HPV vaccinations drop infection rate a staggering 50%

emzie

wicked witch of the North
Moderator
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
21,364
Location
Ottawa, Canada
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, is a highly infectious disease. Tens of millions of people carry this virus, and some strains can cause all sorts of horrid medical conditions, like genital warts in men and women, and several types of cancer, including cervical cancer in women. In the United States alone, 4,000 women die every year from cervical cancer, roughly one-third of the number who get it.

Two vaccines to prevent HPV infection were introduced a few years back, Gardasil and Cervarix. A new study, as reported by the New York Times and NBC News, shows the vaccine has been a huge success: HPV infection rates have dropped by a staggering 50 percent in U.S. teen girls since the introduction of the vaccine. This is despite the low uptake rate; only about a third of teens 13 to 17 have received the full course of three shots.

These results jibe well with an earlier report from Australia, too. There, HPV infection rates dropped 59 percent in girls and women ages 12 to 26, and 39 percent in boys and men.

This is great news! Now all we need to do is get more parents to give their girls and boys the vaccine. (Gardasil is recommended for both sexes, and Cervarix is just for girls). As the Times reports:

Dr. Frieden [of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] said the low vaccination rate in the United States means that 50,000 girls alive today will eventually develop fatal cervical cancer, deaths that could have been prevented if the country’s rate had been at 80 percent. For every year the rate lags, another 4,400 girls will develop cervical cancer in their lifetimes, he said*.


Not that this will be easy. The vaccine raised a hue and a cry from both the antivax left, and the sexually conservative right—HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. However, the NBC article reports that the CDC has found no evidence of major adverse effects, nor has there been an increase in sexual activity among girls who have had the shots. So really, no one should complain.

So here we have a vaccination that already is going to save tens of thousands of lives and has the potential to save tens of thousands more. It does not seem to have any major negatives: neither does it have adverse effects itself nor does it encourage sexual activity. So of course, we'll continue to tolerate parents not getting their kids vaccinated because of fears of two non-existent side effects.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr..._shows_infection_rates_dropping_in_girls.html
 
I was trying to find the info in the past on how many vaccines are obligatory in the US and in EU countries. Anyone have this information, preferably in some nicely condenced form? :)

No vaccines are obligatory in the USA. All vaccines are at the discretion of the parents. However, hospitals and most doctors will commonly assume consent and give certain vaccines ar certain ages. Parents who want to opt out if the 'standard' schedule have to work very hard at it.

I'll post more when I'm not on my phone.
 
People who dont vaccinate their children are a danger to society.

Agreed. The anti-vaccination movement makes my head spin. Same with those who don't want young girls to have this vaccination for some outdated and irrational fear of sex.
 
Would not the fact that the parents concerned enough to give the vaccine are also concerned about introducing sexual activity at a young age? Seeing as how sexual activity did not increase in those who got the shot. IMO, it just allowed the parents to approach a topic that may be hard for some to do. The shame should be that parents in the US seem to not care either way.
 
it's been interesting navigating this with my wife. She's more on the side of 'safer to not vaccinate until proven safe', and I'm like "Umm, there are outbreaks of measles in Brooklyn because people aren't vaccinating - that's proof that NOT vaxing is NOT SAFE".

Luckily she's rational, and if I can summarize good data for her she accepts it. One of my most useful techniques is to show her what other countries do and don't do - this cancels out the noise. For example, Netherlands switched away from a thimerasol preservative at a different time than the US did, and autism rates didn't change in response. Look at this for several different countries and you have a pretty strong case against any purported link.

It can be tricky though, because all parents' hearts are in the right place: they want to do the best thing for their kids. And there's a lot of scary stuff out there, so it can take some time to wade through the fear and arrive at a confident decision.

As it stands, if anyone's curious, we're doing a 'delayed' schedule. It simply means we don't gang up 4 or 5 shots that all have aluminium in one visit. We have more office visits, but the aluminum loaded into her blood stream at one time is greatly reduced. She will still get each vaccination before she's likely to either be exposed or suffer negative effects of each target disease.
 
Question, is it possible to actually eradicate HPV if enough people are vaccinated? Like we did with Polio etc?
 
Is the virus passed on through genetics? If it is only transmitted through sex, it would seem the only way to stop it would be a vaccine or abstinence.
 
Can we have a link to this? I would like to spread the news to others.

Ba-dum-phish.



On a somewhat related note, some vaccines wear off after a decade or so. There are plenty of adults who think they are still vaccinated but they are just as dangerous to herd immunity as the anti-vaxxers.

I say this with the full knowledge that I am one of those clowns who hasn't gotten a new set of shots. I should probably go get the HPV vaccine and all the others that wore off.
 
Is the virus passed on through genetics? If it is only transmitted through sex, it would seem the only way to stop it would be a vaccine or abstinence.
But abstinence wouldn't eradicate the illness in people, just stop it from spreading from an infected person to an uninfected person, right? Whereas a vaccine would actually prevent people from being infected in the first place?
 
Do hepatitis vaccinations encourage intravenous drug use?
 
Question, is it possible to actually eradicate HPV if enough people are vaccinated? Like we did with Polio etc?

As I recall, there are tons of variants of HPV, and these vaccines only work against the more common cancer-causing ones. So we might wipe those out, but odds are another would take it's place soon enough.
 
But abstinence wouldn't eradicate the illness in people, just stop it from spreading from an infected person to an uninfected person, right? Whereas a vaccine would actually prevent people from being infected in the first place?

I think that people assume it is in every person. HIV does not exist in every person.

wiki said:
Papillomaviruses were first identified in the early 20th century, when it was shown that skin warts, or papillomas, could be transmitted between individuals by a filterable infectious agent. In 1935 Francis Peyton Rous, who had previously demonstrated the existence of a cancer-causing sarcoma virus in chickens, went on to show that a papillomavirus could cause skin cancer in infected rabbits. This was the first demonstration that a virus could cause cancer in mammals.

I don't think a vaccine keeps people from getting infected? It seems to me it minimizes the possibility by introducing a weaker form that the body can naturally immunize itself with if the actual virus does invade the body. Vaccines do not eradicate.

wiki said:
More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types—different from the ones that cause skin warts—may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer.[4] HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer.[5] However, most infections with these types do not cause disease.
 
I don't think a vaccine keeps people from getting infected? It seems to me it minimizes the possibility by introducing a weaker form that the body can naturally immunize itself with if the actual virus does invade the body. Vaccines do not eradicate.
There is some confusion here. Infection is a pathological condition that's separate from exposure. Vaccines don't protect from exposure - the only way to do that is to live in a bubble.

Instead, vaccines show the immune system what to be on the look out for so that when you get exposed the body is prepared to prevent an infection. An Infection is when a microbial colony grows out of control. You hear about people being 'carriers' of disease X. This means that they've been exposed, and X is living amongst the other colonies of stuff in our bodies, but it's not growing out of control.

Vaccines prevent infections.

There are a few different ways that can happen.

With some bugs, the human immune system will respond to the surface proteins. So the vaccine will use 'dead' virus or bacteria. It floats around in the blood stream, our immune cells come into contact with the vaccine particles, and the machinery automatically starts up to react to and neutralize the foreign threat. If this bug gets into the blood stream in the future, the immune system will already have it's case on file, and automatically mount an attack. The annual flu shots use dead virus. You can not get the flu from it. But your immune system will kick into gear as if you have been exposed to live virus, which is where some of the commonly reported complaints likely come from.

Other bugs, though, can't be dead in order to be recognized by the immune system. So those vaccines use an incredibly small dose of the live germ. Sometime the bug can be neutralized in some manner, but other times not.

Both types of vaccines use the body natural disease-prevention hardware to prevent future exposure from turning into a future infection.
 
Top Bottom