Merck said Thursday that its experimental vaccine Gardasil was 100 percent effective at preventing cervical pre-cancers and non-invasive cervical cancers in a final-stage clinical trial.
The results of the trial, known as FUTURE II, will be formally presented on Friday at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Until today, clinical trial data has suggested that Glaxo’s Cervarix is 100 percent effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, whereas Gardasil provides just 86 and 89 percent protection, respectively.
In the FUTURE II study, 5,300 women received three injections of Gardasil before being infected with HPV. None of these women developed a lesion called a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, a direct precursor to cervical cancer.
However, 21 of the 5,300 women who received a placebo developed “moderate to high-grade” lesions of the cervix.
“In addition to showing 100 percent efficacy in this Phase III study, Gardasil showed 97 percent efficacy in a secondary analysis, which included those women who may have contracted HPV infections prior to receiving all three doses of the vaccine,” added Mr. Rubin.
Aside from the new data, Merck is ahead of Glaxo in the likely time-to-market launch of its HPV vaccine. Analyst John Boris of Bear Stearns expects Gardasil to hit the market in late 2006. Article
I read about this. There is some concern because ideally it should be administered before a woman becomes sexually active, and so people are saying that it will encourage promiscuity, just like they say about condoms and birth control. I think it should be part of the childhood vaccinations, along with measles and mumps and rubella and whatever else we get shot with.
Posts: 4497 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I'm not a fan of most vaccinations. The use of mercury in them is connected to autism. The results of the mixtures they are giving our children are just becoming known. Like ADD, it never existed before all of the vaccinations. The drug companies will call it prevention to give all girls a shot to stop cancer, but what are the side effects that will come later. I would like to see any research done by anyone other than the pharmacuetical companies. I don't trust them to tell the truth. I'll encourage a change in lifestyle and diet as a way of prevention over a shot any day.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
However, Merck’s vaccine contains aluminum as an adjuvant (a substance to enhance the immune response to a vaccine). This is the only adjuvant used so far in FDA-approved vaccines. Given the fact that Merck’s trial data is further advanced, Merck’s vaccine is likely to hit the U.S. market first.
Glaxo, on the other hand, has developed Cervarix with a compound called AS04, which mixes aluminum with a type of fat from a bacterium. AS04 has already received approval in Europe and appears to generate a faster, stronger, longer-lasting immune response.
I don't believe there has been any conclusive evidence that vaccinations HAVE been connected to autism. The increase in diagnosis is more likely due to an increase in awareness. If vaccinations lead to autism, wouldn't everyone have autism? Or is it more likely that there is another factor involved and people are just searching for someone to blame? According to the CDC, "Today, with the exception of some Influenza (flu) vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative."
quote:
I'll encourage a change in lifestyle and diet as a way of prevention over a shot any day.
I agree with you, Moldy. I would much rather initiate a diet or lifestyle change than get an injection -but I am unfamiliar with any diet or lifestyle change effective at preventing measles, pertussis, mumps, et al -especially when unvaccinated children are at risk of meningitis, bloodstream infections, deafness, and liver cancer.
p.s. I know this is an older post but I just now noticed it and was inspired.
Posts: 4497 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I realize this is a controversial topic. In my opinion the CDC is part of our government body, which of course would tell us the true facts no matter what, right? Well there is conclusive evidance that that is not the truth. Are we just finding out what the combinations of all the vaccines they give children now are causing?
As for diet and lifestyle changes, find real food. Just a little trans fat is too much. Try to find a food in a grocery store or resteraunt that doesn't have added sugar or artificial sweeteners, flavoring, coloring, perservatives. A healthy body is not normally a host for a disease. A healthy body can fight it off. We as a people in general are not healthy. Prevention in my opinion is to take control of our own health and be responsible for it. Not to listen to everything someone else wants us to hear, but to think for ourselves and use common sense. And my common sense tells me that no man-made chemicals or vaccination is going to keep me from catching a virus. My own immune system is responsible for that. And the fewer assults it has from so called medical progress, the healthier it is. So look at the ingredients in everything. Baby food has added chemicals, sugar, nutra sweet, are they really good for our childrens immune system? Maybe that is part of the combination with vaccines that cause autism.
I envy you your resources and funds that you are able to pursue this lifestyle. We should all live more simply and naturally, I certainly agree.
However, I do believe in science and I believe there is a lot science can do for us in order to help us better understand who we are, where we came from, where we are going... And if trusting in science will keep me from getting whooping cough or bird flu, then I'm really okay with that.
quote:
Well there is conclusive evidance that that is not the truth.
Not to split hairs but when you make blanket statements like that it would be helpful if you could state some sources.
I do wish we were all a healthier happier people, and I'm all for ways to make that so. Organics, natural foods, herbs, less chemicals and additives can only be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. But if I were still in high school, I would certainly get the HPV vaccine, without hesitation.
Posts: 4497 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Well I am all about science and am a firm believer in medication and surgery to correct a problem. And if there is a vaccination to prevent a disease I'd be a fool not to look into it.
Here in GA, the HPV vaccine is given to girls between the ages of 12-24 and is strongly suggested along with the list of required immunizations for entrance into schools.
Posts: 9192 | Location: Atlanta, GA, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I read about this. There is some concern because ideally it should be administered before a woman becomes sexually active, and so people are saying that it will encourage promiscuity, just like they say about condoms and birth control. I think it should be part of the childhood vaccinations, along with measles and mumps and rubella and whatever else we get shot with.
The amount of HPV infections is staggering. People who think their children shouldn't get it should just not get it, but it should be offered to all girls before they become sexually active. My understanding is that condoms don't necessarily protect against transmission because it's a virus passed from contact between the skin of the genitals rather than in the fluids. (sorry to be a little graphic there)
Posts: 3049 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
I am totally sorry to all of those worthy people out there. But to PREVENT the use of a vaccine that may prevent cancer JUST because it MIGHT cause promiscuity it outrageous.
As one of those persons who HAVE had Cervical Cancer, I KNOW the fear and agony associated with the diagnosis.
It is sheer selfishness to prevent treatment of this disease for "might-be's". If there is an argument against it because of the unknown element of the treatment, that is understandable. But to bring in this whole crap about condoms and birth control into the argument is just wrong.
BTW, I am not and never have been promiscuous.
Posts: 9078 | Location: PA, USA | Registered: 06-05-02
You may not be surprised to learn that the UK's National Health Service will provide such vaccine free once the efficacy and safety is confirmed. We did notice that it was best administered at the outset of a girl's sexual maturity. Sadly for some Christian types this was seemingly regarded as a plus by the rest of us . The whole news was good news.
Preventative medicine makes sense in any case and makes forcible sense when the cost of treatment of the preventable illness would fall on the taxpayers, so we wholeheartedly encourage vaccination The NHS are currently inviting all two year olds (don't contact us: we'll contact you ) for some vaccination (MMR, I think).This, rather sweetly, makes our children sound like our cars: every car in Britain is taken in annually for compulsory mechanical tests once it reaches three years.
As to autism we had a sudden big drop in MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccinations a while back because of an utterly baseless scare about autism. However the problem seems to be righting now .
Originally posted by Sherasi: ...But to bring in this whole crap about condoms and birth control into the argument is just wrong...
Wait, wait, wait... My earlier statement may have been mis-read. I only meant to state that people oppose the vaccine because of unfounded beliefs that it may lead to promiscuity, the same reasons they say the oppose condoms and birth control.
To set the record straight: *I* am 100% for this HPV vaccine and would have gotten it had it been available. AND I am 100% for condoms and birth control and all that crap. Like I said in my first post, I think this vaccine should be part of our childhood vaccinations.
Posts: 4497 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Elexina, I knew you meant that it was being aligned with the use of condoms, etc NOT that you agreed with it.
No worries. I meant, it was just petty for anyone to lump what is clearly a long-term health benefit treatment to a short term sexual prophylaxis against pregnancy thereby 'encouraging' promiscuity.
Sorry about that faux pas. {blushing}
Posts: 9078 | Location: PA, USA | Registered: 06-05-02
. The whole news was good news.
{blushing}
