a very, very small number of women who come in contact with hpv will go on to develop cancer. i wonder what percentage of these women were also on time with their yearly exams.

the bottom line is-
the overwhelming majority of the population will be exposed to hpv some time in thier lifetime. the overwhelming majority will rid their body of hpv on its own.

hpv is not a highly contagious communicable disease.

hpv is completely preventable by using condoms

hpv is highly treatable by getting timely pap smears.

hpv has not been fully tested in long term studies esp regarding reproduction.

hpv in itself is harmless. the vaccine is for hpv. how can you demand a vaccine for something that is harmless. could it cause cancer way down the road? well, there is a small chance of that, yes. but the virus being vaccinated against is not dangerous. how can you require this?

hpv mandated for girls would be questionable demanding vaccination for one sex. now a new study is saying males might gain protection against genital warts from gardisil. that should be interesting to follow as mandating a shot for a relatively harmless disease would go against everything the cdc claims for mandating vaccines, however, it would take the stress off of the gender discrimination issue. hmmmm

look, whether you are pro or against vaccines, i have to think we can all agree, the government MANDATING young girls to get a vaccine for something that is NOT a disease in which her health or the general publics health is at immediate risk is crossing the line. this makes us question the entire integrity of the vaccine program. aside from all this, why does the government and health care community instead focus on prevention thru condom use or abstinence, along with promoting timely pap smears, maybe offering them twice a year to at risk women?

And for LONG TERM studies, when will drug/vaccine studies tell us if they work or not??? They know that the drugs don’t work when the bodies pile up! And that is a quote from YOUR GOVERNMENT agencies that determine what it takes to keep your family healthy. If they knew what is best, the U.S would be the healthiest country, no cancer, no HD, no autism, ADHD, autoimmune disorders, etc………. But instead we get 1.1 million deaths by living in the medical model!!!! Do the opposite of the masses if you want to escape this trap!

Further studies would be great…if they are done. But the fact remains that there are some identified problems with this vaccine that raise some red flags. I would not be vaccinating a young child of mine until those longer term studies are completed and the true risks/benefits identified.

HPV Transmission—Who Gets it?

Human papillomavirus (HPV) affects both females and males. HPV transmission can happen with any kind of sexual, genital contact with someone who has HPV—intercourse isn’t necessary.

Many people who have HPV don’t even know it, since the virus often has no signs or symptoms. That means HPV transmission can happen without anyone knowing it.

There are about 6 million new cases of genital HPV* in the United States each year. It’s estimated that 74% of them occur in 15- to 24-year-olds.

As for your quote, there may be risks yet to be uncovered, but shouldn’t the commitment to further study alleviate concern?
If the manufacturer is truly worried about side-effects, then would it not be more reluctant to commit to further study?

An informed consumer will read everything they possibly can from multiple sources.

From your one link:
“The manufacturer has also committed to conduct a large postmarketing study to further assess the vaccine’s safety.”

This statement highlights the possibility of safety risks not yet confirmed.

Soon afterward, the stories about the intensity of promotion, publicly and not so publicly, came out. The combination of social conservatives, many of whom were already opposed, and industry skeptics - plus some questioning voices within the CDC - put mandating on hold.

With all due respect, I was not offering an editorial about the vaccine. I was reporting that the essay had been written by these three academics in that journal. Please read my post carefully and you’ll hopefully notice that I did not endorse any position, one way or the other.

My reason for posting about this was straightforward and simple - Gardasil has been controversial for various reasons, including the issue of mandatory vaccination. Their piece spelled out, in some detail, reasons why they believe it to be problematic. I saw this as another opportunity to provide information and discussion.

And please note that I also included a link to my previous post about the CDC declaring Gardasil to be safe. The link is in green letters in the graph that mentions the CDC making its announcement last month. And in that earlier post, you will then find a link to the same CDC statement you included in your comment. Why did I include the link to the earlier post? So people could find that info and decide for themselves, or at least have more info to mull over.

Again, there was no editorializing in this post, at least from me.

I hope this helps,
ed