Cervical Cancer

[curious_woman]

There is no age too young for cancer. My sister has uterine cancer, and she's 34. (was diagnosed at 33). She was on depo for years and they don't understand how she got the tumor since its suppose to prevent cysts for the most part.

[Brandye]

The most baffling case of cervical cancer I have heard of was presented in med school as a case study. A thiry year old woman developed cervical cancer of a type usually associated with asbestos. Turned out she was a diaphragm user who took very good care of her diaphragm. She washed it at each removal, dried it well and powdered it - all per directions. Talc frequently comes from mines close to asbestos mines and a speck of asbestos had embedded itself in her cervix leading to the cancer. All because she followed directions extremely well.

I have never actually found the same although I have dealt with many diaphragm users over the years.

AGE IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR, no matter what my NHS says.

[John117]

I know some of you may disagree with me on this and I'm probably earning my way towards a bad reputation, but I must speak.

First, I am NOT a religiously conservative person. I do not think the religious groups' claims that this vaccine will "promote premarital sex" is a legitimate reason at all. And for some reason, this seems to be the only highly publicized counterargument in the controversy.

What I do think are legimate reasons for refusing the vaccine are the questionable ethics of the industry and Merck. I think these are more than apparent indicators that Merck is more interested in profits than public health.

Gardasil is Merck's cash cow, being one of the most expensive vaccines ever on the market at a time Merck was (and is still) swamped with Vioxx lawsuits and billions in owed revenue.

Merck is a untrustworthy company. Even when the risks of Vioxx were clear, Merck tried hard to keep it on the market. This company also continued to supply infant vaccines laced with thimerosal for several years after it claimed to have removed it in addition to the rotavirus vaccine that have caused significant cases of infant intrasucception (sp?). Its chicken pox vaccine was also found to be not very effective. And now, Merck is again under scrutiny and investigation for withholding clinical data that could potentially harm its sales suggesting Vytorin may increase the risk of suicidal behavior.

Merck spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a secretive behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign across the US to mandate Gardasil. When discovered, it sparked an uproar, and Merck ceased the campaign. The question is, why can't they come clean that they have to resort to secrecy against the people's knowledge and judgement?

Merck also has numerous conflicts of interests with political figures and groups for those supporting the mandate of Gardasil-by endorsing them financially and/or contributing generously to their campaign. This is not limited to Merck, conflicts of interests between the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are ever rampant these days even if in the form of petty gifts that can influence their prescribing habits.

Gardasil is a vaccine that has undergone little trial testing and for too short of a trial. Its efficacy, effectiveness, protection period, and risks are not fully understood. And to market/promote it so aggressively... It has been said that Gardasil protects for at least five years. Isn't that targeting the wrong age group? Provided middle-aged women have the highest incidences of cervical cancer. If a girl got it at age 9, she would only be in early adolescence by the time the protection span is over.

Gardasil only protects against several strains of HPV, with a protection range of 70%. 30% is still a high probability, and it is feared it can allow less harmful strains to flourish and become more malevolent from the ecological gap. And given that various agents (not just HPV) that can lead to cervical cancer can be contracted all in same sex act. There is insufficient evidence that Gardasil actually helps in prevention, given the nature of HPV and the time.

As with just about any vaccine, there are toxic incredients in Gardasil. Aluminum is a potent neurotoxin. Polysorbate 80 is theorized to cause infertility. And sodium borate...like borax.

Gardasil is not a safe vaccine. There have been cases of sudden death, dangerously increased heart rate, blood clots, paralysis, Guillan-Barre syndrome, and fainting associated with it. With this many incidents of girls blacking out after receiving the shot enough to make several headlines, it's a clear sign that something's not right. And it's not from "anxiety" either. Look at the VAERS statistics, and that's only a small percentage reported. Merck never tells you this. There have been allegations that Merck even skewered the trial data and the placebos to give the impression that the vaccine is safe. AND even allegations that the vaccine may cause infertility. There was a article amendment of the Virginia legislature that explicitly grants immunity to Merck from legality should a woman be unable to bear a child after receiving the vaccine. It was rejected.

Rates of cervical cancer is at an all time low (here as a modern society) and is still decreasing. There are only about 3,000 cases more or less each year. And contrary to imposed exaggerations, that is a minimal percentage. Regular pap smears are perfectly fine in detecting precancerous leisions and facilitating early intervention, if the woman cares about her health.

The federal agencies (that includes the FDA and CDC and for the count record the EPA also) are just as corrupt as the industry nowadays. We hear all the time of drugs being expensive but not necessary more effective than older drugs, drugs increasing various health risks, cough syrup for kids that don't work, drugs being recalled, taken off the shelves, skewered trial results to hide the bad sides, etc. Where was the FDA? The FDA is too quick to give the fasttrack these days. The CDC will approve just about anything.



So, after all those red flags... I have no doubt that Merck is reckless and cares only for their own interests. Now..normally I'm a liberal person, but this is one thing that I have to take a adamantly conservative stance on. If I had a daughter, I would say NO.

[sera300]

You have vary valid points. Especially regarding the use of vaccinations overall. One main issue I do see is the contracting of HPV (one of the four strains it covers to REDUCE the risk) and the development of cervical cancer later in life. Their research is far from overall use--what about a 30 y/o with a negative test and was in a monogamous relationship/marriage and recently divorced. Why are they denied.

Any time any medication is introduced into a body there are risks...look at the live polio vaccinations. Why give kids mandatory C. pox vaccinations? let them get is as kids. The main risk is to adults which have no immunity and develop an outbreak causing ARDS. I fell in the group which received the MMR shots which were ineffective. They were later recalled when found a outbreak and all had to be tested, people in my age group also did not have immunity--antibodies upon testing. We had to be taken out of work when one patient entered due to risk. They reattempted to vaccinate us, did not hold, and I did have a mild case of Measles & Mumps...the best guess was due to a bad batch destroyed the antibody/antigen reaction.

Early on in life had severe dysplasia, 13 y/o, not sexually active. Developed to requiring surgical & biopsy intervention. No HPV ever. This PAP? Positive for dysplasia no detectable HPV...

I think the adds are helpful getting information out there since HPV is rampant and people do not practice safe sex. Mandatory STD testing should be done regardless of any "history".

I test regularly. Why? I was stuck by another Nurse who just drew blood from a HIV [active] patient who was an IVDA...fresh blood and penetration deep in my hand. Tied it off w/a tourniquet and bleed it out, and submerged it in bleach. This was prior to any meds for those stuck or put at risk. That was 1987...I am still seronegative.

I believe people need to make informed choices and through adds is one way to create pubic awareness. All drug co.'s do similar practices & lobby. The question is does the benefit out weigh the risks???

[sera300]

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=36584 c.cancer & HVP...

[Brandye]

I shall ignore the rants about manufacturer, authorizing agencies, etc, simply because that is mot my domain. Your medical facts have some problems. One woman in about 4500 has experienced side-effects beyond swelling and pain at the site of the injection. Weighed against recent findings that one in four girls between 14-19 tested positive for the four HPV strains that cause cervical cancer, those odds are pretty good. Aluminum is not in the vaccine in any form.

The rates of cervical at an all time low is a result of early detection with PAP smears. The PAP, however, identifies abnormal cervical cells - meaning the woman is already in a pre-cancerous state. The four strains of HPV involved do account for 70% of all cervical cancer. The other thirty percent are not viral in origin but a result of other carcinogens including asbestos in talcum powder.

While cervical cancer shows up later in lidfe, the original infection(s) usually occer while a woman is under thirty. The healthy immune system can defeat the virus in younger woman but by about thirty, the immune system is sufficiently compromised that the HPV are there to stay. And, there are cases of younger women with cervical cancer. The youngest I have found was 27.

You are certainly within your rights to avoid the vaccination for your daughter. And all medications have side-effects. All of life is balancing type I erroras against teype II errors. I happen to fall on the other side of the risk equation from you.