Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Gardasil: we must not ignore the risks

By Renate Klein and Melinda Tankard Reist - posted Friday, 1 June 2007


A recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated: “it is important to emphasise that the vaccine is supported by limited efficacy and safety data."

Do the girls and their parents know that Gardasil was tested on fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 and that most trials to-date were sponsored by Merck, which sells Gardasil in the USA? In fact only 5 per cent of the 25,000 women in Merck's research - that is 1,148 - were girls younger than 16. Given that girls as young as 12 are targeted by the Australian mass immunisation campaign by all standards Gardasil is an untested product in this age group. Parents should be worried about these experiments in which their daughters are the guinea pigs.

Also, are they told that Gardasil is a genetically engineered vaccine?

Advertisement

Australian girls are taking part in what is really a major experiment. Antibodies produced in response to a vaccine can at times mistakenly attack normal body cells. This can lead to autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Does Gardasil carry this risk? We just don’t know.

Then there is the central question of whether Gardasil will actually prevent cervical cancer. There are more than 100 strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV). At least 13 of these can cause cancer. Gardasil vaccinates against only two.

Some research estimates that almost 80 per cent of the sexually active population is infected with dozens of HPV types, including the high risk strains 16 and 18. But in most cases a well functioning immune system and good nutrition clears the infection before cervical cancer develops.

With the rush to inject Australian girls with a drug of uncertain efficacy and safety, it’s important to keep the risk of cervical cancer in perspective. A recent US study concluded that less than one quarter of 1 per cent of all American women are at risk of infection with one of the HPV types associated with cervical cancer that Gardasil vaccinates against.

And there are other risk factors for cervical cancer such as smoking, malnutrition, a weak immune system, the pill, multiple sex partners and sex without a condom (although condoms do not entirely eliminate transmission of HPV). The recently reported increase in a rare throat cancer linked to oral sex is also associated with HPV.

Health authorities seem to prefer to offer needles than talk about changing behaviour.

Advertisement

Even Gardasil’s promoters note that pap smears are still necessary. And to totally eradicate HPV, all adolescents - including all boys - would have to be vaccinated. But as often happens, the burden falls on women.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration should have demanded long-term trials involving younger girls be conducted before Gardasil was approved.

Rushing this product on the market in Australia for mass immunisation might be good for CSL shareholders, with global sales from Gardasil estimated to amount to US$3 billion by 2010. But we just don’t know enough to say whether Gardasil really is “good news about cancer”.

At this stage, Gardasil administration is barely justified for anyone, let alone vulnerable pre-teen girls entering puberty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This is an expanded version of an article first published in The Age, May 25, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

43 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Dr Renate Klein, a biologist and social scientist, is a long-term health researcher and has written extensively on reproductive technologies and feminist theory. She is a former associate professor in Women's Studies at Deakin University in Melbourne, a founder of FINRRAGE (Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering) and an Advisory Board Member of Hands Off Our Ovaries.

Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, speaker, commentator and advocate with a special interest in issues affecting women and girls. Melinda is author of Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief after Abortion (Duffy & Snellgrove, 2000), Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (Spinifex Press, 2006) and editor of Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls (Spinifex Press, 2009). Melinda is a founder of Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation (www.collectiveshout.org). Melinda blogs at www.melindatankardreist.com.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Renate Klein
All articles by Melinda Tankard Reist

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Renate KleinRenate KleinPhoto of Melinda Tankard ReistMelinda Tankard Reist
Article Tools
Comment 43 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy