<p>If there were a vaccine that protected against prostate cancer I wonder if we’d be having this discussion?</p>
<p>“Although women may think they will “wait” until they are married to have sex, there is absolutely NO guarantee that their future husbands will have- and they will not have had the vaccine and can carry the virus.”</p>
<p>And isn’t that exactly the reason why boys should also be vaccinated? Or is the onus, once again, on the woman?</p>
<p>“If there were a vaccine that protected against prostate cancer I wonder if we’d be having this discussion?”</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>jaf1991,</p>
<p>At the risk of repetition, the only reason boys are not vaccinated is because the FDA will not allow a label claim for use with males.</p>
<p>The FDA will not allow the label claim because Merck has not demonstrated efficacy.</p>
<p>Merck has not demonstrated efficacy because to do so is extraordinarily difficult. To design such a study is very hard - what is the clinical endpoint? Reduction in a hard to detect problem in males? Reduction in cancer among their female partners (yea, right…)</p>
<p>This is not a political agenda. It is not an attempt to dump the problem on women. It is a problem of clinical research and science.</p>
<p>So surely you are not advocating allowing a company like Merck to advertise an unproven indication?</p>
<p>Jaf - Because men with HPV don’t have any outward symptoms, they’re much less likely to want to bear the cost/inconveniance/pain of a vaccine. </p>
<p>It isn’t about the unfair treatment of women, its about women being responsible for a health issue that is uniquely relevent to them.</p>
<p>Here’s another view: [Merck’s</a> Gardasil: A Risky and Unnecessary Vaccine - Seeking Alpha](<a href=“Healthcare, Biotech & Pharmaceutical Stock News and Analysis | Seeking Alpha”>Healthcare, Biotech & Pharmaceutical Stock News and Analysis | Seeking Alpha)</p>
<p>"Gardasil was studied in clinical trials for five years, and as The New England Journal of Medicine article states, </p>
<p>holymomma,</p>
<p>Yes, feel free to wait another 20-30 years for the definitive data on cervical cancer reduction! Heck, how many people died from lung cancer before we accepted the early suggestive evidence about the connection between smoking and lung cancer?</p>
<p>The FDA was willing to rely on surrogate end-points. It is certainly possible (and impossible to prove either way right now) that the surrogate endpoints are false.</p>
<p>Would I take that chance with my daughter? </p>
<p>And for those that think pap smears are the infallible gold standard, think again. There are sampling errors (swab the part of the cervix that does not have cancer cells for example), interpretation/reading errors and such.</p>
<p>Regarding Paps - according to my gyno, they’re about 50% accurate. It just depends on the particular sample with the particular tech and their particular day. If you get them every year it events out.</p>
<p>And cervical dysplasia IS treatable but it can involve a lot of things that could result in infertility. I’d rather avoid cervical dysplasia in the first place and do something preventative, rather than diagnostic.</p>
<p>With the prevalence of HPV right now, I would say it’s probably a good thing to do. Vaccination is a great thing, and yes, it goes wrong sometimes, but more often than not, it goes right. Luckily, we live in a country which is free from some terrible diseases like polio or smallpox, largely due to vaccination (of course, with the anti-vaccination hoopla that’s been rising, we are beginning to see recurrences of some diseases we previously had under control, due to a lack of herd immunity.)</p>
<p>Question: I don’t believe in sex before marriage, so I’m not exactly at risk for STDs and such…I got guardasil still b/c my doctor said you never know what could happen-rape, husban lying or unaware of what he has, can get cervical cancer from other ways, etc. However, I don’t know if I should by going to an OBGYN. Is there any need if I’m not sexually active and will not be until married? and FYI, I’m 17.</p>
<p>FWIW, Britain will be making the vaccine available free as part of their national health program. It’s a costly decision that was obviously made with much debate and research.</p>
<p>I had always heard that a woman should have a well woman exam at the age of 18, or earlier if sexually active. Therefore, I took my D at 18- just a week ago. They would not give her a well woman exam- I was told that the new guidelines are the age of 21 or earlier if sexually active. Wish I had known this- it cost me 146.00$ to find it out and they did not tell me over the phone when I made the appointment.</p>
<p>I thought the same as you, but I asked my D pediatrician for a referral and was told about the new guidelines. Did the dr examine you D at all? If not, I would call the insurance company and make a complaint.</p>
<p>so i don’t need to worry about anything till im 21?</p>