A Word About Gardasil

Many thanks to the readers who have written me regarding the Gardasil ad that has been appearing in my sidebar here. I hadn't seen it myself until this morning; different ads appear each time you reload the page.

Here at ClubMom, I don't have any control over the ads that appear on my blog. I did write the ClubMom folks expressing my concerns about the Gardasil ad, but they let me know that they have no plans to pull it.

Why am I concerned about this particular ad? Protecting women from cervical cancer seems a worthy cause, doesn't it—and one you would expect me to be particularly in favor of, with a daughter who is a cancer survivor? (In her case, leukemia.)

The Gardasil media blitz omits some important information. The vaccine, which is touted as protection against HPV, a virus linked to cervical cancer, actually only protects against 4 out of the 90 strains of HPV—and only for five years.

Lilting House reader Christine reports:

This vaccine has been linked to deaths, due to blood clots, in girls.  It is also the vaccine that Merck has been trying to have states mandate for girls ages 9 and up.

That bears repeating. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, but its manufacturer is trying to have states mandate it for girls as young as nine years old.

Here's what the American Academy of Pediatrics has to say about that:

Dr. Joseph Bocchini, chairman of the committee on infectious disease of the American Academy of Pediatrics, says HPV can take up to 20 years to cause cervical cancer. His organization has withheld endorsement from Gardasil and one of the reasons is that the 20-year incubation period indicates that the vaccine, which has a 5-year effectiveness span, would offer no protection in the overwhelming majority of cervical cancer cases in the United States.

In fact, the American Cancer Society reports that from 2000 to 2003, more than 70 percent of the cervical cancer patients in America were older than 40 – well outside Gardasil’s protection window.

So if the incubation period is 20 years, and the life span of the vaccine is five years, how many booster shots would have to be obtained by the female who is inoculated? Each of the doses of the vaccine runs $360 and it is feasible that a female could have to get at least 10 boosters for a total of $3,600. As one reporter wrote, this means big bucks for Merck.

(The quote is from this article at American Life League.)

I'm sorry the ad is continuing to appear here, and I strongly urge all parents to examine the facts about this vaccine.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Thanks for this post. It annoys me to no end that the drug companies omit the fact that this is a sexually transmitted disease. I don't know a lot about the vaccine itself but the way they are marketing it is dishonest.

[Hypatia]

One factual correction: We don't know that Gardasil is only effective for five years. No study on Gardasil has yet lasted longer than five years, because it's such a new vaccine. Responsible scientists have to say "We know it's effective for five years," rather than "We haven't seen it wear off yet," because the latter suggests it's good forever, which almost no vaccine is. But the studies done so far certainly don't indicate that Gardasil wears off after five years.

Thanks for addressing this issue. All good points brought up including commenter Hypatia. The other component is that HPV is detected and possible to treat (with antibiotics) when a woman has annual gyn exams. Vaccines are undoubtedly a good, but when drug companies obscure the facts in order to make their product more marketable--and profitable, they lose their credibility with consumers--which we moms are. Many thanks for addressing the other side of the issue. "Protection" has so many connotations these days.

[Christine Smith]

Sorry I forgot to sign that.

[Hypatia]

Can HPV really be treated with antibiotics? I would be surprised if it could, since it's a virus, but I don't know for certain either way.

That said, though, my dad (a physician) says that the body is frequently able to clear an HPV infection on its own.

[kay]

No, HPV can NOT be treated with antibiotics. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. HPV is the human papillomavirus.

Yes, most HPV infections clear on their own. Only a small percentage of infections proceed to cervical cancer even without pap smear testing, but HPV infection is incredibly common--largely because in most infections, there are no symptoms.

Yes the vaccine only protects against a few virus strains, but they are the strains known to be associated with most cases of cervical cancer.

Yes the infection is sexually transmitted, but I really don't see why that matters so much. Maybe nine is a little early to vaccinate for HPV, but the idea is to catch girls before they have any chance at all of being exposed to the virus.

[patience]

Thanks for this important information.

[Mary]

Gov. Perry in TEXAS signed an executive order stating the all girls going into 6th grade must be vaccinated.

Day after he did this, it was found out that Merck has and had given him a boat load of campaingn money.

The legislatures (God Bless them) over ruled the Gov. on this issue.

Thanks for the info.

I'm going to talk to my daughter's Dr. when we go in for her annual check.

[Daryl Cobranchi]

I agree with Kay and Hypatia. It seems all vaccines are automatically suspect in some folks' minds. In the Home Ed community this "infection" is particularly virulent.

Gardasil protects against viruses known to cause cancer. Although any long term effects (if any) of the vaccine cannot be known yet, is that any reason to run the risk?

The 20 year latency period of the virus is irrelevant. The vaccine does not work once a female has been exposed to the virus. The only way to assure effectiveness is to vaccinate early, before the girls become sexually active.

My wife worked on the marketing research (as a subcontractor) for this vaccine. She's seen all of the research. And we've had both our daughters (ages 13 and 10) vaccinated.

[Jennifer]

Kay, the fact that the ad campaign for the vaccine doesn't openly mention the fact that the virus is sexually transmitted is absurd. It seems the very best chance of avoiding the virus would be abstinence for the young girls in question.
I have done almost no research on this particular vaccine - What bothers me is that the commercials that are leaving out the MOST important piece of information.

Daryl, I closely examine every decision I make for my children - vaccines included. And yes, I would say most homeschoolers do the same. That being said, we do vaccinate our children. But how are we supposed to trust that the drug companies really have our children's health as their top priority when they are dishonest in their approach?

I have two daughters who I hope will not become sexually active until they are adults, but I wouldn't have a problem with giving them Gardasil when they were nine if it felt like the most effective, safe thing to do. I will try to protect them the best I can, but just because they don't want to become sexually active doesn't rule out something happening to them (what is the percentage of girls who are sexually abused? I don't know). I would hate to have not done the vaccine and for them to contract something in a violent way.

[Melissa Wiley]

I'm not a vaccine alarmist. Having dealt with an immuno-compromised toddler (Jane was on chemo from age 21 months to 4 yrs), I am grateful for the vaccines that protect children from serious illness.

But like Jennifer, I object to the misleading tack Merck has taken with Gardasil. There IS more to the decision than the ads would have you believe.

[Joy]

Thanks for putting into words what I've been thinking regarding this vaccine. You've given me facts that I can now use to express why I have no interest in having my daughter receive this vaccination. You're the best :-)

[Alice Gunther]

Lissa, as a mother of six girls, I cannot thank you enough for writing this informative and important piece.

Thank you to Christine and the other readers who flagged this as well.

[Ginny]

Why does the fact that it is sexually transmitted disease mean anything? So are you saying that none of you commenting are having sex? Give me a break? That shouldn't be the basis for being against a vaccine that has the potential to stop a certain form of cancer. I think the reason they are omitting the fact that is is sexually transmitted is because of the huge number of people that got stuck on that fact & can't see what potential this has! BTW, did you know there are cases of nuns having this? How did that happen???

[Jennifer]

Ginny, I think most of us have a problem with the marketing more than the vaccine itself. Merck is leaving out the method of transmission (not a minor detail)and that is irresponsible. I think Melissa was trying to help parents make an informed decision by bringing to light some points that the commercials (Tell Someone!) omit.

[Lindsey @ enjoythejourney]

I'm going to tell you my problem with Gardasil, and it isn't one I hear mentioned alot.

HPV can be passed from males to females, sexually transmitted, correct?

If the vax is so wonderful in elminating the HPV strains targeted, then why are we just vax'ing girls? Why can't we vax boys too, since they're a big part in the "transmission?" Yes, boys don't die of cervical cancer, but they can pass HPV. Why not find a way that we can vax both girls and boys and REALLY eradicate it, if that is what we want to do.

So it bothers me that once again, its the gal's responsibility, even at age 9. (said tongue in cheek, but with sincerity too)

I'm not a vaccine alarmist. My kids have had all the vax's on time, except for Varicella (chicken pox, the only one we don't give). My girls will NOT be getting Gardasil until I see more research long term. If I see good things, then we may do it at a later time. But not now.

[Melissa Wiley]

Ginny, the fact that HPV is sexually transmitted was referenced in connection to the push in many states to have the vaccine made *mandatory* for girls age 9 and up. Some of us object to the idea of this vaccine being made mandatory (although in most of the proposed legislation there is an opt-out clause).

What I'm in favor of is being armed with facts when making decisions, especially those which pertain to our children's health.

I welcome exchange of ideas on this blog and am always happy to hear from people on opposing sides of an issue. Part of arming oneself with facts is investigating the claims of both (or all, if there are more than two) sides. Spirited and cordial debate is encouraged, but please refrain from statements which convey insult.

[Melissa Wiley]

Meant to add: Hypatia and Daryl both brought facts to the table, and I appreciate the additional information.

[Jean]

I'm a nurse midwife and family nurse practitioner and have struggled with the best recommendations for my patients about Gardasil. Each family has a different situation. A few corrections about the above comments however : HPV has thousands of strains, and the vaccine covers only the four high risk strains. Even if a woman has one of those, it's unlikely she will have all four so the vaccine may cover her against the others... and 80-90% of cervical cancer is linked with these strains. It is in fact viral, and not treatable, and these strains do not cause external warts, so it is easily spread even with the use of condoms (no symptoms). I've argued with the drug reps about the lower age range, and have been accused of wanting to let "kids decide for themselves." Not exactly, but a series of three vaccines over six months? Definitely involves education for both girls and parents because the girls have to be on board! I see teens in my practice who because sexually active at 13 or 14, but I also see women who have been mutually monogamous an entire lifetime. I think mandating the vaccine is ridiculous, but I also think each girl/woman/family has to make her own decisions based on the situation. Just my two cents...

[Jean]

I'm a nurse midwife and family nurse practitioner and have struggled with the best recommendations for my patients about Gardasil. Each family has a different situation. A few corrections about the above comments however : HPV has thousands of strains, and the vaccine covers only the four high risk strains. Even if a woman has one of those, it's unlikely she will have all four so the vaccine may cover her against the others... and 80-90% of cervical cancer is linked with these strains. It is in fact viral, and not treatable, and these strains do not cause external warts, so it is easily spread even with the use of condoms (no symptoms). I've argued with the drug reps about the lower age range, and have been accused of wanting to let "kids decide for themselves." Not exactly, but a series of three vaccines over six months? Definitely involves education for both girls and parents because the girls have to be on board! I see teens in my practice who because sexually active at 13 or 14, but I also see women who have been mutually monogamous an entire lifetime. I think mandating the vaccine is ridiculous, but I also think each girl/woman/family has to make her own decisions based on the situation. Just my two cents...

[Tammy]

Both Internet Explorer and Firefox have utilities that block a good percentage of adds. I read my Earthlink email online and I loathe the Victoria's Secret ads that pop up. Now, I block all ads so I do not have to put up with it! :-)

[ChristineMM]

Regarding the need to vaccinate 9 year old's for a sexually transmitted disease thing is an issue. I can top it though.

The Hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns on day one of life, day 30 and 6 months later as per the schedule of needing the 3 vaccines in those exact time frames.

Hepatitis B is transmitted three ways: direct blood contact such as a medical worker might have, sexually transmitted, and through IV drug use with an infected needle.

Back when the vaccine first came out it was recommended by medical associations only for people in high risk categories of being known iv drug users or having regular exposure to blood. OSHA required that employers of health care workers and some like fire fighters who might respond to a motor vehicle accident get the vaccine.

Yet a few years later the vaccine was suddenly being recommended for newborns. How does that make sense?

The vaccine did used to have mercury in it. Giving it so early to a newborn means it was being combined with other vaccines with mercury, so the mercury load to a day one old baby was not something that a brand new baby was used to getting...

I don't know if right now the vaccine is available without mercury (thermerisol).

I asked our pediatrician why they give it to newborns and he said, "Compliance, this is the only time we can be guaranteed that parents will bring in their children on this routine of a schedule so they get the three vaccines 'on time'."

So there you go, vaccinating newborns for a sexually transmitted disease on day one of life has been going on for over ten years now with Hepatitis B, why did no one complain about that??