OP: Cervical Cancer / HPV Vax

If tomorrow’s headlines around the world said, “New vaccine will reduce breast cancer 75% if administered to women between 8 and 13,” parents would be overrunning clinics, medical systems would be flooded and there would be a demand on governments and drug companies to provide this to everyone. That headline is not possible, yet, but there is one almost as good: “Cervical cancer can be reduced 75% by a vaccination of all women between 8 and 13.”

But this is generally being ignored. A few European governments are preparing to vaccinate all girls. In much of the world it is being said that it is too expensive to bother and in the US, I have read, the religious sector is opposing this because it “would encourage premarital sex.” I am depressed. Breast cancer is a cause celebre everywhere in the industrial world but cervical cancer is “down (and in) there" and should not be talked about. Besides, it is believed, if we women would just keep our pants on, it will not be an issue.

Just last week I had to tell a 29 year old mother of two, “You have Stage 4 cervical cancer.” That is the medical way of saying, “You are about to die an unpleasant death.” Selfishly, I hate the days I have to do something like that, but it was a much worse day for her. Had this vaccine been available ten or fifteen years ago, she would likely not have been hearing that horrid news.

The women in the target age group are most likely unaware of what is available and I know few ten year olds who volunteer for a shot. The parents must take some action; schools must take some action; governments must take some action. You, dear reader, must take some action. If you are close to the age group, demand that you be vaccinated; if you have a younger sister, demand that she be vaccinated; if you are still a “young woman,” talk to your doctor. If you have not reached 26 and do not have a checkered sexual history, you may be eligible. Once one of the four strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer has been contracted, the vaccine is ineffective.

Condoms are about 70% effective against HPV. Few men are aware whether they are carriers because the four forms of HPV involved cause no symptoms in men – or if they do, we do not yet recognize them. It is estimated that half of the population carry HPV. Those populations where circumcision is not common have the highest incidence of cervical cancer; where circumcision is common, the lowest.

Deaths from cervical cancer have been falling and that is very good news. The reason is not that infection is dropping but the cancer is being found earlier with pap smears. If you are a woman under 26, do me, but especially yourself, a favor. Forget the cost and get the vaccination.

OP: Brandye 02/19/2007

Posted: 23 Sep 03:52


I agree this vaccine should be mandatory, most will not even know what it's for if it's included with their typical boosters and vaccines. One problem though, the women who already have cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous cells) are being misinformed. Me for example my doctor has chosen the watch and wait method, hoping the cells repair on their own, relying on my immune system. He also decided for me to start the hpv vaccine, after one vaccine and three months not only did the cervical dysplasia not get better, it got worse, took three second opinions to finally find a doctor that agreed, the vaccine was harming my immune system from repairing what i was trying to prevent with the vaccine, anyways point is do you research... always. Also a reason it's not mandatory yet is they are trying to still figure out how this vaccine works.

OP: sera300 05/04/2007

Posted: 23 Sep 03:53

About 80% of those who show non-specific cervical dysplasia do test positive for HPV. We do not know the cause of dysplasia which likely means that, like cervical cancer, it has many causes reinforcing one another. More than fifty percent of the general population will test positive for HPV of one sort or another. Left untreated most who test positive for dysplasia will progress to cancer. This may take ten years depending upon the level of the dysplasia.

If the dysplasia was successfully treated, you are at no higher risk than any other woman for cancer but you should certainly pay attention to your annual pap smear. Laser treatment has pretty well replaced cryo and is not as unpleasant. Of course, the doctor makes a huge difference. I have a preference for women doctors but then I am terribly biased. There are many, many competent male gyn's. A few of you seem to have crossed paths with a few of my less competent colleagues!

So, the short answer is that you should be getting an annual smear but, after successful treatment for the dysplasia, you are not at higher risk. The fact is we all are at risk!!! And should not ignore the annual smear.

OP: Brandye 02/26/2007

Posted: 23 Sep 03:54

I know some of you may disagree with me on this and I'm probably earning my way towards a bad reputation, but I must speak.

First, I am NOT a religiously conservative person. I do not think the religious groups' claims that this vaccine will "promote premarital sex" is a legitimate reason at all. And for some reason, this seems to be the only highly publicized counterargument in the controversy.

What I do think are legimate reasons for refusing the vaccine are the questionable ethics of the industry and Merck. I think these are more than apparent indicators that Merck is more interested in profits than public health.

Gardasil is Merck's cash cow, being one of the most expensive vaccines ever on the market at a time Merck was (and is still) swamped with Vioxx lawsuits and billions in owed revenue.

Merck is a untrustworthy company. Even when the risks of Vioxx were clear, Merck tried hard to keep it on the market. This company also continued to supply infant vaccines laced with thimerosal for several years after it claimed to have removed it in addition to the rotavirus vaccine that have caused significant cases of infant intrasucception (sp?). Its chicken pox vaccine was also found to be not very effective. And now, Merck is again under scrutiny and investigation for withholding clinical data that could potentially harm its sales suggesting Vytorin may increase the risk of suicidal behavior.

Merck spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a secretive behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign across the US to mandate Gardasil. When discovered, it sparked an uproar, and Merck ceased the campaign. The question is, why can't they come clean that they have to resort to secrecy against the people's knowledge and judgement?

Merck also has numerous conflicts of interests with political figures and groups for those supporting the mandate of Gardasil-by endorsing them financially and/or contributing generously to their campaign. This is not limited to Merck, conflicts of interests between the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are ever rampant these days even if in the form of petty gifts that can influence their prescribing habits.

Gardasil is a vaccine that has undergone little trial testing and for too short of a trial. Its efficacy, effectiveness, protection period, and risks are not fully understood. And to market/promote it so aggressively... It has been said that Gardasil protects for at least five years. Isn't that targeting the wrong age group? Provided middle-aged women have the highest incidences of cervical cancer. If a girl got it at age 9, she would only be in early adolescence by the time the protection span is over.

Gardasil only protects against several strains of HPV, with a protection range of 70%. 30% is still a high probability, and it is feared it can allow less harmful strains to flourish and become more malevolent from the ecological gap. And given that various agents (not just HPV) that can lead to cervical cancer can be contracted all in same sex act. There is insufficient evidence that Gardasil actually helps in prevention, given the nature of HPV and the time.

As with just about any vaccine, there are toxic incredients in Gardasil. Aluminum is a potent neurotoxin. Polysorbate 80 is theorized to cause infertility. And sodium borate...like borax.

Gardasil is not a safe vaccine. There have been cases of sudden death, dangerously increased heart rate, blood clots, paralysis, Guillan-Barre syndrome, and fainting associated with it. With this many incidents of girls blacking out after receiving the shot enough to make several headlines, it's a clear sign that something's not right. And it's not from "anxiety" either. Look at the VAERS statistics, and that's only a small percentage reported. Merck never tells you this. There have been allegations that Merck even skewered the trial data and the placebos to give the impression that the vaccine is safe. AND even allegations that the vaccine may cause infertility. There was a article amendment of the Virginia legislature that explicitly grants immunity to Merck from legality should a woman be unable to bear a child after receiving the vaccine. It was rejected.

Rates of cervical cancer is at an all time low (here as a modern society) and is still decreasing. There are only about 3,000 cases more or less each year. And contrary to imposed exaggerations, that is a minimal percentage. Regular pap smears are perfectly fine in detecting precancerous leisions and facilitating early intervention, if the woman cares about her health.

The federal agencies (that includes the FDA and CDC and for the count record the EPA also) are just as corrupt as the industry nowadays. We hear all the time of drugs being expensive but not necessary more effective than older drugs, drugs increasing various health risks, cough syrup for kids that don't work, drugs being recalled, taken off the shelves, skewered trial results to hide the bad sides, etc. Where was the FDA? The FDA is too quick to give the fasttrack these days. The CDC will approve just about anything.

So, after all those red flags... I have no doubt that Merck is reckless and cares only for their own interests. Now..normally I'm a liberal person, but this is one thing that I have to take a adamantly conservative stance on. If I had a daughter, I would say NO.

OP: John117 04/02/2008

Posted: 23 Sep 03:55

You have vary valid points. Especially regarding the use of vaccinations overall. One main issue I do see is the contracting of HPV (one of the four strains it covers to REDUCE the risk) and the development of cervical cancer later in life. Their research is far from overall use--what about a 30 y/o with a negative test and was in a monogamous relationship/marriage and recently divorced. Why are they denied.

Any time any medication is introduced into a body there are risks...look at the live polio vaccinations. Why give kids mandatory C. pox vaccinations? let them get is as kids. The main risk is to adults which have no immunity and develop an outbreak causing ARDS. I fell in the group which received the MMR shots which were ineffective. They were later recalled when found a outbreak and all had to be tested, people in my age group also did not have immunity--antibodies upon testing. We had to be taken out of work when one patient entered due to risk. They reattempted to vaccinate us, did not hold, and I did have a mild case of Measles & Mumps...the best guess was due to a bad batch destroyed the antibody/antigen reaction.

Early on in life had severe dysplasia, 13 y/o, not sexually active. Developed to requiring surgical & biopsy intervention. No HPV ever. This PAP? Positive for dysplasia no detectable HPV...

I think the adds are helpful getting information out there since HPV is rampant and people do not practice safe sex. Mandatory STD testing should be done regardless of any "history".

I test regularly. Why? I was stuck by another Nurse who just drew blood from a HIV [active] patient who was an IVDA...fresh blood and penetration deep in my hand. Tied it off w/a tourniquet and bleed it out, and submerged it in bleach. This was prior to any meds for those stuck or put at risk. That was 1987...I am still seronegative.

I believe people need to make informed choices and through adds is one way to create pubic awareness. All drug co.'s do similar practices & lobby. The question is does the benefit out weigh the risks???

OP: sera300 04/02/2008

Posted: 23 Sep 03:56

This vaccine seems like more of cash grab than an actual necessary procedure.

Since the vaccine became available, the odds of catching HPV have become very misrepresented, and you now have people claiming that 80% of people will have HPV before they die... and that is nothing more than speculation. As of 2017, the CDC states that it is believed that 79 million / 320 million have some form of genital HPV. This works out to 24.7% of total pop. Publications quoting nearly half of the pop already has it are cherry picking demographics to make the biggest headline possible.

How big of a problem is Cervical Cancer?

~13,000 women / 160 million get diagnosed with Cervical Cancer per year in the USA... of which 70% are believed to be linked to high risk HPV strains. By overall percentage, that's less than 1% of women. Not saying that people shouldn't try to reduce this, but not worthy of vaccinating everyone imo.

From the other perspective:

$450 per round of HPV vaccine shots per person,
4 million babies in the usa/year, ~2 million of them woman.
$900,000,000 revenue per year in the USA alone.

Posted: 10 Jan 01:24

Swedish study finds possible link between an increase in cervical cancer and the HPV vax...


Posted: 04 May 18:46

Add a Reply!