along the following lines:

1. Myth: It hasn’t been properly tested.
Reality: It was tested in thousands of girls before marketing, and the after-market experience with 57,000,000 doses constitutes a further test.

This is an inaccurate statement. Or at least was at the time of gardasil's coming to market.

The target age range of girls is 9-14 or so, and there is no way to test this in such young women to see if the virus works without asking them about their sexual histories.

So the vaccine was tested in older girls that were having sexual intercourse.

IIRC, It was tested on young girls by means of a proxy, not did it stop infection, but did a saliva test with gardasil and hpv show similar reactions. (And yes, they did.)

So I assume it was effective on young girls, but it was never proven.

2. It wasn't long term tested on anyone.

3. At the time, and I think even now, regular pap smear is a better diagnosis/cure and even prevention for HPV, because lesions are caught early and removed early.

But here are/were by big issues:

A. The cancer caused by HPV doesn't become cancer for 20 - 40 years down the line. Gardasil had not been tested on young girls for effectiveness, had not been long term tested on anyone, was fairly painful, and was pretty expensive.

20 to 40 years from now, will science have come up with a better treatment and prevention for cervical cancer, or a worse one?

My personal experience with medicine is that often, it is definitely better to wait for medicine to improve its techniques than to act now to stop a problem decades away.

B. The demand was for gardasil to become a mandatory injection. This demand was in part prompted by Gov. Perry to aid his best friend, but taken up by feminists in the name of the holy uterus and sticking it to da man and his misogny.

We used to have clear boundaries for what was a mandatory injection:

Diseases that could cause death so swiftly a doctor might not be able to diagnose and treat in time.

Diseases that were so communicable they could threaten the school and surrounding population with epidemic.

Diseases that threatened the lives and health of pregnant women and their babies.

Gardasil is none of those, and opens the door to demands that every Tom, Dick, or Harry vaccine become mandatory.

As a side note, the CDC will not let doctors give me a flu injection. I rely on herd immunity. I rely on you getting a flu vaccine. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT IT MUST BE MANDATORY for you to get a vaccine just because I rely on it.

I dislike gov't mandated health practices that grudgingly permit an opt-out. I think that unless there is very good cause it should be opt-in, and mandates should be changed to outreach and education.

For me, it never had anything to do with not wanting my kids to have sex It has to do with my personal experience in the 70s with a program of medicine that definitely harmed its patients, and my experience with just out and out terrible doctors in the 90s, and even my mom being given antibiotics when she was pregnant with me, a practice that was highly regarded at the time, that disfigured my teeth.

Medical Best Practices change over time. And Medicine gets better and better. Often the best thing to do is WAIT and let medicine and science catch up.

From 2007:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/05/01/jama-editor-dont-mandate-cancer-vaccine/

In the latest salvo in a national debate, the editor of JAMA opposes requiring girls to get vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

Routine use of a new vaccine, sold by Merck under the brand-name Gardasil, “undoubtedly is beneficial to the public’s health, as it is likely to reduce the incidence of cervical cancers,” Catherine DeAngelis (pictured, left) writes in an editorial in this week’s JAMA. “However, the rush to make HPV vaccination mandatory in school-aged girls presents ethical concerns and is likely to be counterproductive.”

The editorial, co-written with a health-law expert, comes as many states consider making the vaccine, which was approved last year and costs over $300, mandatory for school girls.

DeAngelis, a pediatrician, points out an essential difference between Gardasil and other mandated vaccines. The cervical cancer virus, called HPV, can only be transmitted sexually, while diseases prevented by other vaccines are transmitted through the air. She notes that Gardasil has not been tested in young girls, and says the duration of the immunity it confers is unclear. And in an interview with the Health Blog this afternoon, she criticized Merck for lobbying legislatures to make the vaccine mandatory.

“I am very pro-vaccinations and immunizations when they’re good because they save a lot of lives, and they save a lot of sickness. But you do not make it mandatory for children by approaching politicians to make laws,” she said. “The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended it; they never said to make it mandatory. It’s for the parents to decide, not a politician.”

I wish the pleasure I've been given by Elmore Leonard could be returned to him in sincere wishes for his complete recovery. Hang in there, Mr Leonard, and thanks for all the great reads. We aren't ready to let you go yet.

I'm sorry for posting off-topic, Amy, but when I heard the news it brought tears to my eyes. Best to you and Greg as well.

I notice there's no mention of the immediate menopause side effect.

Not to antagonize anyone (at least not in this thread), but I have a question regarding this statement:

"Irresponsible Fear-Mongering "
as opposed to the responsible fear- mongering?

Might it be argued that factual information about dangerous things could be called "responsible fear-mongering"?

For example, if I explained to a teenager that unprotected sex can spread AIDS, which is fatal in 100% of the cases and is a horrible, agonizing and very slow way to die. And if I further explained the best ways to avoid this disease -- abstinence and condom use -- have I not engaged in "responsible fear mongering"?

I have done my best to instill fear of a deadly disease and explained the best ways to avoid it, in hopes that this hypothetical teenager will take these precautions. So, wouldn't that be "responsible fear-mongering"?

Just asking for your thoughts, not insisting on them.

My kid will hit puberty in 9 years or so, and I will say I'm glad I have 9 years to make the call, because of the long-term questions described above.

I assume she will begin having sex in her teens.

Given the subject, I had momentary visions of bmused receiving oral pleasure from Elmore Leonard until I got to the "off-topic" reference in the last paragraph. Thanks for the clarification!

Boy, am I in a mood this morning. Gotta ease up on the caffeine.

Oh sweet jesus jerry. I had lesions removed, taking 1/3 of my cervix with it (making baby carrying problematic at best)due to high risk HPV only 10 years after I lost my virginity at 14. Assume I got it the very first time I had sex, that's considerably less than 20-40 years.

ALso, removing lesions HURTS. It's either a chemical burn applied to a VERY sensitive area, or a hot wire carving out flesh. I've had both. I continue to get lesions. I get paps every 4 months because of this shit. A shot hurts, what, a minute at most? And you are talking about the pain of it being a drawback? All 4 of my kids will get this at the earliest possible point in time. Not because I want them having sex at 14, but because I don't want them dealing with the nightmare that I am.

My girls will also go on birth control when they start their periods. Not because I want them having sex, but because I'm a realist. I started the pill at 15. You'll note, that was NOT when I started having sex.

Guardasil was to be mandatory so that Medicaid would cover it for the poor. Yes, the vaccine makers will make more money that way. Who cares? Someone is always making money, and now arguably the population most in need of this vaccine doesn't get it covered.

"Guardasil was to be mandatory so that Medicaid would cover it for the poor. "

That's kind of a sorry reason, isn't it? Making bad law to cover up the deficiencies of other bad law? Not commenting on any of the rest of it, just this bit.

Fear mongering implies trying to up the fear rather than have a rational and factual discussion.

@jerry

Yes, Gardasil was proven effective in young girls. Young girls mount a similar antibody response to Gardasil as older females do, demonstrating it's effectiveness.

Yes, we do have long term data. The patients in the clinical trials have been followed for 10+ years. Gardasil remains safe and effective in this population.

Gardasil should not be thought of like the polio vaccine, where the falloff in disease was nearly immediate. We won't see the benefits of this for 20-40 years due to the natural history of HPV caused cancer. That said, sometimes the cancers occur with much greater rapidity than the averages might show. I'm a pathologist and have diagnosed numerous cervical cancers in women

My personal experience with medicine is that often, it is definitely better to wait for medicine to improve its techniques than to act now to stop a problem decades away.

The only problem with that is if everyone did it medicine would never advance.

Gardasil is none of those, and opens the door to demands that every Tom, Dick, or Harry vaccine become mandatory.

Technically with the SCOTUS approving the ACA anything the government wants to to do is mandatory if the deem it so.

For the record, I'm a fan of vaccines...but some of this is weak.

> Myth: The vaccine has caused 9749 adverse reactions.
> Reality: No serious adverse reactions have been attributed to the vaccine.

Dodging the question and moving the goal post.

> Myth: The HPV vaccine has killed at least 21 girls (Mercola says 122).
> Reality: Deaths have occurred after the vaccine; deaths have occurred in girls who were not vaccinated; not one single death has ever been attributed to the vaccine.

Says who? Clearly Mercola says 122. If someone else says 0, who, specifically, is saying that, and why should I trust that number?

> Reality: It has not been linked to miscarriages. Sure, 10 individuals may have had miscarriages after getting the vaccine, but the baseline rate of miscarriage is higher than that in women who have not been vaccinated.
> Note: these 3 claims were based on reports to VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). VAERS only lists things that happened after vaccination; it doesn't mean they were caused by vaccination. Relying on VAERS data is a post hoc ergo propter hoc error in reasoning.

No, this is NOT a post hoc ergo propter hoc error; the original point noted a correlation, and correlations are used all the time in medicine and science to suggest causality which can then be investigated.

> Myth: It hasn't been properly tested.
> Reality: It was tested in thousands of girls

Again dodging the question. Was it properly tested? The answer doesn't say.

> Myth: Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger," says the FDA knew as early as 2003 that the HPV virus was not linked to cervical cancer.
> Reality: What is he smoking?

That, right there, is a REALLY solid professional rebuttal.

Vaccines are a good thing. It's too bad they've got such an unworthy defender.

First, there is no evidence of serious adverse reactions to Gardasil, basically some people experience a day or two of arm soreness, that's about it. There have been numerous studies looking at this and they all come to the same conclusions. Second, the clinical trials for Gardasil were very rigorous. Go to PubMed and check them out. See for yourself. Third, the idea that HPV causes 99+% of cervical cancers is well established and non-controversial.

@momof4, I clearly cannot speak to the pain of having a lesion removed, I am only saying what I read on various medical blogs at the time of the gardasil debate, namely, that pap smears were still considered by many MDs and organizations to be a better preventive or cure for cervical cancer. I am not going to deny your personal experiences at all, but all those sources stated that cervical cancer in the majority of cases occurred to women in their 30s, and 40s and 50s.

@lujlp, presumably if everyone waits on "experimental"/new/risky medical techniques until they need it, then medicine still advances putting at risk those that truly need it. My own medical issue hit me pretty young, but advances are made by surgery on men and women with heart issues in their 70s and older.

@DrMaturin, as I said, "My "problems" with the HPV virus *were* along the following lines:" I've changed from that somewhat since it is 5 or more years later and we do have more data about long term effects.

Neither here nor there, and I could easily be wrong, my understanding of testing on women was that girls above the age of say 15 could be expected to be having sex and so their antibody reactions could be tested directly and tracked over time.

Girls under that age could not be expected to be having sex and so the antibody reactions were measured using a spit test and they really couldn't be tracked, at least not in the lifetime of the tests back then.

You could easily make me believe that that is just as effective, but the argument I heard several times in 2007 was that fundamentally one was a direct test, the other only an indication of efficacy (though as I said, a very good one and presumably effective.)

I certainly appreciate your update and medical opinion.

Most of my objections are about efforts to make it mandatory and opt-out, not due to fears of autism, but because I grew up in the 60s and 70s hearing "Government out of bedrooms and off our bodies" and because I had Guillain-Barre and the CDC truly does think I may have been injured by vaccines and so I am reticent to mandate vaccines with the ease of so many other non medical people that have never even heard of GBS.

I have no problem with offering it for free/low cost and having strong outreach programs to encourage parents and their kids to make informed decisions, nor do I have a problem with making pap smears more easily available. But I do think that if people say no to vaccines after education that their informed decision should be respected (because GBS was no fun at all.)

"It’s for the parents to decide, not a politician."

I wonder what her position on the Affordable Care Act, or assorted laws regarding abortion without parental consent or notification might be.