Call in NZ for Gardasil to be given to boys, free.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4836048a11.html

Cervical cancer vaccine for boys

By RUTH HILL - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 03 February 2009

The cervical cancer vaccine should be given to boys as well as girls, to protect them and their future partners from genital warts and cancer, public health experts say.


The main introduction of the $177 million vaccination programme, which aims to immunise 300,000 Kiwi schoolgirls over five years, begins this week.

The vaccine, Gardasil, has been available free to 17 and 18-year-olds since September.

About 20,000 teenage girls have already had the three doses necessary to protect them against four strains of human papilloma virus (HPV), the main cause of genital warts and cervical cancer.

The vaccine's maker, Merck Sharp & Dohme, says it plans to apply to have Gardasil licensed for boys and men up to the age of 26 after new research showing it prevents 90 per cent of genital warts and pre-cancerous lesions in males.

Immunisation Advisory Centre director Nikki Turner said extending the vaccine to boys would be more expensive but could have major health benefits.

"It could benefit the individual by protecting them against genital warts and cancers.

"HPV is implicated in 40 per cent of penile cancer. From a population perspective, vaccinating boys could also reduce the carriage of HPV in the community, though we don't yet have the evidence for that."

Gardasil is at present licensed for boys aged nine to 15 in New Zealand as in Australia and the European Union but is not publicly funded.

Merck has filed an application with the United States Food and Drug Administration to license it for use in males aged nine to 26.

Gardasil product manager Joanna Hayward-Slattery said the pharmaceutical company planned to lodge an application with the New Zealand Health Ministry this year to extend coverage to men up to the age of 26.

"Hopefully we will get approval by the end of next year."

Medsafe spokesman Stewart Jessamine said the Health Ministry was monitoring the US application. There were no plans to extend the vaccine to boys for free.

More than 26 million doses of Gardasil have been given worldwide.
Since Gardasil was licensed in New Zealand in July 2006, Otago University's monitoring centre for adverse reactions had received 30 reports of adverse effects, including fatigue, vomiting, diarrhoea and arm pain.

A SHOT IN THE ARM:

Gardasil protects against common strains of the sexually transmitted HPV human papilloma virus responsible for causing more than 70 per cent of cervical cancers.

It is free to girls aged 12 to 18. Parental consent is required for girls under 16.

Vaccinated women still need regular smears to check for pre-cancerous changes caused by other strains of HPV.

There are 160 new cases of cervical cancer in New Zealand each year and 65 deaths.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

And we all know why there are 160 new cases of cervical cancer every year, don't we?

Because most young people live on diets which are absolute crap.

My comment: Specifically to Grant, comment #13


#13 Grant.
How right you are. Smoking is one of the biggest risk factors for cervical cancer developing in infected young women, (PMID 19086247): and in a country which is notoriously selenium deficient, selenium supplementation (PMID 17610029)along with doctors NOT supporting the fortification of grain products (PMID: 18065205)(PMID: 17196739)yet encouraging young people to eat foods known to have good folic acid ratings (PMID: 17276035); to greatly increase dietary fibre reducing risk of cervical cancer by 40 - 60% (PMID: 18444167); that women who eat a diet high in micronutrients "trans-zeaxanthin, total trans-lutein/zeaxanthin, cryptoxanthin (total and beta), total trans-lycopene and cis-lycopene, carotene (alpha, beta, and total), and total carotenoids" clear oncogenic HPV types from their body extremely efficiently and rapidly (PMID: 17553901).

In fact if you search pubmed, you can be drowned in HPV persistence studies which show a possible protective effect of fruits, vegetables, vitamins C and E, beta- and alpha-carotene, lycopene, luterin/zeaxanthin and cryptoxanthin. Evidence for a protective effect of cervical neoplasia was probable for folate, retinol and vitamin E and possible for vegetables, vitamins C and B12, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein/zeaxanthin and cryptoxanthin, also exist.

The papers pile just about floor to ceiling Grant.

But here's the clincher.

If you also do cross searches on all other types of cancers, you find similar heaps of paper relating cancer reduction in people who actually know what a decent diet is.
The real tragedy is that "doctor mandated" diets ( particularly those advocated at diabetic clinics ) are totally, grossly irresponsible.

Yet, the very people who should understand diet, don't; and then have the gall to tell us that Gardasil is the only way to prevent cancer??

The fact is that if doctors would get their own basics of preventive education of young people, pregnant mothers and all patients right, and campaign to remove crap food from supermarket shelves; sprays from food, and chemicals from water, then the already low cancer statistics in this country, would plummet to levels whereby the thought of a vaccine would be laughed off as the ultimate in stupidity and waste of money.

If the money, spent on Gardasil, was spent on educating adolescents, parents and young people as to how to eat and live to prevent ANY cancers, then that would free up billions of dollars in the health system.

The facts are all there on Pubmed.

The current average standard of nutrition in this country is such that most people could rightly be called "sickness food nuts" And for those readers here, decrying the "health food nuts", think again. Doctors have all the proof at their finger tips but chose not to share it with you.

Cervical cancer is generally preventable, by not smoking and by eating a diet high in fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, and complete amino acids either by correct vegetarian combinations or animal products; by getting enough sleep; keeping your weight in a healthy weight range, and getting enough exercise. It all comes down to refinding common sense and real "knowledge".

And if you don't believe me, I recomment you search the medical database right here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

So Grant replied to me, saying:

1. Hilary (15:31 PM, Tuesday , 03 February 2009):
Perhaps you didn't read carefully? Your post makes me out to have said things I didn't!

I did NOT imply or say that "stopping smoking would prevent cervical cancer" or words to that effect, as your comment makes me out to.
Nor did I make out that diet would have a similar effect. As others have pointed out, diet will not cure or prevent cancer. However, it can contribute (not cure or prevent), as I pointed out.

I wrote smoking is the biggest factor in the OVERALL incidence of cancer. This is because lung cancer has the highest death rate of any cancer world-wide. Stopping smoking would stop the most common cause of death from cancer, lung cancer. Its common knowledge to anyone familiar with cancer statistics. (If you read Paul's comment that I replied to, you will see that he made out that stopping meat eating would make the biggest overall impact, in practice stopping smoking would.)

My comment does not support your position as you make it out to. If this is an innocent mistake on your part, fine. I have to say, though, it is hard to reconcile your presenting yourself as "knowing" about cancer on one hand, but not knowing what I was referring to (and hence "misreading" my comment) on the other, as my observations are common knowledge for anyone with a basic knowledge of cancer.
Regards trying to telling me how to find the literature, please don't presume to teach "grandmother to suck eggs" as it were!

For those that are interested in the basics of cancer, an excellent little book with wonderful presentation of data is the 'Cancer Atlas'. There is an on-line version: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/ (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/)

but it isn't presented as well as the book, so I would try find the book in your local library if you can.


and I replied to him, saying:


Grant, you said: ***The single thing that would most reduce overall cancer incidence would be to stop all cigarette smoking.***

That also applies to cervical cancer, and, ... as you should know, since you infer you already know how to suck eggs, every study done on HPV dysplasia shows that smokers have a much higher rate of cancerous precursors and cervical cancer, than non-smokers.

In showing PMID's on this column, I'm not interested in trying to teach you how to suck eggs. I'm far more interested in giving intelligent readers links to the medical literature, so that they can see the information you aren't telling them.

Your medical literaure contains mountains of information showing that people who don't smoke and who eat correctly are far less likely to get cervical cancer. Or any other form of cancer for that matter. they have a right to know that from the horses mouth, not from someone who claims the "right of authority" but never bothers to specify actual medical articles for study.

Grant, you also say ***diet will not cure or prevent cancer***

I'm sorry, but there are hundreds of medical studies which prove that diet can and does prevent cancer. So perhaps, indeed, you might need to be taught how to suck eggs. The link between what you eat and cancer, isn't just related to obesity either (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4835890a19716.html ) but is related to WHAT you put in your mouths.

Even the link you put up, admits that: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/DietNutrition.aspx
It says here:

"Nutrition, alcohol, and physical activity are important influences on cancer risk. Dietary factors account for around 30 percent of cancers in industrialized countries, and 20 percent in developing countries. They may therefore be the most important modifiable cause of cancer. Excess body weight and physical inactivity are estimated to account for between 20 and 33 percent of cancers of the breast (postmenopausal), colon, endometrium, kidney, and esophagus. Alcohol increases the risk of cancers of the head and neck, liver, and breast.

Industrialization, urbanization, and globalization are resulting in the increased consumption of diets high in fat and low in unrefined carbohydrates. This is combined with a decline in energy expenditure associated with a more sedentary lifestyle. These changes are leading to chronic diseases, including several cancers (notably breast, colon, prostate, and esophagus) becoming increasingly important causes of disability and death in both developing and newly developed countries, and placing additional burdens on already stretched national health budgets.

While personal lifestyle choices can reduce the risk of cancer, governments and non-governmental organizations also have a responsibility to develop food policies conducive to health, create environments friendly to physical activity, and develop interventions targeting children and youth."

[cartersmom]

I can't wait for his next reply and your rebuttal. :D

[magical1]

I followed this and I too am waiting for his comeback... I suspect that either they have closed posts on the Stuff forum or he had a tantrum and what he said couldn't go to print. I suspect the latter. :eyeroll:

Hilary thank goodness you are on our side that's all I can say. :party:

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

I wonder just what sort of doctor I would have become had hepatitis B not intervened, and nuked any prospect of a medical career? In those days, they didn't know that hepatitis B was hepatitis B. It was called serum hepatitis, and lead to a ban for 7 years from any medical training.

Where I see dogma now, I relentless question it. Would I have become a relentlessly pro-dogma doctor, I wonder?

somehow, I think not, because even in my "dead fish go with the flow" days, I still stood apart and refused certain treatments, or didn't accept dogma at the time.

I have sat so many years at the medical library researching, and also watching how medical training trashes the ability of the average doctor to analyse and constructively think. I've even gone to the extent of discussing these things with the professor of community medicine, and a professor of medical ethics. I've participated in community workshops on these issues in the past.

"Grant" exemplifies the arrogance, and distain that the current medical training ingrains into so many medical people.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Grant again:

"influences on cancer risk" is not saying "causes" or is the only cause of.

While diet might reduce odds of getting cancer, writing that it can "prevent" or "cure" all types of cancer is taking it too far.

Writing that "diet can cure cancer" is also generalising for all types of cancers, rather than deal with each separately. For some types of cancer diet is likely to be fairly important in reducing the odds of getting the particular cancer (e.g. bowel cancer, as Jed wrote), but for others it will have little impact on changing the odds of getting the cancer.

"Associated", "correlated", or "linked", like "influences", does not mean "causes". Additional evidence show cause, but associations by themselves don't establish cause.

Hilary,

I have already explained what I was writing about. Could I suggest that you can make points without the negative approach you are taking? (I'm not going to answer them, but at quite a lot of points you misrepresent me.)

I am flattered you think my statements are important enough to attack, but goodness knows why. Attacking things I have not said is silly, doubly silly when from a particular perspective I agree, but you wouldn't know because you have already presumed to know what it is that I think before I have said anything!

I haven't said anything for or against smoking being a contributing factor in cervical cancer. What I did write was to say you shouldn't tell me what I think. This applies whether or not I agree with what you make me out to say or not. If I want to say something, I can say it for myself.

This matters to me because the details matter, and if you don't mind me saying so, your ideas are a bit muddled. Some bits are more-or-less right, but others are wrong.
Diet certainly influences some types of cancer (I never said it didn't!), but that is not the same as saying diet (alone) can "prevent" or "cure" cancer (meaning all cancers taken together).

Do you see the difference? You might also want to read Jed's comment (23:35 PM, Tuesday , 03 February 2009), which is in line with my own thoughts.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

My reply:
Talk about cognitive dissonance!

Post: 13 you said "The single thing that would most reduce overall cancer incidence would be to stop all cigarette smoking." Overall incidence includes cervical cancer, and since this article was about Gardasil being mooted for boys, and the topic is cervical cancer, I was agreeing with you that quiting smoking wouldn't just reduce overall cancer, but that according to the medical literature, it would reduce cervical cancer. Are you disagreeing with that?

In other words, not smoking *prevents* cancer developing in some people. Not just lung cancer, but also HPV cancer. Okay?

The point I was making was not telling you what you think, but agreeing with you that far more cases of cancer could be prevented, if people didn't smoke.

"Influences on cancer" is exactly the same as "causation". That URL you put up, states clearlythat improving diet, stopping smoking and drinking alcohol: " They may therefore be the most important modifiable ***cause*** of cancer"

See the word, "cause" in that sentence?

If you don't agree with that statement, why put the URL...?

Or are you going to argue that the word "may" alters the word "cause"? So because medical people always hedge everything with perhaps, maybe, might, could etc, that nullifies the word "cause"? That's weasel-words; semantic nit-picking.

That URL you put up, is saying this: ***Dietary factors account for around 30 percent of cancers in industrialized countries, and 20 percent in developing countries*** "account" for,.. means "caused" Eliminate the dietary factors and you eliminate the cancer. Except in your dictionary?

The reverse of that is that if you don't smoke, drink, eat crud, do recreational drugs, if you get plenty of sleep, that alone will prevent a considerable percentage of OVERALL cancer, but also specifics, such as cervical cancer, and colon cancer, so, heck, if you just don't smoke like a train, you might not get cervical cancer!

That, surely, is part of what you were saying?

I've read Jed's comments and am surprised at some of his statement. Would you both like me to put up a long list of PMID numbers which show that HPV16 and 18 is transmitted mother to child in utero, family to baby, child to child; that they are often detected in removed tonsils from children etc etc ? Here's just three of many. PMID 10745235, 12002819 and 16288396.

So lets see. All these young men and women, are heterosexually swapping all these viruses around between each other, (when medical literature says it can be passed vertically and horizontally in all age groups, and not just through sex). Hmm. It's found in babies and children... who are not having sex. Since you say that what Jed says, accords with what you think, then you both think that HP viruses are quite happy to rampage throughout adults, but there's a sign that says "NOT YET" emblazonned on sexually naive teenager's foreheads? The medical literature proves otherwise.

At least four times starting in 1995, the different authors have said that such factors must be taken into consideration in terms of a vaccination programme. Yet those facts have been ignored.

My point in posting here is to show people that the issues surrounding HPV are not nice and cut and dried, and there is very important information that parents should know, such as the above.

Isn't the point of having comments facility, so that relevant information for parents can be provided on any specific topic at hand? Or is it just to give a platform so those who disagree with the status quo dogma can be dogpiled by those who don't?
I don't know if it will go up.

[Janet]

I'd bet money it will never be given to boys. If boys have it and start fainting and developing horrible illnesses "mysteriously" there would go the "It's just hysterical girls making it up" argument for side effects. Same thing has always happened with any form of Male Contraceptive Pill. If it makes men feel tired, bloated and nauseous then it's not ok. Of course it's normal and fine for women to experience side effects like that.

[magical1]

It went up on stuff Hilary... No reply from Grant yet.:D