US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls

[lebanesecanadian]

Article US conservatives block cancer vaccine for girls 12:22 14 May 2007 NewScientist.com news service Jim Giles Plans to vaccinate young girls against the sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer have been blocked in several US states by conservative groups, who say that doing so would encourage promiscuity. Advocates of the vaccine point out that the jabs work against human papillomavirus (HPV) - which causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer - and are safe. The latest data from a large clinical trial of Merck's cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, found it offered 100% protection against cervical, vulval and vaginal diseases, caused by HPV (types 6, 11, 16 and 18) and 98% protection against advanced pre-cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18 (New England Journal of Medicine: vol 356, p1915). After around three years of the four-year trial, almost all girls who received the vaccine before being exposed to HPV 16 or 18 appear to be protected. Those who had already been exposed to the viruses received little benefit, but by vaccinating early on, perhaps at 11 years of age, most girls could be protected. Controversial care However, the introduction of a vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, which together cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, has been dogged by arguments. Some conservative groups complain that by cutting the risk of catching a sexually-transmitted disease, the vaccine would encourage sexual activity in young girls. Earlier data from the same trial had already led the US Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) to recommend that 11-12 year-olds be vaccinated. However, attempts to introduce compulsory vaccination programmes at the state level have run up against opposition. Four states – West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi and New Mexico – have rejected vaccine programmes. In Texas, governer Rick Perry suffered embarassment last month when his order requiring schoolgirls to be vaccinated was blocked by the state Senate. Only one state – Virginia – has so far passed a law requiring vaccination. But the new results, which include extra data showing a lack of side effects, could influence the debate in the 15 states, all in central and eastern part of the US, where legislation is still on the table. In the meantime, some states are opting for less controversial voluntary programmes. In New Hampshire, where the shots are on offer to girls aged 11 to 18, several clinics are reported to have run out of stock. Premature reaction? Public health experts are also divided, though. Some question whether the relatively small numbers of lives that would be saved are justified by the significant cost of a vaccine programme. Merck will charge around $360 for the three-doses needed. George Sawaya, a gynaecologist at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, notes that the trial still has another year to run. Surprises often appear late on in such studies and Sawaya says he thinks the CDC should have waited until all the data was available before taking a stance on the vaccine. The trial's impact may be better felt in developing nations, where the screening programmes that have already cut deaths in richer countries are often too expensive to implement. The GAVI Alliance, a public-private partnership that spends around $300 million annually on vaccination programmes in poor countries, is considering funding HPV shots.

OK, the ban is just on mandatory vaccination but I still find the excuse given by the social conservatives extremely stupid no?

[Dalzi]

Extremely stupid. Ladaraji mesh tabi3iyye... Eh w shou hal habal!

[Mich©]

I saw a program on this last week and lot of the mothers raised quite some controversy on this issue.
The reason is that girls are required to have the HPV vaccine around the age where they start having sex. In the U.S. that age would be starting 11 or 12 years old.
The mothers' point during the program was that they don't want to open the sex subject with their children at age 11 and explain to them all the details since they feel it's too early.

However, a female doctor who was representing the CDC was debating that this could be life saving for young girls and the reason you could give the girls is that this is a shot against cancer instead of going through all the sex related details with your daughters. I think she had quite a valid point. You're talking about a potential life saving vaccine for your child. Wouldn't you do anything for that?

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Mich©

The reason is that girls are required to have the HPV vaccine around the age where they start having sex. In the U.S. that age would be starting 11 or 12 years old.

What is your source?? I cant believe 11 or 12 year old kids having sex, this is too extreme even to the USA.

[Mich©]

Originally Posted by Stella

What is your source?? I cant believe 11 or 12 year old kids having sex, this is too extreme even to the USA.

Stella this is not my source, I was just saying that I watched a program on this and the doctor was saying that in the U.S. girls might tend to have sex by the age of 11 or 12. I don't know that for sure, I'm just replicating what I heard.
However this makes sense since the virus is sexually transmitted, otherwise, why would they choose that age to do the vaccine, they could have waited for an older age?

[Mich©]

Stella, you can also visit this link for FAQs.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm#14

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Mich©

Stella this is not my source, I was just saying that I watched a program on this and the doctor was saying that in the U.S. girls might tend to have sex by the age of 11 or 12. I don't know that for sure, I'm just replicating what I heard.
However this makes sense since the virus is sexually transmitted, otherwise, why would they choose that age to do the vaccine, they could have waited for an older age?

Its hard to believe that abt this early age, in that age they are only kids, surely not mature for sex. So until its proven, lets not take it as fact.

If it prooves to be true, then not the vaccine shall be the problem here in first hand, but the society which allows such things to happen. So without further infos abt the issue, I say now I discourage this vaccine too.

[Mich©]

Originally Posted by Stella

Its hard to believe that abt this early age, in that age they are only kids, surely not mature for sex. So until its proven, lets not take it as fact.

If it prooves to be true, then not the vaccine shall be the problem here in first hand, but the society which allows such things to happen. So without further infos abt the issue, I say now I discourage this vaccine too.

You're right. I wouldnt take that at face value, there are always exceptions to the rule.

But I wouldn't discourage the vaccine since there are no proven side effects and it might be a life saver, just as a secure measure.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Mich©

You're right. I wouldnt take that at face value, there are always exceptions to the rule.

But I wouldn't discourage the vaccine since there are no proven side effects and it might be a life saver, just as a secure measure.

The vaccine can be given to girls up till 26 age. So I dont see any reasons why we shall deal with this at that early age 9, 11 or 12. It may not necesseraly encourage girls to have sex, however it can create such an effect too.

But first of all, the society shall be treated for they allow 11-12 year old girls to have sex. In addition I would stricten the laws on pedophiles too, and relate it to minors as well: like a minor shall be convicted too, for example: a boy above 14 having sex with a girl below 14, and vice versa.

[Abufijli]

That is quiet silly, this vaccine could potentially saves many lives and it would not promote promiscuity, the music video clips these days do a lot more damage than this vaccine in that department.

This vaccine is already available in AUstralia and there is a vaccination program underway to vaccinate all girls over the age of 12.