Gardasil - Why my daughter will be vaccinated

I was ABC World News with Charles Gibson when he talked about an Editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the vaccination Gardasil.

Before I really start shaking my head, let's check the Gardasil website and see what they have on the front page, just for kicks. Here is what they say (which is pretty much what they say in the commercial you have probably seen on television):

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT GARDASIL
GARDASIL is the only cervical cancer vaccine that helps protect against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV): 2 types that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and 2 more types that cause 90% of genital warts cases. GARDASIL is for girls and young women ages 9 to 26.

Anyone who is allergic to the ingredients of GARDASIL should not receive the vaccine. GARDASIL is not for women who are pregnant. GARDASIL does not treat cervical cancer or genital warts.

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. GARDASIL will not protect against diseases caused by other HPV types or against diseases not caused by HPV.

The side effects include pain, swelling, itching, and redness at the injection site, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and fainting. GARDASIL is given as 3 injections over 6 months.

Only a doctor or healthcare professional can decide if GARDASIL is right for you or your daughter.

Read the Patient Product Information or the Prescribing Information for GARDASIL.

So, basically they are saying that it does not promise to cure all kinds of cervical cancer and lists some side effects. And this "blurb" is on every page I clicked on on the Gardasil website. Every. Page. You know, so you can't miss that very important information.

Now, lets see what the Editorial says...

Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007, first in the Journal and 1 month later in the Lancet. The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.

Resolving the first essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women. Published reports of trials show an increasing trend of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV serotypes other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. The results were not statistically significant, however, possibly because there were too few clinically relevant end points in the observation periods reported. If randomized, controlled trials involving vaccinated and unvaccinated women continue for a few more years, we will most likely be able to tell whether this is a true trend. If so, there is reason for serious concern.

With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.

So, basically they are saying that there hasn't been enough studying done on this vaccination to see whether there are long-term benefits to making it a mandatory vaccination like some states are wanting to do.

You don't say? Not enough studying done on the long-term effects of a vaccination that has only been available to the public for the past 2 years? Am I the only one who thinks that stating the obvious is a non-story? How could there possibly have been a "long-term" study done on a vaccination that has only been on the market for two years? The obvious answer from the NEJM is to write an editorial about how this vaccination hasn't really been studied and how lots of questions exist as to the long term effects.

Are you kidding me?

On the news, they made it sound like it was new information that it doesn't prevent all types of cervical cancer when anyone who has seen (and actually listened to) the commercial or looked at the website (what with that information on every page) should already know that. Is it just me or do people seem to be walking around with blinders on only seeing and hearing what they want to hear?

When you are making a decision about vaccinations you should do your research and not walk blindly into the doctors office. Or am I the only person who thinks that? (Again, UNCOMMON sense, not COMMON sense is at work here)

Unless some astonishing side effects in a large number of people who have been vaccinated are reported in the next 8 years, my daughter will be vaccinated when she comes of age for it. You know why? Because I'd rather give her a 70% chance of NOT getting a certain type of cancer than leave it to nature. But that's just me.