My daughter's only 1, so I guess I have some time on this one. I don't think that the vaccine promotes promiscuity. However, I also wonder why that subject would even have to come up when vaccinating an 11 year old, but maybe I'm being naive? As I think back to my own doctor's appts at that age, I feel like I basically just went along with whatever the doctor or my parents told me I needed a shot for. I don't remember ever stopping to ask, "Wait - now how would I get that disease in the first place?" or having any long discussion about it. So, while I'm certainly not advocating lying about the matter to your daughter if the subject comes up, I'm wondering if you'd necessarily have to get into the whole sexual nature of the transmission of HPV just because you've chosen to vaccinate? And again, I'm all for sex ed and talking to your kids, so I'm not suggesting that one should avoid the topic of sex all together. I'm just saying that if a parent's concern about vaccinating was that it would encourage the idea that sex is "safe," then maybe you don't need to even get into all the particulars of the vaccine with your child. If you do, or if your daughter is already hearing from friends at school about the sexual transmission of HPV anyway, then it seems you could easily talk about ways that sex is not safe or not age appropriate, even after having gotten this vaccine.

I don't think it promotes promiscuity, but the side effects and effectiveness and all are my issue. The chicken pox vaccine was hailed as a hallelujah miracle too, and it's been only recently that we're discovering that it only lasts for a few years, and you've got to get it again! While cervical cancer is certainly something to want to be eradicated, I don't think a vaccine is necessarily the solution.

No. While cervical cancer is awful, the chances of getting it are smaller than the possible side effects she will get from the vaccine. NOT worth it. Also, there was very little research done before it was released and all of the girls that have been getting the vaccine are the test subjects. Denying human sexuality promotes promiscuity. And our daughters buying in to our society's dim view of women being sex objects does too. When girls are raised to respect themselves and know their bodies (education) then promiscuity will fade.

My daughter is 15. When she was 14, her pediatrician asked about the vaccine. Without a question, my answer was yes. I don't even think my daughter is aware that it vaccinates against a sexually transmitted disease. All she knew was that it could prevent cervical cancer. And frankly, that's all she needs to know at this age. A good friend found out recently that she is HPV positive. She's had sex with only one man, her husband of over 20 years. Unfortunately, she's not the only person he had sex with during those 20 years. My first husband also had 10+ partners other than me during our marriage. I didn't contract HPV, but there's no reason that I couldn't have. Do either I or my friend deserve the diseases that our husbands bring home? Do we deserve cancer? Does your daughter deserve cancer because you were worried that a one-time vaccine when she was too young to have sex would encourage her to be promiscuous? I think my view on this vaccine is akin to my view on sex education in the school. When people object and ask me why preteens and teenagers need to know this information, I always wonder when they think is the time for people to learn about sex. Most people have sex eventually. Maybe not until they are 20 or 25 or 50. But they have sex. And when they decide to have sex, no matter what the circumstances, it's bound to be more healthy if they have learned something about sex and how it relates to their own well-being. As for the vaccine, I don't think my daughter is having sex now, nor do I think it would be wise for her to choose to have sex in her teens. But someday she probably will have sex. And that puts her at risk for HPV, even if she's in one and only one monogamous relationship in her whole life. Because this risk exists, it is wise to do what we can for ourselves and our daughters and have them vaccinated.

Reasons NOT to get the Gardasil vaccine for your daughter: 1. It is NOT the most effective way to avoid or find Cervical Cancer. Cervical Cancer is one of the most easily detected cancers to find early and treat well. The answer is yearly pap tests. Even if you get the vaccine you still need yearly pap tests. Pap tests do not have poisons like Gardasil does. 2. It is NOT a cancer vaccine This is a horrible marketing scheme that borders on (or has crossed the line to) being blatant mis-information. Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is a vaccine intended to protect against a virus called HPV which is believed to cause some types of cervical cancer. A+B does NOT equal Q. 3. It is a mildly effective vaccine at best There are 150 known types of human papilloma virus (HPV). Of the 150 types there are 15 considered high risk and 3 probable high risk for developing into cervical cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, other risk factors for cervical cancer include smoking, HIV infection, chlamydia infection, dietary factors, hormonal contraception, multiple pregnancies, exposure to the hormonal drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) and a family history of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against 4 types of HPV. Two types that can cause genital warts and another 2 types that are high risk for cervical cancer. Crunch some numbers and Gardasil hardly seems to be the holy grail of cervical cancer safety. 4. It is a deadly vaccine at worst The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has logged over 9,749 adverse reactions after receiving Gardasil. The CDC states that VAERS consists of only 1-10% of actual cases. The FDA approved Gardasil in June of 2006...these VAERS numbers are from June 2008. At that time 20 deaths had been reported. Other serious reactions include Guillian Barre syndrome, seizures, pulmonary embolism, thombrosis, as well as fainting, nausea, and vomiting. Another wonderful side effect is developing genital warts which has been reported in 78 cases. According to the Merck product manufacturer insert, there was 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis, and 1 case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil recipients. 5. It was approved without adequate testing Initial testing will be complete on Gardasil in September of 2009...3 years after its approval. NO LONG TERM STUDIES have been conducted. The manufacturer does not even know how long the vaccine will protect girls. 6. The average age of Cervical Cancer diagnosis is 48 7. Most infections with HPV clear up on their own "The vast majority of women clear or suppress HPV to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women."3 Seventy percent of women clear the virus spontaneously after 18 months and 90 % clear the virus after 2 years.4 Vaccinating children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy may only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease, including the cervical cancer which the vaccine is supposedly preventing. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster (http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/hpv/doc_against_HPV.shtml)."

The most amazing thing about all the discussions concerning a virus, any virus, is that there is no technology that has ever isolated a virus in 3-D nor been able to directly weigh a virus in the femtogram that is designated for that size entity. It is all done indirectly and by a belief system. "Virus" has become the operant word, a noun, used to indicate the presumed or proximate cause of something for which we do not have an explanation. It is no different than when you visit your physician for a bunch of symptoms that is making your feel ill and from which you need relief so that you can return to work or appear at the concert. He/She does not take a blood sample to determine which germ got into your system. The physician just says, "It's going around." Or, "It's just a virus." How many patients ask the doctor, "Which virus is it doc?" The answer is usually a sophisticated, "the Rhino." Like that really makes a difference to you. I am sure that if you were really ill with symptoms that concerned your doctor then you would get a throat culture or some other kinds of laboratory testing, or even hospitalization. In any event, it is the technology that does not exist to isolate a virus in 3-D. The only technology available to the early scientists like Pasteur (the rabies virus) was the common microscope and that was not able to magnify any "virus" material. Yet, the term virus was used even then, but it meant poison or some such equivalent. If a virus can't be isolated then how would a vaccine ever be produced? Therefore, the whole story of microscopes, viruses, and vaccination had to be written as a novel to protect the infrastructure of viral research from crumbling. Do viruses really exist or is it a theoretical construct to explain the unknown? After all, how can a vaccine be manufactured if there is no technology to capture the thing, the virus, which must be present to start the chain of events to end up with the vaccine that we place in our children. There is no conspiracy cited. It was an illogical hypothesis that brought us here in the journey of science because doctors would not dare challenge the existence of virus. History has shown that there were always controversies in medicine and that alternative causes of diseases were postulated besides the ones that won favor by majority vote of the in-crowd. Virus is a growth industry and nobody doubts the industry or machinery. Too few understand the machinery like the electronmicroscope to say anything. The in-group, CDC/NIH, dictates scientific policy even if it is wrong. Do viruses really exist? Where is the 3-Dimentional proof of the finite existence of viruses? A novel published in 2008 speaks to those very issues that need to be addressed before finding the path to omnipresent vaccination or aborting the effort: "AFTERMATH A WAR OF MEMORIES." (Amazon.com)

The only "cancer" that had ever been alleged to be caused by a "virus" was the Roux Sarcoma, in chickens! And that was at the turn of the 20th century. Man has forever been trying to discover the cause of each and every malady known. The only consistent theme has been: "association is causation." That is, cancer is caused by power-lines, magnetism, breathing, metals, radiation, chemicals, and anything that seems to have a statistic to it. It is interesting that the very things that were alleged to "cause" some cancers are used in its very treatment. We use chemicals and radiation to "treat" cancer, n'est-ce pas? Yes, but only after biopsy and surgery when, "we got it all." So why do we need chemotherapy and radiation as preventative? Is it that having had "cancer" anywhere becomes the risk factor for more cancer? Well, would that not encourage doctors to think genetics rather than more of the same mind set? Let's get rid of all the risk-factor-blaming causes of cancer and look for the answer in the only arena it could reside, genetics. The only rational theory of cancer "causation" rests in the arena of aneuploidy. That is, "cells gone wild" because they can. I do hope that the world will learn that the future of research must be in genetics if we are to conquer cancer of any type.

HPV