Strollerderby : HPV

They Say: Circumcision Tied to Lower Rates of STDs

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:02:00 GMT

A new study seems to confirm earlier findings that circumcision may offer men protection against some sexually transmitted diseases. The research is far from clear, though, and will likely not clear up any of the confusion facing parents deciding whether or not to circumcize their newborn sons (once performed at rates approaching 90% in the United States, routine infant circumsicion is hitting all-time lows, with something like half of all boys born in the Western US avoiding the procedure).

The study, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, did not look at infant circumcision in the United States. Doctors followed a group of 3,000 uncircumcized Ugandan men, none of whom were infected with herpes (specifically HSV2, the strain that causes genital lesions). Half were immediately circumsized, while men in the other group underwent the procedure two years later. At the end of the survey, according to the New York Times, "the researchers estimated that circumcised men had a 25 percent reduced risk of infection." A smaller subgroup was also evaluated for HPV, the human papilloma virus that causes genital warts and is a leading cause of cervical cancer in women. In that group, the risk for circumsized men was calculated to be 35% lower.

Critics will doubtless point out that studies of adult men in Africa may not signify equivalent results when looking at children born and raised in the United States. And the trend for the past decade or so has seen a rise in advocacy groups who argue that the procedure is an unnecessary surgery that may be harmful to a baby boy's future sexual life. Partly as a result of this movement, fewer doctors push for the procedure, and now Medicaid does not cover it in 16 states. If studies like this do turn out to apply across the board, then perhaps that pendulum will swing the other way. For parents expecting a baby boy, the decision will always be a tough one; here's hoping that some scientific consensus will emerge to help guide the way.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Parents Forgo Circumcision to Save Money

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

JeanneSager — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:25:00 GMT

If you thought parenting boys meant you were off the hook on having to decide whether or not to go with the Gardasil shot, listen up.

Gardasil, the HPV prevention shot aimed girls nine to twenty-six, has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by maker Merck for consideration as a vaccine for boys.

Obviously, we're not talking about cervical cancer here (please, tell me that was obvious), but a Merck study tracked four thousand boys ages sixteen to twenty-six who were given Gardasil and found it prevented ninety percent of cases of penile cancer and genital warts caused by the four common virus strains targeted by the vaccine.

The proposal calls for the vaccine to be approved for boys in the same age group as that already approved for girls - nine to twenty-six - and all report indicate it would come at a similar cost.

The three-series shot has drawn controversy for its $360 pricetag in the past, and its not the only one. Parents have had mixed reactions to the vaccine, some rushing out to have it administered to be on the safe side. As reported on Babble last month, however, others parents say Gardasil has caused paralysis in their daughters. I'm still undecided, myself, and hoping more conclusive research on the risks and benefits is available six years down the line when my daughter would first be "of age" for Gardasil.

But if the Merck study results are to be believed, this could save little boys lives. What do you think parents, would you take your sons in for the shot?

Image: Jezebel

Source: USA Today Via Jezebel

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:20:00 GMT

The cervical cancer vaccine can’t seem to untangle itself of controversy. First, abstinence groups worked overtime to block its widespread use, arguing that it would encourage premarital sex. What it actually does is prevent girls from contracting four of the strands of HPV that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases in the world. Yes, HPV is an STD, but the vaccine has almost nothing to do with premarital sex. Since HPV is so easily spread, it is entirely possible that a girl could wait until marriage to have sex and then contract HPV if her husband had had as much as one sexual encounter before the marriage.

Fortunately, the abstinence argument against the vaccine has been mostly steamrolled, particularly in the U.K., where a government-funded program aims to save 400 lives a year by administering the Cervarix vaccine to 300,000 12- and 13-year-old girls. (In the U.S., the more commonly used, but very similar, vaccine is called Gardasil.)

But the program has gotten some bad—and scary—press recently, after a 12-year-old girl became paralyzed from the waist down shortly after receiving the vaccine at school. Ashleigh Cave’s mother, Cheryl, believes that the shot was implicated in her daughter’s illness, but doctors have claimed that the vaccination was unrelated to the sudden onset of Ashleigh’s dizziness and eventual loss of the use of her legs.

Although nothing I’ve read indicates that Ashleigh has been definitely diagnosed yet, it seems clear that she has Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can cause paralysis, and which has previously been linked (perhaps wrongly) with the cervical cancer vaccine.

13 girls are reported to have been diagnosed with Guillain-Barré after receiving the Gardasil vaccine in the U.S., causing some concern among parents about the safety of getting their daughters vaccinated. However, considering the total number of girls who received the vaccine and the natural incidence of the disease, 13 is within the number of people who would be expected to fall prey to Guillain-Barré just by chance. Doctors and health experts continue to assert that there is no reason to believe the cervical cancer vaccine is unsafe.

Still, it is only too easy to understand why Ashleigh’s mother harbors her doubts, considering that her daughter’s initial diagnosis was “vertigo and generalised myalgia, probably due to recent vaccinations.” I hope further investigations can set the public’s collective mind at ease.

Photo: straightfromthedoc.com

Defying Doctors, Parents Blame MMR Vaccine on Toddler's Sudden Death

Coroner Finds No Link Between Vaccine and Toddler's Sudden Death

Expanded Uses of HPV Vaccine

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:01:00 GMT

Recently, I wrote about a national survey that revealed that one quarter of teenage girls has a sexually transmitted infection (STI). Well, the most common of those STIs—HPV (the human papillomavirus)—no longer need pose a threat. A vaccine against HPV has been available since June 2006 for females between the ages of nine and 26. And yesterday, the pharmaceutical giant Merck announced that it’s seeking FDA approval of the vaccine for women ages 27-45.

By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV at some point in their lives. Most of the time, the virus goes away on its own, although it can develop into cervical cancer, which is the second leading cancer in women worldwide and which kills about 3,700 women in the U.S. each year. Gardasil is 100 percent effective against four strains of HPV that together cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and about 90 percent of genital warts outbreaks. In other words, widespread vaccination against HPV could save millions of women’s lives.

Assuming that the FDA does approve vaccinating older women, the next expansion of Gardasil’s use will most likely be to males, who are currently not approved for the vaccine, nor can they be tested for the virus. So they could easily carry several of about 30 sexually transmitted strains of HPV and have no idea they are putting their partners at risk.

Probably the vaccine’s biggest setback is its prohibitive cost: $360 for a series of three shots over a six-month period. Many, but by no means all, insurance companies cover the cost of the vaccine. Fortunately, the Vaccines for Children Program offers Gardasil free of charge to uninsured and underinsured children 18 years of age and younger—which is one reason why it’s important to get girls vaccinated while they are young.

Before the vaccine was approved in June 2006, it was speculated that conservative opposition would be the biggest obstacle to making the vaccine widely available. In fact, most Christian groups such as Focus on the Family wisely support the vaccine, but are opposed to making it mandatory, worrying that inoculating preteen girls against an STI sends a pro-premarital sex message. But Merck and many health care professionals argue that vaccinating girls before their first sexual contact is the only (almost) surefire way to combat the spread of cancer-causing HPV.

What do you parents think? How would (or did) you feel bringing your nine-year-old to get vaccinated against a disease overwhelmingly caused by sexual contact? Do you think boys should receive the Gardasil vaccine? Should states make the vaccine mandatory? And would you pay for the vaccine if your insurance company didn’t?

Photo: teenagerstoday.com

Shots for Mom and Dad, Too

Madeline Holler — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:00:00 GMT

Infants and toddlers aren't the only ones who need vaccines. But they're the ones most likely to get them, which is making health officials worry. Despite the development of vaccines that guard against terrible illnesses people can develop as adults, only a teeny tiny number of people are actually getting the shots.

Here's what a new CDC report found:

Only about 2 percent of Americans ages 60 and older received a vaccine against shingles in its first year of sales. Anybody who had chickenpox is at risk for developing shingles, a super painful viral eruption, as they get older. The shingles vaccine cuts that risk in half.

About 2 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 got a booster shot against whooping cough in the two years since it hit the market.The booster toddlers get stars to wear off by adolescence.

About 10 percent of women ages 18 to 26 have received at least one dose of a three-shot series that protects against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes cervical cancer.

Among people 65 or older, a high-risk age, CDC found only 69 percent get an annual flu shot; just 66 percent have had a one-time pneumonia vaccine; and 44 percent had received a tetanus shot in the past 10 years.

Okay, so, guilty as charged! But seriously, did you know about all this? The report said health officials are disappointed that more people haven't gotten these vaccines, even after so much publicity about the vaccines. But except for the HPV and flu shots, I didn't know about them. I would think this is the kind of thing doctors could tell us about or make a part of our checkups. So, do they know about them?

Another problem is the cost of these shots. $150 for some, $300 for the three-shot HPV one. Naturally, insurance coverage on these varies.

Anybody out there totally current on their shots? Honestly, I have no idea.

Photo: Salt Lake Tribune

Doctors Warn Against Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gardasil

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:22:00 GMT

Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine that has been at the center of increasing controversy, recently became the topic of concern for several University of San Francisco doctors. In last week's New England Journal of Medicine, doctors warned against wide-spread use of the vaccine until further testing is completed.

The doctors raise many questions about the effectiveness and long-term safety of the drug, and call into serious doubt that states like California will be able to successfully require vaccination against cervical cancer. The vaccine, produced by Merck, was approved by the FDA in 2006 for broader use, but concerns remain that Gardasil treats only certain types of cancer-causing viruses and that the long term effects of the vaccine on women is unknown.

As a parent with three daughters, I'm inclined to go ahead and vaccinate my kids when the times comes. But concerns raised by these doctors and others reinforces the importance of longitudinal studies to see the real impact of Gardasil on women's long-term health.

Gardasil Mandate Vetoed by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

Patti — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:02:00 GMT

The latest state to make a decision on whether or not to make Gardasil a required vaccination for public school students is New Mexico, and the answer is "no". The vaccine has been the center of controversy as various governments face the question of whether or not to add it to the standard list of immunizations.

Governor Bill Richardson stated that he would veto the measure, which would make the vaccine required for all female students entering the sixth grade unless their parents signed an opt-out waiver (as with other vaccines). Richardson did follow through on legislation requiring insurance companies to cover the vaccine, and the New Mexico Department of Health will be continuing the launch of a program making the vaccine available to New Mexico's girls at no cost.

Several other states are debating similar legislation, and most recently Texas was in the spotlight when Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order stating that girls over twelve were to have the shots administered. The US isn't alone in this, though. It's on the table in the UK, and in Australia where the vaccine was developed, it will be prescribed for women ages 12-26, and scaled back to 12-13 year olds thereafter. Incidentally, Gardasil has also been approved for males in Australia, though the government is not yet funding a vaccination program for boys and men.

Keep Your Laws Off My Kid: When is Government Too Intrusive?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:31:00 GMT

Government programs designed to help children frequently succeed at providing early education (Head Start), nutrition (Free Lunch Program), and health insurance (Medicaid), but when does help become unwanted intervention? According to a Chicago Tribune op-ed, that line has already been crossed.

In the debate over required vaccination against cervical cancer, which is being hotly contested in several states, opponents feel the rights of the parents are being overrun by government interests and that ultimately parents should be able to decide what is best for their children.

The problem always rests in legislating childrearing practices for everyone. The laws that are meant to protect children in those cases where the parents are unfit or unwilling to do so provide protections that we as a society cannot live without. But at what point are these helps a hindrance to personal liberty? Personally, I prefer to err on the side of over-helping than neglecting an issue, especially where children are concerned.

Gardasil: Mom Blogger Explains Why She'll Vaccinate Her Daughter

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:06:00 GMT

Recently, Alisyn Cobb wrote about various states proposing bills that would make the new human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, a requirement for girls 13 and under. HPV is a virus that causes cervical cancer.

However you feel about this highly-charged issue, there's no denying that this is a big medical breakthrough. Those of us that have suffered through abnormal paps and painful culposcopies are sitting up and taking notice. Especially if we have daughters.

Mir, the veteran blogger behind of Woulda Coulda Shoulda and Want Not, wrote an eloquent piece for BlogHer about why she will vaccinate her daughter as soon as she is able. She makes the case by saying:

If I have my daughter vaccinated at 9, it's all about disease prevention and nothing more. If I wait until she's older, then the other issues creep in unbidden. If I have my 11-year-old vaccinated just as puberty is coming to roost, I will feel compelled to tie this to issues of her budding sexuality, and perhaps seize on this rather inorganic opportunity to espouse my personal values and embarrass her terribly. If I wait until she's a full-fledged teenager, the unpleasant reality is that---all parenting and values aside, no matter what they are---we may be too late, for one thing, and she may feel compelled to seize on this rather inorganic opportunity to either protest her chastity or tell me what I can do with my values and embarrass us both terribly. She may even---with the invincible wisdom of a teen---insist she doesn't need it.

Read her post and click through all her links. Then join the thoughtful discussion in the comments. It will give you lots to chew on.

[via BlogHer]

States Consider Federally Mandated HPV Vaccine For Teen Girls

Alisyn — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:45:00 GMT

According to the Washington Post, the D.C. council is considering introducing a bill that would require all girls 13 and under to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer. Similar proposals are being introduced in California, Colorado and Kentucky.

HPV causes cancer in approximately 10,000 American women annually, and kills about 3,700 according to the American Cancer Society. It is a serious disease, no doubt, and now, a preventable one. But reactions to the proposed mandate were mixed.

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the vaccine for preteen girls, Dr. Joseph Bacchini, chairman of the academy's committee on infectious diseases, says that it's too early to make it mandatory. "This is a new vaccine," said Dr. Bachini. "It would be wise to wait until we have additional information about the safety of the vaccine." But Stanley Gall, of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says "I think this makes perfect sense. There would certainly be a significant health benefit."

I, for one, will run for the hills if the day comes that the federal government tells me that I am legally obligated to vaccinate myself and my daughters against HPV. Why? Well for one thing, it's a new vaccine. Long term side effects are unknown. And for another, I think that the decision to vaccinate our children should be between parents and doctors, not lawmakers and pharmaceutical companies.

How would you feel if this bill was passed in your state?

Strollerderby : HPV

They Say: Circumcision Tied to Lower Rates of STDs

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Expanded Uses of HPV Vaccine

Shots for Mom and Dad, Too

Doctors Warn Against Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gardasil

Gardasil Mandate Vetoed by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

Keep Your Laws Off My Kid: When is Government Too Intrusive?

Gardasil: Mom Blogger Explains Why She'll Vaccinate Her Daughter

States Consider Federally Mandated HPV Vaccine For Teen Girls