Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives
From: Larry Glazerman (l.glazerman@rcn.com)
Wed Feb 7 18:49:41 2007
Correct. I'm actually an investigator in one of those studies.
--
Larry R. Glazerman, MD, FACOG
St. Luke's Center for Advanced Gynecologic Care
250 Cetronia Road
Suite 305
Allentown PA 18104
484-223-3279
484-223-2830 FAX
glazerl@slhn.org
On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Gordon Goldman wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>
