As a woman, I agree that a vaccine that is proven to significantly reduce the number of false positive pap smears as well as overtreatment (in the current legal climate..) would be a good thing, but the evidence that it will indeed be doing just that does not appear very convincing to say the least, at least based on the arguments mentioned here. Should there be a bit more evidence before this type of political decisions are made? And why does this vaccine need to be treated differently from any other new treatment or preventive measure? Does NH provide free statins for people with heart desease or free osteoporosis-prevention drugs for women at high risk? Where is the threat to public health that requires interference of the government?

With over 50% of college girls having HPV, you’re a fool to be that naive.

Of course they get money. However NH has limited social programs, and it is more expensive (for instance) for one to go to UNH as an in-state student than it is for the same student to attend UMass as an out-of-state student.

NH is not a nanny state by any means. The opposite really, which I applaud.

As someone born and raised in NH, I prefer it this way. I would choose this over the Massachusetts way of doing things (throw money at everything and tax the hell out of everyone) any day of the week. Sink or swim on your own, so to speak, when it comes to just about all aspects of life: education, medicine, etc.

NH gets a great deal of its revenue from things like the lottery and “sin” taxes. And state liquor stores. And since I don’t play the lottery, smoke, or drink particularly often, I am not paying. So in many respects, it’s voluntary.

In terms of getting money for local things, vehicle taxes and property taxes pick up some of the slack because the more traditional methods of getting tax revenue don’t exist in NH.

So where does RJS think the New Hampshire government gets it’s revenue? Voluntary contributions? A backyard money tree? Obviously some people are paying for these “free” vaccines with tax revenues and that means confiscation. RJS may be stupid enough to believe that if he doesn’t pay an income tax every quarter or a sales tax at the cash register he isn’t paying taxes. I am not.

1. In the FUTURE I trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 2 and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma — the only recognized precursors to cervical cancer.

2. In the larger FUTURE II trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma — the strongest (and many would argue only valid) precursors to cervical cancer.

3. Extrapolating from GARDASIL’s very limited clinical “success” (in the FUTURE II study only) against grade 2 cervical dysplasias (40% of which regress spontaneously), 129 women would be have to be vaccinated (at a cost of about $60,000) to prevent a single grade 2 cervical dysplasia.

4. GARDASIL’s protection against cancer associated HPV strains 16 and 18 appears to cause a disproportionate increase in of pre-cancerous dysplasias associated with other HPV strains associated with cervical cancer “raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18.”

5. Even if you segregate out the women who hadn’t been previously exposed to either HPV 16 or 18, we are talking about just a 17% decrease in all high grade dysplasias (266 out of 6080 vs. 219 out of 6087) — many of which would spontaneously regress without treatment. So we would have vaccinate 129 women (at about $500 for the three shot regimen) to avoid a single, eminently treatable dysplasia. That’s about $60,000 per dysplasia prevented.

This is all directly from the article linked above.

I myself would add that we currently have only 3 years of follow up to go on in terms of both GARDASIL’s safety and efficacy among the 16 to 26 year female population, no data concerning its efficacy among 9 to 12 year old girls and only 18 months of follow up on less than 600 total preteen girls in terms of safety data about GARDASIL within its targeted population.

Also, if you think all women are getting PAPs right now, you are SO wrong..I use to think that, until recently I read on a blog, where someone had written about grdasil and the first 3 commenters admitted they had NEVER had a pap test.

Please don’t use your education and your authority to rob the women in your practice, of something that prevents 70% of a bad thing!