Just so you know, Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease
That means it is unproven.
Moreover, "poor promise of efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side effects."
That also means it is unproven.
Moreover, unlike other vaccinations which have proven to be effective in preventing known viruses in school children for decades, unproven Gardasil isn't even necessary unless the female is sexually active which many if not most are not. So that comparison on your part was 'pretty silly'.
In 2009, the idea that is might be more dangerous was publicized. But, as of 2007, it was vetted by the board we use to vet drugs. So at the time of the EO, with the information available, it was not unproven.
Also, the article you linked says that a person at a conference took the researcher’s promotion of the the vaccine to be negative, and specifically stated that the lead researcher did not offer that suggestion. 1/3 of the article showed the lead researcher to say that HPV is not as serious as it is portrayed, and unless 70% of girls get the vaccine, it will be hard to determine the results. The last 1/3 is pure speculation. The article also appears to be on a Catholic website, written in the point of view that the author was against Gardasil before doing any research. A quick Google search shows there is strong opposition to Gardasil within the Catholic community, so the objectivity of this report is questionable.
The other point I was making was in reference to the post before it, which was complaining of mandated “unproven” vaccines. I addressed the “unproven” aspect first. Then I addressed the mandated aspect. Its not my fault you didnt see the context in your own post.