statism watch

Judy Gerstel, Toronto Star
Jan 10, 2008 04:30 AM

It may prevent strains of cervical cancer, but parents should know this form of cancer is relatively rare and not be unnecessarily spooked

A vaccine that prevents cancer is the holy grail of medical research. So why is there is so much controversy and anxiety about the only vaccine that’s been proven to prevent most cases of cervical cancer?

The vaccine is Gardasil, developed by Merck Frosst and approved by Health Canada in 2006. Gardasil prevents strains of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus that cause 70 per cent of cases of cervical cancer.

Last summer, Ontario implemented a federally funded program to offer Gardasil free, in a series of three injections, to Grade 8 girls in the province.

But some experts question the long-term safety of Gardasil and its side effects. And some parents are concerned about the propriety and necessity of vaccinating their 12- and 13-year-old daughters against a disease that must be transmitted sexually, can be detected by a Pap screening test and affects fewer than 1,400 Canadian women each year.

Causing 400 deaths, cervical cancer ranks as only the 13th most common cancer in women, far behind breast cancer, for example, which affects more than 22,000 Canadian women each year and causes more than 5,000 deaths.

The issue of whether or not to have their daughters vaccinated has perplexed parents this school year.

…

In the August edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, McGill University epidemiologist Abby Lippman wrote: “A careful review of the literature, including that 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.”

Reports in the British Medical Journal and in Maclean’s also raised concerns about the vaccine, while some articles have questioned the intense marketing and promotion by Merck Frosst and the rapid implementation of the immunization program.

“No doubt that anybody who has daughter and cares about that daughter has to turn their minds to this dilemma,” De Sommer says. “Without hard evidence one way or another, you’re left with your own gut instincts, so you learn what you can through information provided and then you make an educated guess as best you can.

“If something happened down the road and she developed cervical cancer, then, given the fact that we had opportunity to inoculate her and didn’t, I would be appalled.”

Full Story

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am and is filed under appropriation, eugenics, health. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.