If we can eliminate 70% of cervical cancer through this vaccination, I don't see the downside in such a vaccination.
However I do have qualms about the relative newness of the drug and the government mandate.
What about if there was a vaccine for genital herpes, syphilis, or gonorrhea? Provided the vaccines were safe and there were no serious side effects, would you be in favor of forcing teenage girls to get this vaccination?
"If we can eliminate 70% of cervical cancer through this vaccination, I don't see the downside in such a vaccination".
...the problem that you and a lot of Freepers are having with this is...WHERE'S THE LONG RANGE PROOF THAT THIS WOULD WORK IN THE 1ST PLACE!! Because the FDA says so?! This is all about the $$$. The side effects of such a vaccine are not being discussed. The long term effects of such a vaccine are not being discussed. Even if they were, the gummit has no idea.
There isn't a downside to the vaccination. The downside is the government ordering you to have your child be given the vaccination! Outrageous.
Because it's never been tested on prepubescent girls?
In the study, 552 women in the United States, Europe and Brazil between the ages of 16 and 23 were randomized to receive vaccine or placebo at Day 1, Month 2, and Month 6.
enrolled 12,167 women ages 16 to 26 in 13 countries
Official Title: V501 (Gardasil) Phase II Immunogenicity Study in Females Aged 9 to 17 Years
Study start: December 2006
Which would seem, in itself, a wonderful thing.
The mortality rate for cervical cancer is one half of one percent. Most of those cases were women who didn't have regular pap tests.
Of the 80% HPV infection rate, 70% clear up on their own.
Injecting the entire populace for something with a low mortality rate that can currently be achieved using less expensive methods?
Sounds like another one of Perry Pompadour's boondoggles.
(In my state's defense, our choices for Governor WERE Larry, Moe, and Curly-ette :-)