Offline
Vaccine Has Sharply Reduced HPV in Teenage Girls, Study Says
A vaccine introduced a decade ago to combat the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer has already reduced the virus’s prevalence in teenage girls by almost two-thirds, federal researchers said Monday.
Even for women in their early 20s, a group with lower vaccination rates, the most dangerous strains of human papillomavirus, or HPV, have still been reduced by more than a third.
“We’re seeing the impact of the vaccine as it marches down the line for age groups, and that’s incredibly exciting,” said Dr. Amy B. Middleman, the chief of adolescent medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, who was not involved in the study. “A minority of females in this country have been immunized, but we’re seeing a public health impact that is quite expansive.”
The news is likely to serve as a welcome energizer in the tumultuous struggle to encourage HPV vaccination in the United States. Despite the vaccine’s proven effectiveness, immunization rates remain low — about 40 percent of girls and 20 percent of boys between the ages of 13 and 17. That is partly because of the implicit association of the vaccine with adolescent sexual activity, rather than with its explicit purpose: cancer prevention. Only Virginia, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia require the HPV vaccine.
Recent efforts have focused on recommending the vaccine for children ages 11 and 12, when their immune response is more robust than that of teenagers and when most states require two other vaccines — one for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis, and the other for meningococcal disease. The immunization rates for those vaccines are 80 percent and higher.
About 14 million Americans become infected with HPV each year, and the vast majority will clear the virus. But some strains persist and can cause genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, and mouth and throat cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that 4,120 women will die of cervical cancer this year.
Offline
A vaccine introduced a decade ago to combat the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer has already reduced the virus’s prevalence in teenage girls by almost two-thirds, federal researchers said Monday.
Since when does verifiable research and science have to do with anything?
(Pardon my sarcasm)
Offline
I imagine a lot of parents are conflicted emotionally about giving their pre-teens the vaccine for reasons that it might appear they are giving them the go ahead to be sexually active. Perhaps the solution would be to give the vaccine way before the likelihood of it even being a possible choice. That way it would be looked at just more of a preventative item vs possibly an enabling item.
Offline
Makes sense, Tennyson.
I've referred to the vaccine (when administered to adolescents) as the "slut shot" because those advocating the vaccine assume that all teenage girls will be very sexually active. With the aura of "protection" that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Offline
'Slut shot' . . . . Really?
I just don't know what else to say.
Offline
Unfortunately, many people (except me and maybe a few others) forget what it was like to be 16, 17, or 18 years old when hormones were gushing through our veins and got a good chuckle from adults that told us sex was forbidden. I can't believe this is even open for discussion.
Offline
Fred,
I haven't forgotten, and believe it or not I'm thankful that the hormones have finally begun to tame. I don't need a blue pill, but neither do I contemplate taking saltpeter to settle things down--nature has done that without any help.
HPV can be transmitted with just one encounter, but much of the literature stresses that it is most likely to occur with promiscuity. Would I want to make the assumption that my daughters (and I don't have any) are going to be "popular"? No way.
Yes, I often take a pessimistic view of human nature, especially in forums, but I also believe that we should and we can rise above our passions.
Offline
So, the incidence of HPV is falling, teenage pregnancy is not rising.
What's the problem?
It looks like some parents are more afraid of their daughters being "easy" than they are of them getting cancer.
Parents have a very difficult time imagining that their children will have sex.
Don't let squeamishness put your kids at risk of cancer.
BTW, I think that it's ridiculous to think that this vaccination will lead to promiscuity. How many kids are thinking about the consequences 25 years down the line when making the decision about whether to have sex? Answer: none.
But, don't take my word for it. Let's look at some data,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Offline
"We present strong evidence that HPV vaccination does not have any significant effect on clinical indicators of sexual behaviour among adolescent girls. These results suggest that concerns over increased promiscuity following HPV vaccination are unwarranted and should not deter from vaccinating at a young age."
Effect of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on clinical indicators of sexual behaviour among adolescent girls: the Ontario Grade 8 HPV Vaccine Cohort Study
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Offline
CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccination in the recommended ages was not associated with increased sexual activity–related outcome rates.
Sexual Activity–Related Outcomes After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination of 11- to 12-Year-Olds
Pediatrics
November 2012, VOLUME 130 / ISSUE 5