Actually yes, a vaccine does preven the virus known to cause cervical cancer... does everyone who contracts this virus get cervical cancer? No... is this virus the only cause of cervical cancer ? No.
I have not seen anything that said this will prevent all cervical cancer. It protects against a virus known to cause cervical cancer... and that's all I have seen it claimed to do. I see nothing irresponsible or absurd about this.
I find it incredulous that people are claiming this vaccine is somehow part of a "culture of death". It really seems those claiming that think if you catch something through sexual contact you deserve to die, even if it is preventable... Sounds to me like the same nutjobs that are out protesting at marines funerals in the name of "god".. or letting their children die from easily treated or prevented illnesses in the name of their religion.
Look people have sex outside of marriage - people in marriages aren't honest about past (or present partners) things happen in life and you have to deal with it. HPV is a lifelong consequence - From a Fortune article "Gardasil is almost certain to be approved by the FDA, say analysts, who place the medicine's annual peak revenue potential in the $2 to $4 billion range. Those estimates assume states will make Gardasil mandatory. The shots are given three times over a six month period, and will cost anywhere between $300 and $500. The vaccine lasts for up {They aren't even sure how long it's going to last} to five years. Merck's strongest data point: Studies that show the vaccine to be 100 percent effective against strains of HPV, which are responsible for some 70 percent of cervical cancers. In the United States, 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,900 die from it, according the U.S. Centers for Disease Control."
What I do have a problem with is, advocating, much less mandating a vaccination for 8 and 9 year old girls that is effective at best for 5-7 years. If it's truly to prevent STD's then you allow for it later, but it shouldn't be mandatory. It's so bizarre, I see people all the time on this forum about feeding tubes ask who's paying for this? No thought at all about who pays for vaccinations. I have no problem with this vaccination being available (and informed consent), it's the mandatory part and the age that I think stinks. You innocoluate your own daughter - leave mine alone!
From the Fortune article about this "Fisher says mainstream parental opposition to Gardasil is easy to explain. "Parents are becoming more concerned about the shear number of vaccines kids are getting these days," she says. "In the 1980s, U.S. children got 23 doses of seven vaccines by age six. Today, they get 48 doses of 14 vaccines in the same period."
"And during the time that vaccines doses have doubled," she says, "there's been an increase in the number of children with autism, attention deficit and hyperactive disorder, learning disabilities, asthma, and diabetes, in which vaccines could be a contributing factor."
Fisher is strongly opposed to Merck's proposals to inoculate girls at age 9, which is six years before the average age of first sexual experience in the United States "It's just profit-making on the backs of 9-year-old girls," charges Fisher. The proposal has also drawn widely publicized ire from groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, both Christian conservative organizations generally opposed to anything they believe promotes premarital sex."