In the UK, the government has chosen the vaccine Cervarix for their human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program.

But actual UK doctors choose Gardisal for their own children, says Phil Hammond, general practitioner, writer, and broadcaster, on bmj.com today.

The reason has nothing to do with the effectiveness of either vaccine, but rather with genital warts.    "You’d be mad not to protect your daughter against genital warts if you can afford to." he quotes Peter Greenhouse, a sexual health consultant, as saying.   

The genital warts lobby is largely undercover, he says, "but if it was breast cancer, there would doubtless be an industry supported march on Downing Street…There are no letters to the Times, and warts have never made it to the cover of the Mail."

Both vaccines are equally effective against the strains of HPV that result in 70 percent of cervical cancers .   Gardisal also protects against 90% of genital warts.

With 100 000 new cases of genital warts in England each year and condoms only reducing transmission by up to 50%, the far safer option is to vaccinate with Gardisal, argues Hammond.  But, although Gardasil is available privately to parents, at a cost of £350 to £400, most will not be able to afford it.

According to Hammond, with the current cost of treating genital warts estimated to be £23 million in the UK, the government's decision may be a false economy. Within three or four years the use of Gardasil would have begun to have a considerable financial payback. 

The government's cheap deal for Cervarix only applies to the vaccination program. The fact is that most doctors would recommend Gardasil because of the extra protection it offers, he writes.  And since they can afford it, they vote with their wallets.

In addition, he argues that there has been a glaring lack of patient choice. Having chosen one vaccine for patients, the government has failed to provide information on the other vaccine, which is given no mention on the NHS Choices website or on the NHS vaccination site.

He believes that for any licensed treatment, the public should be given quick and easy access to unbiased information on efficacy and safety.

Old NID
33908
Categories

Donate

Please donate so science experts can write for the public.

At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists, with no political bias or editorial control. We can't do it alone so please make a difference.

Donate with PayPal button 
We are a nonprofit science journalism group operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that's educated over 300 million people.

You can help with a tax-deductible donation today and 100 percent of your gift will go toward our programs, no salaries or offices.

Latest reads

Article teaser image
Donald Trump does not have the power to rescind either constitutional amendments or federal laws by mere executive order, no matter how strongly he might wish otherwise. No president of the United…
Article teaser image
The Biden administration recently issued a new report showing causal links between alcohol and cancer, and it's about time. The link has been long-known, but alcohol carcinogenic properties have been…
Article teaser image
In British Iron Age society, land was inherited through the female line and husbands moved to live with the wife’s community. Strong women like Margaret Thatcher resulted.That was inferred due to DNA…