A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CANADIAN WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK: HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 07, 05:40 PM posted to ca.politics,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.environment,sci.med.nursing
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default CANADIAN WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK: HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations

Ilena Rosenthal & The Humantics Foundation applaud this fine paper and
are dedicated to spreading this information for anyone considering
being or having someone they love vaccinated with Gardasil.
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
Health Lover

http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/cwhn/hpv-brief.html

A summary of this paper is to appear in the 28 August 2007 Canadian
Medical Association Journal; a pre-released version can be found
online now at: www.cmaj.ca.

HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations (PDF 238k/19p)
http://www.cwhn.ca/PDF/CWHN_HPVjuly30.pdf

Executive Summary
Cancer prevention remains a high priority for women and men in Canada,
and critical steps for cancer prevention are identifying and
eliminating the causes of such diseases. The federal government's
recently-announced $300 million investment toward a program for
vaccinating girls and women with the currently available human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil (manufactured by Merck Frosst)
framed by some as a way to prevent cervical cancer in Canada, has
generally been welcomed by a wide range of commentators. The policy
commitment to improve the health of women and girls is laudable and
emerging research about the effectiveness of immunization in reducing
HPV prevalence is promising.

However, although HPV infection is necessary for the development of
cervical cancer, and while evidence suggests that Gardasil may prevent
primary infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be a
necessary cause of about 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases), we
propose that these facts be assessed within a broad context, which at
this moment contains many unknowns, before immunization policies are
developed and implemented.

A careful review of the literature, including that which was submitted
by the manufacturer with its application for approval of Gardasil,
reveals a sufficient number of unanswered questions to lead us to
conclude that a universal immunization program aimed at girls and
women in Canada is, at this time, premature and could possibly have
unintended negative consequences for individuals and for society as a
whole. We suggest that rather than giving widespread administration of
this vaccine a “green light,” a more appropriate policy at this time
would be a “yellow light” of caution. We recommend that the funding
announced by the federal government be used to support the research
needed to answer the many questions outlined below; to fund a public
education campaign to quell the unfounded anxiety that has been
instilled by marketers of the vaccine that HPV represents a “new” or
“imminent” threat; and to ensure equal access to Pap testing,
including timely follow-up and application of improvements in testing.
Only when there is a solid evidence base and an
appropriately-provisioned cervical screening program accessible to all
can we determine the most appropriate holistic strategy – and the
place of vaccination in it – to address cervical cancer and the
transmission of HPV between and among Canadian girls, boys, women, and
men. We have been given an exciting opportunity to establish effective
guidelines and to create a model of how to approach future vaccines.
We must take full advantage of it.

In this paper, we summarize some of the major questions and concerns
that need to be addressed before there is a full-scale roll-out of an
HPV vaccination program. These closely reflect issues raised in the
analytical framework created by Erickson et al.[i] in the context of
the development of the National Immunization Strategy (NIS), and
support efforts to ensure a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of
all relevant factors before decisions regarding the importance of a
new immunization program are made. As well, they echo some of the
research questions identified as important in the Final Report from
the Canadian Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Research Priorities Workshop
held in Quebec City in 2005.[ii]We hope raising these questions now
will contribute to the deliberations necessary to ensure a responsible
and transparent evidence-based decision-making process.

Our major points, summarized here, are discussed in detail in the text
that follows. They are also summarized in a Commentary appearing in
the 28 August 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal
(CMAJ), online as of 1 August 2007.

There is no epidemic of cervical cancer in Canada . According to
Canadian Cancer Statistics 2006,[iii] approximately 400 women were
anticipated to die of this disease in 2006.

Invasive cervical cancer typically follows a slowly progressive course
that can be halted at one of various stages. Consequently, deaths
associated with cervical cancer, relatively rare in Canada, but always
unfortunate and not distributed evenly among women, must be considered
as a failure in the adequate support of both the primary care and
reproductive health services that would guarantee healthy living
conditions for all women as well as ensure all women get appropriate
Pap testing and follow-up.

Most HPV infections are cleared spontaneously. Recent research using
available molecular detection technologies suggests that clearance
occurs within one year for about 70 per cent of those infected, and
within two years for 90 per cent. Thus, HPV infection and cervical
cancer must not be conflated: most women who are infected with even a
“high-risk” strain of HPV will not develop cervical cancer.[iv]

The nature of an immunization program is necessarily dependent upon
the definition of clear and tangible goals. To date, such goals have
not been made explicit with regard to a Canadian initiative. Is the
aim of the vaccination program the eradication of high-risk HPV types
from the population? Or is the aim to reduce the number of cervical
cancer deaths? These different goals require different strategies.

Information about the efficacy of Gardasil appears promising, but
remains uncertain. Recent reports seem to suggest that Gardasil 's
efficacy may be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia (potentially removable pre-cancerous lesions 40 per cent of
which regress spontaneously and which may not even be recommended for
treatment), while the data are “insufficient to support a conclusion
of efficacy for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or
adenocarcinoma in situ.”[v]

Related to this are other unknowns about the vaccine's effectiveness
in the “real world” including the possible need for booster shots,
concerns about altering the natural history of viral infection, and
the impact of vaccination programs on safer sex practices and Pap
screening rates, all of which highlight the essential need for careful
health services research for the development of appropriate
vaccination policies.

Relatively few young girls (about 1200 aged 9 – 15 years) were
enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil. Of these, a mere 100 were
nine years of age, with the youngest being followed for only 18
months.[vi] Yet, based on the assumption that they will not yet have
been exposed to HPV viruses, girls in this age group represent the
priority “target” population for mass vaccination. Clearly, this is a
very weak information base on which to construct a policy of mass
vaccinations for all girls aged 9 to 13, as per the National Advisory
Committee on Immunization's (NACI) recommendations.[vii]

Rigorous collection and analysis of reports on adverse effects are
needed for risk-benefit assessments that would allow for truly
informed consent by individuals offered the vaccine. A list of adverse
events is being compiled in the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)[viii] database, but
because these reports are both incomplete and hard to interpret, there
remains a need for careful and unbiased analyses of harm.

Media and marketing claims about the impact of HPV prevalence are very
misleading and the naming of Gardasil as the “cervical cancer
vaccine,” implying the vaccine eliminates all cervical cancer, is
incorrect. The marketing of Gardasil , which began in the United
States even before it had been approved by the FDA, has made it
difficult for there to be reflective discussions between parents and
children, health care providers and their clients, as well as among
the public and policy makers, about the nature and meaning of HPV and
of vaccination.

There is a great need for cost/effectiveness analyses of proposed
vaccination programs, since the “added value” of the vaccine is far
from clear: girls and women, even if vaccinated, will still need to
practice safe(r) sex and have access to existing reproductive and
primary care programs – not only for Pap testing, but for other
aspects of reproductive care as well. Such analyses are usually done
prior to the initiation of a mass vaccination program to ensure that
the most efficient and appropriate approaches are taken.

Notes:
i Erickson LJ, De Wals P, and Farand L. An analytical framework for
immunization programs in Canada . Vaccine . 2005; 23: 2468-2474.

ii Public Health Agency of Canada . Canadian Human Papillomavirus
Vaccine Research Priorities Workshop: Final Report. November 17 th -18
th , 2005 ; Quebec City . CCDR 2006;32S1:66.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/...2s1/index.html.
iii Canadian Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute of Canada .
Canadian Cancer Statistics 2006. Toronto , Canada , 2006.

iv Public Health Agency of Canada . What everyone should know about
Human Papillomavirus (HPV): Questions and Answers.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/h...ph-qaqr_e.html
(Accessed February 20, 2007 ).

v Sawaya G, and Smith-McCune K. HPV Vaccination- More Answers, More
Questions. The New England Journal of Medicine . 2007; 356: 1991-1993.
vi Rabin, R. “A new vaccine for girls: but should it be compulsory?”
New York Times , July 18 th , 2007 .

vii National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), Statement on
human papillomavirus vaccine . Canada Communicable Disease Report .
Februrary 2007; 33, ACS-2 15.

viii U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaccine Adverse Event Report
System (VAERS) http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/vaers.htm . Accessed 24
May 2007 .





Posted: August 1, 2007

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CANADIAN WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK: HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations Ilena Rose Kids Health 0 August 20th 07 08:33 PM
New Canadian Study Rules Out PDD (Autism) Link to Thimerosal and/orMMR Vaccines Mark Probert Kids Health 0 July 6th 06 10:22 PM
'COCOA'S' LIE; "THERE IS *NO* MERCURY IN CANADIAN VACCINES" Ilena Rose Kids Health 16 April 4th 05 10:48 PM
THERE IS *NO* MERCURY IN CANADIAN VACCINES Cocoa Butter Kids Health 32 March 28th 05 11:52 PM
Women's Health Conference Oct 10-12, 2003, Illinois Pam General 0 September 21st 03 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.