Hello. It’s Me. I am ranting once again about HPV
Well, not about HPV, just the vaccines. Actually, not just the vaccines: pretty much everything I heard at a day-long SOGC workshop with the long-winded title, “Women and their Reproductive Health Across the Continuum: Setting Priorities for Women’s Reproductive Health Research”. Attending were both health professionals and interested individuals. And me: women’s health advocate and HPV vaccine skeptic.
Regarding the latter, I waited till the very end of the day to finally screw up my courage.
“I am about to state a very unfavorable opinion. There are reputable health professionals who are opposed to mass HPV vaccination; in part, because some of the research has been tainted by conflict of interest; and also because of the way public messaging has stigmatized parents who have decided not to vaccinate their children.”
I added that equating infection prevention and cancer prevention is what has made public health and Big Pharma messaging so compelling to the general public.
There was absolutely no response.
The Sunnybrook Hospital meeting space was set up like a dinner party, with long lines of tables, labelled with discussion topics for the afternoon. Speakers’ topics were preceded by the title, “State of the Evidence”: Human Papillomavirus, Fertility, Contraception, Menopause and The Environment. Three out of five talks set my teeth on edge.
First up, Dr. Nancy Durand.
After giving some basics about HPV types and statistics (10 – 30% of adults are infected at any given time – good one) and the risks for persistence (being over age 30, smoking, having multiple sub-types and immunosuppression) she launched into straight into HPV vaccines as public health strategy.
Dr. Durand assumed, correctly, that she had the room in terms of the evidence she presented on the three available HPV vaccines regarding efficacy and safety. She said that doctors should treat these vaccines like flu shots and encouraged doctors to say, “Have you had your HPV shot yet?” She suggested it could be administered to babies with their childhood vaccines. She quoted research that indicated there should be no upper limit in vaccinating; and that even if one had already been infected, vaccination was still effective (first time I’d heard that). And yet…
Hello from the other side
My electronic files are full of evidence of conflict of interest (COI) between researchers and pharmaceutical companies and the attempts to expose them.
Moreover, the accepted medical evidence also insists that the only adverse side effects are irritation at the site of injection and increased fainting.
Dr. Heather Shapiro did not mention potential environmental causes of infertility. When I asked her about this, she said that was a whole other talk. She leapt into Assisted Reproductive Technologies starting at IVF without passing through less invasive techniques like IUI. I did find out that 90% of IVF babies are healthy; and the rates of success decline with age; and that there are now fewer multiple births. Her talk was less about fertility and infertility that assisted reproductive technologies. One presumes the research is directed towards treatment rather than prevention. No mention of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.
I was glad to hear Dr. Dustin Costescu discuss unintended births in the context of the social determinants of health. He said they occurred more often in younger, racialized, poor and Indigenous women; and that the greatest risk was due to systemic factors. Among the contributors to non-use were being a sexual or gender minority, funding, and failure to initiate contraception. He also blamed health care providers who sometimes recommended a “washout”; i.e., stopping a method to see if side effects subsided without offering a replacement method.
He pointed out changing trends. With women having their first child around age 30, they require about 11 years of contraceptive use.
I was glad to hear him say that researchers needed to understand women’s experience through qualitative research regarding access, counselling, decision making and understanding side effects. In our discussion session in the afternoon, he acknowledged that front-line workers have a lot to contribute to research. Here are some of my contributions in WordPress:
Any of the women attending who had not already gone through menopause and were listening to Dr. Jennifer Blake were probably bug-eyed looking at the list of what sounded like inevitable symptoms. Early on in her talk, she said that perimenopause, the 2 – 3 years preceding the cessation of menses, was the “best time to get help”. Now if that isn’t a clear medicalization of menopause, I don’t know what is.
Dr. Blake was quite definitive. The “pleats” that make women’s vaginas stretch more easily smooth out. You’re going to shrink, was the message. Not to mention the loss of bone mineral density, the release of lead stored in the bones, changes in blood vessels, changes in abdominal fat metabolism, decreased carbohydrate tolerance, loss of lean muscle mass, vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes that could last up to 20 years), mood changes, reduced stress tolerance and memory changes (or as comedian Sandra Shamas tells us, loss of nouns.
And, oh, yes, loss of libido. I’ve had a few thoughts on that one as well.
Dr. Blake gave a nod to the importance of exercise and good nutrition before moving ahead with hormone therapy (HT), “the single most effective treatment”. She spent a good deal of time discussing the history of research on the effects of estrogen, in particular, how the Nurses’ Health Study was written and interpreted. One telling statement at the end of her remarks on HT: “there is a higher risk of breast cancer with later pregnancy than with hormone therapy”. In other words, you don’t need to worry about using HT.
Not all women experience menopause the same way – and that also applies to women around the world, their diets and lifestyles. Women who suffer greatly from menopausal symptoms who consider HT are well advised to limit the duration of its use.
I’ve saved the best for the last. Dr. Eric Crighton laid it all out. There are currently 80,000 registered chemicals currently in use. 7,000 new industrial chemicals are introduced annually. Pregnant women have 43 different chemicals in their bodies.
He pointed out that some people are at higher risk than others, most notably those Indigenous people who are living with contaminated water and mercury poisoning. Of course, we are all exposed to environmental toxins. According to Health Canada’s 2010 statistics, they caused 13% of disease burden, an increased risk of prenatal and early childhood effects. He talked about pesticide exposure and its effects on the brain development of four year olds…in short, he scared the *&*^% out of his audience. I was sadly familiar with some of these issues, in particular through the Canadian Women’s Health Network.
There is good work being done by CPCHE which has published a number of useful brochures, but he pointed out that individual actions are not enough. Moreover, he said when someone is struggling, for example, to feed their family, environmental toxins are low down on their list. If you can barely afford formula, the plastic in the bottle becomes a non-issue.
I spoke with him afterwards, thanking him for mentioning the struggle of nail salon workers to limit their exposure to workplace toxins. He was aware of the work of the Toronto Healthy Nail Salon Network.
Hello from the outside. At least I can say that I’ve tried
I’m not sorry I went. I did learn a few things and have checked out a dozen links to the studies quoted. But there was little opportunity to challenge the experts or change the tone of the discourse. It does make me wonder why the SOGC invited us in the first place.