JAMA Survey makes Gardasil Debate Even More Confusing

The WSJ reports today that more than 1 in 4 US women have HPV. On its face, this would appear to bolster arguments (like mine) that Merck's Gardasil HPV vaccine is a good thing. But the survey also shows that the strains of HPV that cause cancer are prevalent in only about 2% of women. Some folks, such as Ed Silverman at Pharmalot, have suggested that this "puts Merck on the defensive" and that Merck shouldn't be "pushing too hard" on the issue. I disagree, as regular readers knew I would. OK, so the number of people exposed to the potentially fatal version of HPV is small. Does this mean that we just give in to the moral squeamishness of anti-science folks? No it does not. We have an opportunity to end one of the most common STDs. Why would we want to walk away from that? And the strains present in that 2% that cause cancer actually cause 70% of cervical cancers. So we also have an opportunity to end one of the cancers that kill women. Again, why would we want to walk away from that? Because "not enough" women have this strain of HPV? I'll say it again: This is a debate between those who believe science can cure disease and those who believe religion (or "abstinence," which is the current buzzword to describe religious solutions to STDs) can cure disease. It is important that the science wins out. (And yes, that's a pic of what cervical cancer looks like, for those of you who don't want the vaccine to be implemented.)

Comments

[Morris Berg]

"This is a debate between those who believe science can cure disease and those who believe religion (or "abstinence," which is the current buzzword to describe religious solutions to STDs) can cure disease."

No . . . that is your overly-simplistic myopic view of the debate.

If I subscribe to the notion that Zyprexa (or any neuroleptic) should not be given to 3 year-olds, am I a Scientologist?

Seems a little silly, heh?

I abhor the religious right and their idiotic attacks on science; however, that doees not mean that I throw my weight behind a vaccine that has only been tested in several hundred pre-adolescent girls. What about duration of efficacy? What about actual efficacy given the noted JAMA survey? What about the fact that condoms prevent HPV as well as other STDs?

That would be purely irresponsible and scientifically unjustifiable . . . based on the given data. I am completely open to the idea of such a mandate once sufficient data comes has been produced for an actual understanding of . . .uh . . you know . . .what's the terms I'm looking for . . .er . . . oh yeah: benefits and risks.

Until then, I guess I'll just keep on supporting my pro-cancer position by giving cigarettes and benzene to toddlers.

[Elisabeth]

I just wanted to say WOW!!! goose bumps and e-motions, the design of your web page really got me!!! Check my sites ;)

[Cosmetic Surgery in India]

Yes it is important that the science wins out... but not always. Earlier people displayed the power of Mind that cures diseases... 100 years back did HIV is there? NO, But how come Now? Science cannot answer all questions, it is only a facilitator. We have to live with both science and religion. Each has got its own importance and role - Cosmetic Surgery in India

[Air Jordans]

yes you are right!

[nike air max]

I like your concept.*_*

[bridesmaiddresses]

Do not get your girls wear a plain white bridesmaid dress on stage in order to avoid distracting.
http://www.weddingdressmart.com

[Discount Ed Hardy Christian]

department to win people is trust. Uniqueness: Uniqueness is quite crucial