By adamg on Tue, 02/27/2007 - 2:59pm Choices Yes No Don't know Tweet WidgetFacebook Like Comments not a cancer vaccine It is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine! It is an HPV vaccine. Gardisil will not protect you from cancer, it can only protect you against some of the strains of the HPV virus. But doesn't HPV cause cervical cancer? Merck is promoting it as one way to reduce a woman's chances of developing cervical cancer. Vaccine protects against the cancer-causing virus The vaccine protects against infection from four strains of the HPV virus. Two of these strains, HPV-16 and HPV-18, account for about 70% of cervical cancers. The other two strains covered by the vaccine, HPV- 6 and HPV-11, account for about 90% of genital warts. webmd.com/sexual-conditions/...-HPV Ignorance is blissfully amusing Sure. The strains that cause nearly 100% of cervical cancers. There was no need to go after the remainder of known strains (or incur the added expense) because they are nearly entirely non-carcinogenic. I don't know. It is so close I don't know. It is so close for me. The statewide mandatory immunization seems to me to be driven by the drug company to create a captive market for them to sell into. For the insured, it seems like even at the current cost the insurance company would should rather pay the cost of immunization than the cost of treating hpv. My only concern is for the uninsured. If making it a required immunization would give a path for the uninsured to obtain it, then I guess I'm willing to deal with monopolistic practices of a drug company in order to help save other Massachusetts citizens from harm. Are there any other aspects of this that I'm missing? This vaccine should not be controversial. No, the HPV vaccine does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, but it does prevent HPV infection, which is very common and a major cause of cervical cancer in the U.S.Here is an article with some statistics. The cost of the vaccine is miniscule compared to the risk and costs of cervical cancer. The vaccine won't encourage young girls to have sex (that seems to be the major argument against it), but it may prevent them from developing a deadly form of cancer. In summary: cancer bad, vaccine good. Wrath Subverted? How else are we going to punish all those bad nasty girls and women who have sex if they won't get cervical cancer? Doesn't God hate all women who sleep with husbands with a history (past and current)? Seems like this is what most of the objections are about. Not all, but most (and certainly the best funded objections come from stink tank smoke screen pseudoscience). Yes, with caveats... ... that it should be started for ALL 9 year olds (male and female). If we can get 90% of our kids vaccinated, this deep-sixes the cervical cancer rate, and many or most genital warts. It also takes the whole "sex" thing out of the loop, if you say, no, we're vaccinating the boys as well. Now, I'd kinda like to wait for the competitor to Gardasil (there's another vaccine in the approval chute) before we pass this, but then, YES, vaccinate the damned population already. Tested? Has it been tested for effectiveness and safety in male recipients? If so, FDA-approved for same? my thoughts ... anything that p_isses off the radical right is fine by me. These are the f*cktards who think that it's going to prevent girls from having sex. Just like abstinence education. I have an idea. If the parents don't want their kids to get the vaccination, if the girls get cervical cancer, it won't be covered by insurance.