HPV vaccine (Gardasil) now approved for men

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
It never made sense to me that this vaccine was approved only for women. Clearly, it generally takes two to transmit an STD, and inoculating both sexes MUST be more effective than inoculating just women.

HPV vaccine for guys, too
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
i will be getting this

For the entire vaccine, the cost is around $483. Hester said insurance coverage varied based on the individual.

in a few years once i have a job that actually pays money
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Link

I wonder just how needed this vaccine is......


Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell
Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates
By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin
Published:
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they?re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

?I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn?t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,? said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that ?even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.?

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that ?four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.?

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, ?If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.?

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, ?There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.?

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old ?is a great big public health experiment.?

At the time, which was at the height of Merck?s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, ?but no one will print it.?

?It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,? she said at the time. ?There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.?

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: ?I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.?



Since the drug?s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline?s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper?s candor. ?I think she?s a scientist, a researcher, and she?s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.?

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. ?For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link

I wonder just how needed this vaccine is......


Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell
Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates
By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin
Published:
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they?re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

?I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn?t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,? said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that ?even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.?

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that ?four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.?

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, ?If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.?

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, ?There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.?

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old ?is a great big public health experiment.?

At the time, which was at the height of Merck?s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, ?but no one will print it.?

?It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,? she said at the time. ?There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.?

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: ?I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.?



Since the drug?s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline?s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper?s candor. ?I think she?s a scientist, a researcher, and she?s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.?

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. ?For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.?

Wow. Color me astounded.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
From Geezer's article

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment.

Assuming of course you could maintain the same % drop each year using conventional methods, which you can. Statistics fail. If I'm doing my mail correctly, using the percentages she said about 1 in 20 women with HPV will get cervical cancer. That's significant enough for me to warrant vaccinating any daughters I end up having. I would much rather deal with the side effects of a vaccine instead of the side effects of chemo/radiation therapy (I speak from experience).
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
This doesn't vaccinate against herpes. Also, HPV, as I recall, is one of the most prevalent STD's in the adult population.

Many vaccines have side-effects in a subset of the population, but this is a bit of the same argument as the one farted out by the "Obama wants to vaccinate us with H1N1 commie drug against our will one one one!!!1" crowd. In women, HPV is correlated with cervical cancer. You're more likely to get cervical cancer if you have a cervix and HPV.

As far as I know, the nurse giving the shot isn't mandated to hand out "Informative Booklet On How To Find And Ride Hobo Cocks With Your New HPV Invincibility."

In general, having barnacles on your unmentionables is a negative experience. The folks bitching about this vaccine for "moral" reasons keep their daughters locked in the closet until they can legally run away to the big city anyway*, so I don't see what the fuss is all about.

*or until Bobbie Joe promises to take her hand in a non-homo marriage before the eyes of the Lord, despite that her hormones haven't reached the hips yet.
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
As far as I know, the nurse giving the shot isn't mandated to hand out "Informative Booklet On How To Find And Ride Hobo Cocks With Your New HPV Invincibility."
I believe the greatest criticism against gardasil is that it doesn't actually make you invincible, and quite far from it as it only vaccinates against a minority of the viral strains out in the wild.

So women could very well end up getting cancer after all, despite taking the shot. And some people are undoubtedly going to be mistakenly convinced they're immune to this virus, and perhaps unwittingly expose themselves to needless risk.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I've seen some awful looking venereal warts folks, and seen them cut off so people could even pass their bowel movements.

Their asses/groins look like they've melted, it's not pretty. It's not something I'd wish on someone I hated.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
I believe the greatest criticism against gardasil is that it doesn't actually make you invincible, and quite far from it as it only vaccinates against a minority of the viral strains out in the wild.

So women could very well end up getting cancer after all, despite taking the shot. And some people are undoubtedly going to be mistakenly convinced they're immune to this virus, and perhaps unwittingly expose themselves to needless risk.

Yet, just like with any other vaccine, it offers at least some significant protection?

If you're dumb enough to bump uglies without taking steps to minimize infection, you only have yourself to blame. It's the ol' republican "take care of yourself" thing.

Also, the earth is 6000 years old, and Moses rode on a cart driven by dinosaurs.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
I've seen some awful looking venereal warts folks, and seen them cut off so people could even pass their bowel movements.

Their asses/groins look like they've melted, it's not pretty. It's not something I'd wish on someone I hated.

Yeeesh!
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
I believe the greatest criticism against gardasil is that it doesn't actually make you invincible, and quite far from it as it only vaccinates against a minority of the viral strains out in the wild.

So women could very well end up getting cancer after all, despite taking the shot. And some people are undoubtedly going to be mistakenly convinced they're immune to this virus, and perhaps unwittingly expose themselves to needless risk.

If I didn't know better, I would think the argument sounds like this: This vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of the virus, so therefore it's better to not recommend getting it at all. After all, we wouldn't want to do anything that could be perceived as promoting "immoral" behavior now, would we?
 

FaaR

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2007
1,056
412
136
If I didn't know better, I would think the argument sounds like this: This vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of the virus, so therefore it's better to not recommend getting it at all. After all, we wouldn't want to do anything that could be perceived as promoting "immoral" behavior now, would we?
Glad you say you know better, coz if that was what I meant, I'd have written it that way.

It's america that's getting conniption fits as soon as s-e-x is mentioned, we Europeans are more open-minded; I'm truly hard-pressed to see how vaccinating oneself against anything could be concieved as promoting immoral behavior. Rofl...

That said, your average bear (regardless of continent where born) is liable to believe that a vaccine actually does immunize you against a disease, coz that's what people are taught from childhood. That this particular vaccine offers only (very) partial immunity could get lost on the way. It's definitely a real problem.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
From Geezer's article

Assuming of course you could maintain the same % drop each year using conventional methods, which you can. Statistics fail. If I'm doing my mail correctly, using the percentages she said about 1 in 20 women with HPV will get cervical cancer. That's significant enough for me to warrant vaccinating any daughters I end up having. I would much rather deal with the side effects of a vaccine instead of the side effects of chemo/radiation therapy (I speak from experience).
I actually sent Dr. Harper an email about that statistic. My question and her response:

Q: I assume that by "cancer" you were sometimes referring to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (for example, when you stated that half of the 10% of HPV infections that don't resolve within 2 years lead to "cancer") and sometimes referring to invasive cancer (for example, when you referred to the 91.4% decline expected over the next 60 years).

A: What I said was that based on Schiffman's publication in Lancet Oncol, 90% of HPV infections clear within 2 years. Within 3 years, half of the remaining 10% of persistent HPV infections will have progressed to CIN 2/3 disease. Of those with CIN 3 disease, 20% will progress into cervical cancer within 5 years, and 40% will progress into cervical cancer within 30 years.

Schiffman M et al. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:404-6
McCredie MRE et al. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 425–34

Even CIN 3 is virtually 100% curable. What's unclear is what percentage of the 10% of unresolved HPV infections progress to CIN 3. From Wikipedia, 50% of CIN 2 cases resolve themselves within 2 years. Assuming the other half progress to CIN 3 (probably a bad assumption), the worst case is that 0.5% to 1.0% of HPV infections result in invasive cancer at some point.

Note, however, that this assumes no PAP screening. So the worst case is that 1% of HPV infections of those women who don't get PAP smears result in invasive cancer.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Another issue with HPV is that is causes cancers of the head and neck, which are typically more deadly than cervical cancer because they're much more difficult to detect early. These cancers used to be rare, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus, but the incidence of HPV-positive head and neck cancer is increasing, though I'm not sure what the incidence is. And note that both males and females are susceptible.

Right now, studies on the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccines for older women are ongoing. Interestingly, though, the FDA told Merck and GSK that they will NOT approve the vaccines for men older than 26.