Reader comments
Sherry Young: HPV vaccinations are a choice to ponder seriously

This is a MOST biased article and certainly NOT giving out the full story about Merck & Co nor the
very suspicious manner that they have pushed this very expensive vaccination through political channels.
And, keep is clearly in mind that Gardisil is NOTa cancer vaccine. It is a vaccine for a virus, specifically for four of the more than 100 types of HPV. Even if you do "catch" one of these viruses, the chances of a normally healthy woman overcoming it naturally are great.
Cervical cancer is on the decline already. It is certainly NOT a leading cause of death in women, and never has been.
This is definately a Feminist issue. Remember the terrible consequences of HRT.
I might also add, if men are transmitting this disease through rape or playing around before marraige, WHY AREN'T THEY THE ONE'S BEING VACCINATED???!!!

I hope that before running off to get your daughter this vaccine, you will do some serious research, keeping in mind that Merck needs to raise a great deal of money to pay the legal fees associated with the Vioxx lawsuits. Merck does not have the health of your daughters at heart, but they do have great concerns about money. Please, do the research. Read, read, read, and then make a decision.

One of my concerns is this article seems to imply the LDS church has endorsed this vaccine, which it has not.

A balanced article would include information such as:
- FDA reports 3,461 adverse reactions to Gardasil including 8 possible deaths, 28 miscarriages, blood clots, seizures, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and paralysis. Adverse reactions are generally widely underreported.
- It has never been clinically tested in girls under 15 years of age. Safety studies in girls 11-12 will not be available for another year and a half.
- FDA has refused to approve this vaccine for women over 26 due to safety concerns.
- Top HPV experts, such as Dr. Diane Harper, who served as a researcher for the Gardasil study trials, opposed making this vaccine mandatory because there is inadequate post-marketing surveillance to ensure it's safe for young girls.

Yes, cervical cancer is a terrible disease. But let's be cautious and present both the pros and cons when writing an article. People need to make an informed decision based on facts and not just emotion.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Merck's study was not long enough to demonstrate the vaccine's effectiveness. I believe it only lasted three years, although the disease can take decades to develop.

I highly disagree with this article, and am frankly surprised that the author would support this practice so strongly. This sounded like an ad for Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately the vaccine is only effective against a couple of the many variants of HPV. Even if a person gets the vaccine, they can still get HPV and cervical cancer from one of the other many variants. A number of young girls have reportedly died or had serious reactions to this vaccine. I would definitely look at the safety issues of the vaccine before deciding to have my children vaccinated. I am also concerned about the long term effects from excessive exposure to the immune hyper-stimulating/modulating chemicals that compose half of the vaccine, called adjuvant (adjuvant can be made of various aluminum salts, monophosphoryl lipid A, endotoxins, cholesterol, ISCOMs with Quil-A, aliphatic amines, fatty acids, paraffinic and vegetable oils, and Syntex adjuvant formulations (SAFs) containing the threonyl derivative or muramyl dipeptide, etc).

I appreciate the article very much! Whether I get my daughter vaccinated or not, you better believe I am aware now, and I will do the research. Sometimes all it takes is to be made aware.