Gardasil Protects Older Women, Gay Men

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I contracted low risk hpv( warts) from a girlfriend about 20 years in college that I trusted , and she didn't care she was passing on an incurable disease that would severely limit me from finding a partner in life. Anyway, I am 42 now and if I meet someone I think the vaccine should be administered to her if she is over 26 to protect her if she has never been exposed to the low risk hpv type. I know the low risk type is not as common and has a stigma and is very embarrassing, and can cause a woman or man to have to go through painful treatment to have them removed. Also, I think men over 26 that may not have been exposed to HPV should also be approved to recieve the vaccine. Studies show that it works for people over 26 so why is it not approved by the FDA?! Is there a Dr. who will administer the vaccine to someone over 26?

Mark of NC 11:59AM October 13, 2011

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/gardasil-vaccine-victims-and-deaths/

shelly of TN 6:16PM March 18, 2011

Please check out anymothersdaughter.com for expanded medical information and the latest research regarding HPV.
Any Mother's Daughter, the book, has been endorsed by the Gynecologic Cancer Society and many others as a significant educational resource.

BD of FL 11:21PM May 14, 2010

Gardasil and its competitor vaccine Cervarix help protect against 4 types of HPV only. Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Gardasil's official website says: "GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone, and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it’s important to continue routine cervical cancer screenings".
P.S.
I'd like to invite all singles with HPV to join www.stidatingclub.com dating resource for people with stds.

Mat of NY 6:37AM February 26, 2010

If it prevents even 25% of cervical cancer I'm getting it. Wouldn't you give it to your child if it could prevent 25% of all brain cancers? Come on, Americans are such prudes. Cancer is cancer. Period.

Common sense of NY 9:48PM February 22, 2010

NO WAY am I ever getting this!
http://truthaboutgardasil.org/side-effects/
Been married 29 years and my husband does not cheat!

Beth Boyle of NY 1:30PM February 20, 2010

Gardasil did not prevent 89 percent of ALL cervical abnormalities and persistent infections--just those caused by the strains covered by the vaccine, and then only in those who had not been previously infected. The overall figures are very significantly lower. The last overall figures Merck presented, to the best of my knowledge, indicated a 17-45 percent reduction. The anal cancer figures also only refer to vaccine-type HPV infections.
Also, bear in mind that Merck originally found that women who had an existing vaccine-type infection had a 44.6 percent greater chance of cervical abnormalities. They belatedly decided that the studies were unbalanced, eliminated women with enhanced risk factors like smoking, and came up with a combined study figure of an 11.7 percent greater risk of cervical abnormality, something flagged by the FDA approval committee even though they did recommend approval.
If I were to consider Gardasil as a sexually active woman, I'd for sure get an HPV test or two first, particularly if I had a heightened risk factor like a smoking habit.

Kristin of NC 3:47PM February 18, 2010

Interesting study Leslie! Thanks for pointing it out to me. I think like any public health measure, women need to look at their own individual profiles to see whether it makes sense to get Gardasil or Cervarix (if both wind up receiving FDA approval for those up to age 45). Women who married young and remained in monogamous relationship for a while before getting back on the dating scene again in their, say, mid-30s might still benefit from vaccination whereas those who were fairly sexually active with multiple partners through their 20s, might not benefit much. I think there's a lot they still don't know about HPV and even how much natural immunity women build up to dangerous strains of the virus after being exposed to milder ones.

Deborah Kotz of DC 10:16AM February 18, 2010

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported on study today that concluded that the “potential benefit” of HPV vaccination in older women (=42 years) is “low.” This is the longest follow-up study to date available on women in a broad age range (9,000 women from 18 to 97 years).
"The 'dangerous' or persistent infections may be already there and will not be eliminated by the current HPV vaccines," she added. "The pharmaceutical industry's claim that vaccine should be given to older women because HPV infections are more dangerous after a certain age has been proven not to be true."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717140

Leslie of CO 11:12PM February 17, 2010