Not being a MD, researcher or the like I’m not qualified to comment on the scientific validity of the article but I can on principles.

It seems to me that the manufactures/marketers of any product that is paid from the public purse and/or for public consumption particularly in heath areas are morally obliged to make DETAILED OJECTIVE plain English responses available to articles like this one. This information would be available to all and isn’t "informed choice the point of the listing POSSIBLE side effects and the goal of ethical marketing?

Given the sheer $’s involved publishing feedback and responses on their web site would be effective and comparatively inexpensive. Simply put this is or should be a condition of marketing in Aust.

The Drug Company’s public silence and heavy handed tactics to silence (shoot) the messenger(s) in the face of what seems mounting negative comments gives rise to the public’s perception that the company’s marketing is indeed an edifice built on sand (More flash than substance).

Bean Counting (assessing the risk to profit by public disclosures V cost of possible later law suit losses) shouldn’t be an option here. Although it appears to be the favoured tactic of Drug Conglomerates.

Nor are visiting medical detailers (assessed by company sales from local outlets) who ‘inform’ GPs on company ‘deemed’ relevant data and upcoming marketing enough.

A personal note:-
When it comes it comes to medication and food both non discretionary items the bar should placed at "Informed Consent" by the consumer not hidden marketing ‘imperatives.’

I like to think that Gardisil SR will be better. In all ways including marketing tactics.

As young women are most likely to have more sex partners in the years up to 26, vaccinating at 16 is probably the best age.

After 26 the risk of contracting the disease is much diminished.

The vaccine is useless after exposure to the virus, which is why it is most effective in virgins.

People get prostate cancer in their 40s but most likely after 50, which is why the public purse pays for tests after 50.

Also, cervical cancer is almost always caused by HPV and there is a roughly 1 in 120 life time risk of getting cervical cancer. The one in 9000 is per year.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/cervical_cancer/prevalence.htm#about_prevalence_and_incidence

For 100 000 vaccinations accounting for some shots not working about 5 people don't die a horrible death.

Democritus,

My experience from experience with several crisis groups indicates that children are often sexually active at a much younger age.
In fact I've broken up a multi-partner sex romp where the AVERAGE age was about 14.(many involved were known to me from my involvement with the local High School. By 16 the horse has seriously bolted by.

Children have told me independently that this sort of event is relatively common. Using contact tree logic I suspect they are vulnerable to the virus at that age. If medically viable puberty is the best time.

I am aware of the 'moral' arguments but I would argue that a child's chastity, moral training is the responsibility of the parent(s).

However Government’s have the over arching responsibility to protect the individual and make decisions of the common good including the public purse.