“The theory behind the vaccine is sound: If HPV infection can be prevented, cancer will not occur. But in practice the issue is more complex.” 1
Few things to consider;
1. There are more than 100 different types of HPV. The current vaccines target only 2 strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18.
2. The development of cancer due to infection 20 to 40 years earlier has not been shown.
“HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime, The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.” 1
So how should you decide weather to get a vaccine that partly prevents infection caused by a sexually transmitted disease? An infection that in a few cases will cause cancer 20 to 40 years from now?
Here are some pros and cons;
The report by Rothman and Rothman demonstrates how the vaccine manufacturer funded educational programs sponsored by professional medical associations in the United States. 1
Adverse Reactions:
Slade and colleagues from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration describe the adverse events that occurred 2.5 years following the receipt of quadrivalent HPV vaccine that were reported through the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Even though most of the reported adverse events were not serious, there were some reports of hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, pancreatitis, and venous thromboembolic events. 1
The Risk:
Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. The net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain.
Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.
When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly. 1
1-JAMA 2009 (Journal of the American Medical Association)
