Cervical cancer vaccine less effective in sexually active

from JoeUser Forums

For those that might wonder why I still believe Texas Gov. Perry was showing leadership when it came to the HPV vaccine, how about the following news from USA Today: Study: Cervical cancer vaccine less effective in sexually active

Let me make it exceedingly simple for people to understand here -- what this news article is saying (and was already reported previously) is that once a female has been sexually active the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing cervical cancer drops exponentially because the female has already possibly (and probably) been exposed to HPV. Once exposed to HPV it's too late for the vaccine to work, or to be completely effective.

Take these facts into consideration and you start realizing why Texas was looking at vaccinating young girls and stopping the problem at an early enough age to stand a high probability of catching them *before* they've been sexually active and before they've exposed themselves to HPV. Again though *some* parents felt that their voices weren't being heard and that the Governor was running roughshod over the citizens of the state of Texas. Baby, bath water, toss it all. Who cares?

I wonder how far back through the chain of sexual partners and their relatives I'd be able to sue for failing to get this vaccine and being the root cause (patient 0) that eventually passed HPV onto my loved ones potentially giving them a free ride on the cervical cancer bus?

923 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's a clip from the USA Today article:
A vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer significantly cut the risk of precancerous changes in women who had not already been infected with the cancer-causing virus types targeted by the vaccine, a study reports today.

The Gardasil vaccine, which has been sold in the USA since last summer, was not as effective in women who had been infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 or 18, thought to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the USA, so that finding suggests that sexually active women might not be getting their money's worth out of the vaccine, which also targets two other HPV types thought to cause 90% of genital warts cases.

"Just like any vaccine, it's not going to be effective in people who already have the disease," Emory obstetrician/gynecologist Kevin Ault says.

About 93% of the more than 12,000 women ages 15 to 26 who participated in the international study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were not virgins upon enrollment.

Read that last bit again -- 93% of the more than 12,000 women that were aged 15 to 26.

Try checking for realistic stats in just the 14 - 18 years of age category and tell me that the numbers aren't similarly high.

So, at what age do you give a potentially live saving vaccine to someone?

{ start sarcastic mode } Oh, wait, never mind.  It's just a frackin' waste of tax money on an issue that isn't worth spending so much money on because it just doesn't impact enough people and is merely a cash grab for Merck, isn't it?!  { end sarcastic mode }

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

By the way, this clip is pretty important to read too:

Gardasil is approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccinating girls at age 11 or 12, before most are sexually active. Many states are considering the controversial step of requiring HPV vaccination for girls entering sixth grade.

And this clip may be also:

Before they received the vaccine or placebo, participants were checked to see whether they had ever been infected by any of the four HPV types targeted by the vaccine. Fewer than 1% had been infected by all four, but 27% had been infected by at least one. But the HPV test available in doctors' offices reveals only whether women are currently infected with any HPV type, not what type or whether they've been infected before.

And finally this:

It's not known what proportion of vaccine recipients were sexually active before receiving the three-shot regimen, which costs $360. Jennifer Allen of Gardasil maker Merck says the company has not yet broken down recipients by age, which could serve as a marker for sexual activity.

Look at those numbers and tell me again what are the odds of getting benefit from this preventive measure if we wait until it's too late?

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still say don't fuck around and you won't get HPV, and you won't have to worry about it, period.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still say don't fuck around and you won't get HPV, and you won't have to worry about it, period.