Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives
From: Gordon Goldman (obgyndoc@swbell.net)
Wed Feb 7 18:31:49 2007
I am told that studies are also pending for use in women 27-45 y/o as
well.
--
Gordon M. Goldman, M.D., FACOG
Private Practice, St. Louis, Mo.
On Feb 7, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Larry Glazerman wrote:
> Kim:
>
> As I mentioned before, I disagree with the public health initiative
> of mandating Gardasil for school attendance. Having said that,
> however, the simple reason that it's only mandated for girls is
> that the vaccine isn't yet FDA approved for boys. Why? Because
> Merck hasn't yet completed the studies on boys. As soon as those
> studies are completed, they will go to the FDA for an indication
> for boys.
>
> Larry R. Glazerman MD
> St. Luke's Center for Advanced Gynecologic Care
> 250 Cetronia Road Suite 305
> Allentown PA 18104
> glazerl@slhn.org
>
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 7:42 PM, Kim E. Goldman wrote:
>
>> It is sexist to say that boys can go to school without a mandatory
>> vaccine while girls must have it or not have a public education
>> when the vaccine is for a disease which affects both sexes! I
>> didn't say or mean that they were the ONLY carriers, only that
>> vaccinating only half the population does not accomplish any
>> public health goals.
>>
>> The problem here REALLY is MANDATORY vaccination of little girls
>> without better information on long term effects and efficacy of
>> this vaccine.
>>
>> And frankly I have yet to hear anyone say that they think this
>> dictatorial move was a good one regardless of whether they choose
>> to vaccinate their children or not.
>>
>> Kim
>> On Feb 7, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Raymond Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> It is a sexist comment to say that boys are the carriers of the HPV.
>>> Where did the individual boy get it from? Perhaps a (carrier) girl?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Kim
>>> Elise Goldman
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 1:50 AM
>>> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>>> Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives
>>>
>>> Here here Jamie!
>>> I am not appalled at vaccinating to prevent a sexually transmitted
>>> disease.
>>> I am appalled at the marketing and the ignorance surrounding this
>>> vaccine.
>>> It does not prevent ALL HPV strains
>>> It does not prevent ALL cervical cancers
>>> It does NOT have a long track record and we are vaccinating a most
>>> vulnerable population - young girls BEFORE they reach
>>> reproductive age.
>>> We are NOT vaccinating the carriers (boys) and if the goal is really
>>> to decrease transmission of HPV that is certainly reasonable.
>>> And I am appalled at the MANDATORY status of the vaccination. Give
>>> me a break. So boys can go to school without taking a new and
>>> unproven vaccine but girls have to stay home if they don't get the
>>> vaccine.....somehow that doesn't sound right to me.
>>>
>>> Great we have an HPV vaccine that cuts down on the risks of cervical
>>> CA but does not eliminate them ... don't you dare tell me MY
>>> DAUGHTER
>>> has to be a guinea pig.
>>> When we have a long enough history to know what, if any, effects
>>> this
>>> vaccine may have long term including fertility effects then the
>>> discussion may be different but right now all this proves to me is
>>> that Texas is as backward as the president it spawned.
>>> And yes, there is the fact that she can be 100% protected from HPV
>>> without the vaccine which makes me far less excited about turning
>>> her
>>> into a guinea pig.
>>> My kids are vaccinated against other diseases. My oldest had
>>> varicella; he was born before the vaccine and like most kids caught
>>> it from a friend in preschool. I had some concerns about vaccinating
>>> the youngest with this vaccine again precisely because it is new,
>>> there is not a long track record and we don't know how long the
>>> immunity from the vaccination works. In the end I decided to
>>> vaccinate her because she has no control over whether she is exposed
>>> to wild virus and because there are very few cases in school age
>>> children now and thus the odds are that IF she were to be exposed to
>>> the virus it would be as an adult where it is decidedly more
>>> unpleasant in most cases. The same cannot be said for this new HPV
>>> vaccine. I think the manufacturers did a great job of publicity and
>>> marketing. Wonder who got paid in the Texas legislature to make this
>>> bone headed decision.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Jamie wrote:
>>>
>>>> A lot of parents, myself included (though I'm not in Texas)
>>>> object to
>>>> their daughters being forced to take a new vaccine when a behavior
>>>> choice affords the same protection.
>>>>
>>>> At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dean Huffman . wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Editorial (NY Times)
>>>>>
>>>>> A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/opinion/06tue2.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Published: February 6, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to Texas for becoming the first state to require
>>>>> vaccinating
>>>>> young schoolgirls - ages 11 and 12 - against a sexually
>>>>> transmitted virus that
>>>>> causes cervical cancer and genital warts. Other states would be
>>>>> wise to follow
>>>>> the same path.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no doubt that Merck's vaccine against the human
>>>>> papillomavirus, given
>>>>> in three shots over eight months, is highly effective. It provides
>>>>> nearly
>>>>> perfect protection against two strains that cause 70 percent of
>>>>> all cases of
>>>>> cervical cancer, and against two other strains that cause 90
>>>>> percent of genital
>>>>> warts cases. (That still leaves 30 percent of the cervical cancer
>>>>> cases to worry
>>>>> about, so women are urged to keep getting regular Pap tests to
>>>>> screen for signs
>>>>> of the cancer.) The side effects are generally mild: pain or
>>>>> tenderness at the
>>>>> site of the injection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many parents are appalled at the notion of vaccinating such young
>>>>> girls against
>>>>> a sexually transmitted disease. But the medical reality is that
>>>>> the vaccine
>>>>> will generally not work after a woman has been infected, so it is
>>>>> best for
>>>>> girls to be vaccinated well before they become sexually active.
>>>>> The nation's
>>>>> top advisory committee of immunization experts has recommended
>>>>> that the vaccine
>>>>> be routinely given to girls 11 and 12 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most contentious issue is whether the shots should be required
>>>>> or simply
>>>>> recommended to parents through a strong educational campaign.
>>>>> Those opposed to
>>>>> compulsory vaccination complain that there are already a slew of
>>>>> required
>>>>> vaccinations, so why heap on another, especially for a disease
>>>>> that is spread
>>>>> only through sexual contact? Critics also fear that HPV
>>>>> vaccination may lead
>>>>> some students to wrongly assume that they are protected against
>>>>> all sexually
>>>>> transmitted diseases, perhaps encouraging them to engage in risky
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these objections seem strong enough to forgo the
>>>>> protection against a
>>>>> devastating disease. The United States records some 10,000 new
>>>>> cases of
>>>>> cervical cancer each year, and 3,700 cervical cancer deaths. Gov.
>>>>> Rick Perry of
>>>>> Texas, a conservative Republican, has taken an "opt out" approach,
>>>>> in which
>>>>> vaccination is required but parents can seek an exemption for
>>>>> reasons of
>>>>> conscience or religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes sense to us. All students deserve protection against
>>>>> HPV infection,
>>>>> and the presumption should be that they will get it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> JFields, RN, BSN
>>>>
>>>
