Oddly enough, a study was done by a group at the University of British Colombia in Canada showing that the efficacy and safety of the vaccine is not necessarily what is being told parents and young people by physicians wishing to give the vaccine.
The abstract of the study states:
"We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles."
here is the source:
Anyway, the only thing that I could imagine would be the reason to vaccinate someone with such a dangerous substance is for money. But, it could be seen by parents who allow it and the young people who get it as a license to have pre-marital relations.
I agree. The HPV vaccine has been given to 12-13 year old girls in my country for 10 years with no serious side effects, increase in child sexual curiosity, or the sexualisation of any receiving the vaccine.
It prevents or lessens to be more accurate cervical/ovarian cancers in women. If you had nursed a dying girl with either you wouldnt be so concerned about the vaccine but more about not having the vaccine.
The originator of the thread said she had a 12 year old son, I would be more concerned about why a doctor wanted to give a prophalactic vaccine for female cancers to a male!
Vaccines are an important Public Health need, as the resurgence of TB and polio shows. These once unknown diseases in the modern world, due to mass vaccination, are being spread again by immigrants comming from less developed countries. The spread is placing all those below the age of 35 at risk due to the ceasation of vaccination in modern countries to the general populace and making our children and young adults more vulnerable to these terrible diseases we once thought beaten.
I wouldn't dismiss vaccination as quackery so quickly, the results of non immunity puts us all at risk and the effects are devastating. Spainish flu is thought to have killed 18 million people in 1918-1920 when it first struck. Bird flu killed 1 million in 2008. At least we can be vaccinated against flu(s) viri now.