English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have just learned that Gardasil Vaccines can prevent cervical cancer for girls and women aged 9 to 26. My question is this: If a woman age 30 or older is already hpv positive, high-risk, is it too late for her to have this vaccine? what would be the adverse effect, if any, if injected to women who are 30 y.o. and older, who already is HPV positive, high-risk?

2007-01-31 19:17:41 · 6 answers · asked by The Punisher 4 in Health Diseases & Conditions Other - Diseases

6 answers

it protects from four different strains of hpv so it could still help you.you should have your husband,boyfriend and boy or girl children vaccinated it can prevent penile-anal cancer in men and of course stop them from spreading it to women.

2007-01-31 19:29:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I too am HPV positive and I am slated to get the vaccine at my next checkup. The reason is this -- there are 4 strains of HPV. You may only be infected with 1, 2, or 3 strains, in which case you would be protected against the remaining ones.

In the most recent Reader's Digest, the doctors who write about it urge all women to get the vaccine, regardless of HPV status. You never know which strain might kill you, so it is an inexpensive manner of taking a precaution.

Can you do me a favor, though? Can you please work to reduce your risk? This is how you catch HIV too. And you are much more likely to die from HIV than HPV.

2007-02-01 16:17:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The vaccine is to prevent some (not all) forms of cervical cancer. If a person already has HPV whether that person be 6+ years old - 26 years old (child abuse cases etc)...having the vaccine will have no effect at all...just be a waste of money.

Therefore ANY person who has had sex should get checked first to see if its worth spending the AU$450.00 ($150x 3 doses). I dont know why the age limit is set at 26 (perhaps they assume all women have had lots of sex by then?), ask your GP!

2007-02-01 03:39:20 · answer #3 · answered by Scully 4 · 0 1

If you have been exposed to none of the four strains of HPV the vaccine protects against, you may wish to consider it. If you have been exposed to any of these four HPV strains, the vaccine's risks almost certainly outweigh its benefits.

The Facts About GARDASIL

1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four “bad ones” protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don’t get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4) Merck’s clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5) Both the “placebo” groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications — as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM — MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine’s supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and “precancerous lesions” (dysplasias) than the alum injected “control” subjects.

7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

2007-02-04 18:39:51 · answer #4 · answered by stickdog 1 · 0 0

Read this before you do anything crazy. Like having a bunch of chemicals put in your body.

2007-02-04 18:33:44 · answer #5 · answered by Veggiegirl 2 · 0 1

ANY PARENT WHO WOULD ALLOW THIS CORRUPT PLAN, SHOULD NOT BE A PARENT TO BEGIN WITH!!!! PARENTS, SPEAK UP AND TAKE ACTION AGAINST THIS FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!! THE VACCINE WILL KILL THEM BEFORE ANY STD WILL. LONG TERM DEVASTATION FROM THIS VACCINE WILL RUIN THEIR LIVES. TEACH THEM AS A PARENT SHOULD. NOT AS A DRUGMAKER WANTS TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR INNOCENT YOUNG BODIES

Drugmaker wants law to require STD shot
Girls as young as 11 would have to be immunized against cervical cancer

AUSTIN, Texas - Merck & Co. Is helping bankroll efforts to pass state laws requiring girls as young as 11 or 12 to receive the drugmaker’s new vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus.

Some conservatives and parents’-rights groups say such a requirement would encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children, and they say Merck’s push for such laws is underhanded. But the company said its lobbying efforts have been above-board.

With at least 18 states debating whether to require Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for schoolgirls, Merck has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

A top official from Merck’s vaccine division sits on Women in Government’s business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

“Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer,” Women in Government President Susan Crosby said.

Protection against HPV
Gardasil, approved by the federal government in June, protects girls and women against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. A government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

But no state has yet to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations youngsters must have under law to be enrolled in school.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Crosby also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

But Skidmore said: “We disclosed the fact that we provide funding to this organization. We’re not in any way trying to obscure that.”

Laws could mean billions in sales
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative watchdog group Texas Eagle Forum, said the relationship between Merck and Women in Government is too cozy.

“What it does is benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t want pharmaceutical companies taking precedence over the authorities of parents,” she said.

Adams said Merck’s method of lobbying quietly through groups like Women in Government in addition to meeting directly with legislators are common in state government but still should raise eyebrows. “It’s corrupt as far as I’m concerned,” she said.

Parents' rights
A mandatory vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease could be a tough sell in the Lone Star State and other conservative strongholds, where schools preach abstinence and parents’ rights are sacrosanct.

But Merck has doubled its spending on lobbyists in Texas this year, to between $150,000 and $250,000, as lawmakers consider the vaccine bill for girls entering the sixth grade.

Also, the drugmaker has hired one of the state’s most powerful lobbyists, Mike Toomey, who once served as Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s chief of staff and can influence conservatives who see him as one of their own.

“What we support are approaches that achieve high immunization rates,” said Skidmore, the Merck spokeswoman. “We’re talking about cervical cancer here, the second-leading cancer among women worldwide.”

The legislation already has the enthusiastic support of the conservative governor.

“I look at this no different than vaccinating our children for polio,” Perry said. “If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available.” (40% OF ALL POLIO VACCINATED PEOPLE GOT POLIO FROM THE VACCINE ALONG WITH ANOTHER DEADLY VIRUS CALL THE SV40 VIRUS THAT KILL MILLIONS!)

Proposals for mandates have popped up from California to Connecticut since the first piece of legislation was introduced in September in Michigan. Michigan’s bill was narrowly defeated last month. Lawmakers said the requirement would intrude on families’ privacy, even though, as in most states’ proposals, parents could opt out.

Even with such opt-out provisions, mandates take away parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children, said Linda Klepacki of the Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The group contends the vaccine should be available for parents who want it, but not forced on those who don’t.

But Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar said her proposal is aimed at protecting children whose parents are less informed about or less interested in preventive care.

“Not everybody has equal sets of parents,” said Farrar, a Houston Democrat who had precancerous cells removed from her cervix several years ago. “I think this is a public health issue and to not want to eradicate cervical cancer is irresponsible.”

Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities has projected Gardasil sales of at least $1 billion per year — and billions more if states start requiring the vaccine. “I could not think of a bigger boost,” he said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

2007-02-01 03:23:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers