[retMD]

Your link doesn't show any deaths?

You may have missed this: “shown at autopsy in a child dying after four months of the illness.”

Also 90% (if that's what it is) is pathetically low. Much more an argument to cancel this whole program than continue.

I didn't have time earlier to research exact figures, so I understated it. Now that I have time, this article states “the vaccine prevented 99 percent of HPV 16 or 18-related high-grade cervical pre-cancers.” But even 90% would be well worth it - why would you cancel a program that was 90% effective?

[palmer]

Because 90% gives sex a substantial risk, probably worse than distributing condoms to people with AIDS. Abstinance, much derided by some, is 100% effective. Treatment for the cancer, although painful and possible deleterious is basically 100% at the early stages. The cancer is caused by other agents. The virus won't spread at 100% regardless of vaccine (I have no clue about the numbers other than it isn't 100%). The vaccine is not very justifiable except on a voluntary basis even at 100%, certainly not at 90.

[Coleus]

Yea, just another excuse to keep humping and causing more unwanted pregnancies.

Ever notice that whenever we come out with the miracle pill it never seems to work. The birth control pill was going to end unwanted pregnancies and abortion, look what happened and look at the blossoming of so many std's and abortions! Wow, what a failure and yet I never hear of any doctor or liberal say that. STD's are almost an epidemic, all this vaccine does is encourage more sex, more std's like aids and more unwanted pregnancies, more illegitimate births and more abortions. Just like the birth control pill, Norplant, etc. Sex kills.