The author is renown for her stance against abortion, contraception and always follows the Catholic churchs teachings on reproduction.

If you believe in the efficacy of public immunization campaigns against diseases like polio and smallpox then you welcome the opportunity for your not yet sexually active daughter to be immunized against cervical cancer. Or you can pray that she doesn't contract the virus through premarital sex or from her husband's premarital dalliances.

Re-message posted by ‘Michael_in Adelaide’. In the same breath, you talk about the poor death of a young woman to cancer, and next you criticise the author for being pro-life antiabortion/reproductive technology. You are a hypocrite. You intend to vaccinate your child, even though the vaccine has NOT been tested for men. Stupidity deserves to be rewarded with pain and suffering!

Re-message posted by ‘TurnRightThenLeft’. I would like to remind people that this vaccine, like all other vaccines, has NOT been tested for impairment on fertility, and nor for the possible carcinogen potential.

Re-message posted by ‘Andrew B’ you undermine Dr. Renate Klein’s qualifications. If Edward Jenner was alive today, he could have bought his qualification on ebay. He was never a doctor; he bought his doctorate from a university in Scotland. Besides, he was a bumbling idiot too. I wonder if you would like cowpox as a vaccination today for small pox. It was a gross practice then, small pox didn’t disappear – they just simply stopped vaccinating for it. These diseases are from filth, unclean water, poor sanitation and nutrition. Your doctor, 100 years ago, didn’t wash his hands after a post-mortem, and then ran off to deliver babies

I believe that cervical cancer has nothing to do with sexual activity, nor the number of sexual partners. You only have to look at the cervical cancer rates and mortality to figure that out. Most of the deaths occur in women in their’ mid forties, and peak in the EARLY SEVENTIES. If it takes say twenty years or less for cervical cancer to take hold, then we are going to have to say these women in their fifties sleep around too. The truth is that there are NO deaths from cervical cancer below the age of 20 years. Figures from See page 81 http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/can/csa03-04/csa03-04.pdf

In 1992 molecular biologists, Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz of the University of California, USA, found that it may be that the presence of either HPV or HSV was due to infection of proliferating cancer cells; therefore a person with cervical cancer would be more susceptible to these infections. In other words, they were indicators of infection, rather than the cause of cancer. Besides, who investigates other possible causes like the contraceptive pill? Along with personal care products.

The National Centre of Immunisation Research and Surveillance, HPV fact sheet, states: “The duration of immunity from (Gardasil) vaccination is NOT yet known”. This information was NOT included in the information pack that parents/students received from the Health department. www.ncirs.usyd.edu.au/facts/hpv_oct_2006.pdf

Re message posted by Snout2,
Possibly there may be no harm from engineered material, but who knows?? It is probably better than a live or deadened virus. God knows how many children and adults have died from SV40 tumours, which can only come from the monkey virus found in the Polio vaccine, along with the AIDS virus

The article is about questioning the safety of the vaccine. If there were a 'tin of baked' beans that made someone sick, they would all be recalled

Dear me all the cranks are coming out of the wood work on this issue.

Pat you show a total lack of understanding of cancer in your first paragraph, I will let that slide. Peter Duesberg? Well what a fine example of a creditable researcher, HIV is not the cause of AIDS is his claim to fame. I cannot find any published, peer reviewed, paper where he even mentions HPV.

“The duration of immunity from (Gardasil) vaccination is NOT yet known” was said in the context of whether a second vaccination may be needed not that is was not effective.

Simian Vacuolating Virus 40? 12% of a sample of German medical students in 1952 had SV40 antibodies, note the date it is important, when was the polio vaccine introduced? How did they get antibodies to the virus if you can ONLY get it from Polio vaccines? SV40 has not been proven to cause disease in humans. In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the Institutes SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed that there was no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40. A Swedish study confirmed these results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9450713
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9776244

I did get a good laugh from your website thanks, “Purpura vaccinatoria” again not in any medical literature but ” Psychogenic hemorrhagic disorders are uncommon yet must be considered in the differential diagnosis of purpura. Patients are usually young emotionally troubled females”.

Let’s have a reasoned debate, one based on evidence. Not hearsay, gossip and rumour and definitely not Pat777’s or radical feminists’ distortions of the truth. Their actions are bordering on criminal negligence

For a balanced introduction to the subject, including the political background in the US, I recommend the JAMA editorial the authors alluded to: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/17/1921.

Contrary to the impression which might be given by the authors’ selective quotation, the editorial supports the routine vaccination of girls with the quadrivalent vaccine, as recommended by the ACIP.

The issue in the editorial is not whether the vaccine is safe and effective, or whether it should be routinely offered, the issue is whether such vaccination should be mandatory. The editorial makes a careful and balanced appraisal of the available evidence and concludes that it shouldn’t. It is also sharply critical of Merk’s behavior in lobbying the Texas government for mandatory status for its vaccine, and observes that both the Texas and Virginia governments have backed off considerably from their original ill considered decision to make the vaccine compulsory. Interestingly, it makes the point that “The use of compulsion… could have the unintended consequence of heightening parental and public apprehensions about childhood vaccinations”.

The question of compulsion and consent are complex ones, particularly in the areas of public health and when dealing with adolescents. However, they depend on a more basic issue – the scientific evidence of efficacy versus risk. Tankard-Rice and Klein have failed utterly to apply any intellectual rigor to this question, which making risk-efficacy claims central to their argument. The result is a mish mash of speculations, ramped up anxiety, and conspiracy theories.

“Informed” consent is pretty pointless if it is “informed” by hysteria and misinformation rather than actual evidence.

re the CDC information on Gardasil, Minutes from the ACIP (US CDC Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices) for June 2006 includes the following:

"The clinical trial program places strong emphasis on evaluating the safety profile of GARDASIL®. Of ~21,464 subjects, ~11,000 received detailed safety follow-up and the remainder received serious adverse experiences in medical history and pregnancy follow-up. The incidence of overall adverse events (AEs), injection-site AEs, and low-grade fevers >100°F was slightly higher in the GARDASIL® group compared to the placebo group. Systemic AEs were comparable between the two groups. Serious AEs and discontinuation due to adverse experiences were extremely rare."

I am puzzled by the statement that:
"Of ~21,464 subjects, ~11,000 received detailed safety follow-up and the remainder received serious adverse experiences in medical history and pregnancy follow-up."

Perhaps Snout can interpret that for me, or refer me to an educational site, or another source, which explains in clearer terms the meaning of this statement.

Then too, I wonder what frequency of events among a population merits the description "extremely rare". Any expert opinions, here?