March blog

March 21, 2010: For my March blog, I got all irate this weekend reading about how Mandy Moore is joining up to promote the cervical cancer vaccine. I find it really wrong to use celebrities to promote vaccines.

Why does this bug me?

Because it's using peer pressure to entice young women to get a vaccination. Girls see Mandy Moore talking about it, and then ask their parents about it. It shouldn't work that way. It's like advertising toys or junk food to kids.

Vaccinations--or anything medical--for children are the decision of the parents. There should be no celebrity endorsement of anything medical, so I am also against celebrities promoting medications. Even for adults.

If a medication is a good choice for you, that should be a discussion between you and your doctor, or you and your kid's doctor.

Plus this vaccination is not that great. It doesn't cover all of the worst HPV strains, and some serious side effects have been reported. Also, what they don't tell you is that it only reduced the occurrence of CIN 2/3 or AIS in girls 16-26 years old by 42%. That means that most women who get this vaccine are still vulnerable to HPV.

Finally, when you are putting anything into your body, especially an injection that contains aluminum, you should hesitate. Now, I'm not anti-vaccine completely. I do get tetanus shots, and I had my son immunized with TDaP. But I always take a pass on the flu shot and on the swine flu shot. Aluminum has replaced mercury in a lot of immunizations, but its purpose is the same--it's an accelerant. In other words, it helps speed up your body's response to the antigen in the vaccine so that the manufacturer can use less of the antigen.

Now manufacturers will say that it is safer to be exposed to less antigen. I would argue that it's not safer to be exposed to aluminum or mercury! Especially for a shot that does not replace safe sexual practices and regular doctor exams.

Go to Having babies after cervical cancer
Go to My blog from March blog
Go to Cervical cancer vaccine