Your case might have some merit IF the claims of this “vaccine” were accurate, which they are not.
The uneducated will have a false sense of security, and that is already evident when you ask anyone what they think of this vaccine.
In truth, it leaves white and Hispanic women UNPROTECTED against the types of HPV which after repeated exposure causes cervical cancer in them.
So what if it MAY help in protecting 10% of the population against 60% of HPV. NOT telling everyone ALL the FACTS leaves 90% of women unprotected against the HPV types which is most likely to effect them, but because they THINK they are protected, they will forego regular PAP testing.
The end result will be an INCREASE of cervical cancers causing death, as well as an increase of health problems resulting from side effects already known, and perhaps some that aren’t known as present.
The best “cure” is abstinence, and living a clean, moral life.
Another issue is, if you want it, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF. Don’t steal MY money to pay for something I don’t want or need.
All this info can be found at the CDC site.
My criticism was of the article, not of the theoretical case against this vaccine, which I don’t really know enough about to comment on.
IMHO, an argument is made more effective by including all relevant data and then explaining why your argument is accurate anyway, not by ignoring critical data.
Unless the critical data blows so big a hole in your argument that your best option is to resolutely ignore it.