Strollerderby : merck

Gardasil Accused of Serious Side-Effects; Parents Feel Put Off by Merck

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:02:00 GMT

Parents of girls and young women who had dangerous health crises--even sudden death--following Gardasil vaccinations, are feeling frustrated with doctors, the government and parent company Merck's response their concerns that the vaccination triggered the problems.

Did the vaccination cause incidents of Bell's Palsy, Epilepsy, ALS-like symptoms and similar issues? Did a pre-existing condition coincidentally rear its head after the vaccination--but unconnected to it--or could some combination be the case? Perhaps a pre-existing tendency towards a health problem was pushed into an actual condition by the drug?

Answers to these questions are critically important for their own sake of course. Perhaps these parents and their daughters are owed some compensation from Merck. Perhaps Merck needs to work out problems with the vaccine or add warnings and guidelines for doctors. But parents are complaining that they are too often put on indefinite hold, given forms to fill out that seem to go nowhere or simply dismissed by both Merck officials and the doctors administering the vaccines.

I worry that besides these possible dangerous side-effects of the vaccine, the most dangerous one yet is that a vaccine that is perfectly safe--and other vaccines by association--might develop a reputation as life-threatening, such that girls and women who might reap benefits--even life-saving ones--from this vaccine and others, won't get the shots.

Vaccines have a dark and murky reputation, more than anything because people who do have problems with them--however few--are treated with such disdain by the medical establishment.

I am of the opinion that vaccines are far and away a good thing. But that doesn't mean we should be uncritical of how they are developed or overlook serious complications that may arise from them. Quite the contrary, if we are to build public trust in them, serious scrutiny needs to be given to any claim that a serious side-effect has occurred.

image: merckfrosst.ca

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

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