Julie wrote on Mar 14, 2007 6:46 AM:I don't believe that this vaccine should be forced on a young girl by our government. Yes, EARLY results say that this vaccine may prevent SOME cancers, but what are the long term effects of this vaccine? Does anyone really know? Who will pay for this very expensive vaccine ($320 per dose, three doses needed to complete the vaccine, as reported in previous coverage). Let's not forget other medications pushed on the public by medical companies that later turned out to be not effective, or even dangerous, such as DES, thalidomide and accutane, which were all approved for use by the FDA! Be careful parents - you might be gambling with your daughters future!

Roby wrote on Mar 14, 2007 6:49 AM:There's NO WAY I'd even think of vaccinating my girls until I consider ALL of the risks vs ALL of the potential benefits. I'll do that by analyzing the data & the research on Gardasil, HPV, as well as ALL of the extra additives (no poison - mercury - in this one but there's other stuff........including injecting a LIVE virus into the bloodstream). I'll also talk to my children's Doctors about my concerns BEFORE I'll make an "informed decision." I would hope that other concerned parents do the same. Note to our lawmakers: Please STOP telling us what to do and you may also wish to include in this bill, appropriations to PAY for all of the potential lawsuits that may later be filed if/when this "requirement" backfires on the State.

Not Yet wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:42 AM:This vaccine is too new and not enough long term information is known about potential side affects. Also, this is outside the purvey of school districts that are in the business of ensuring that highly contagious diseases are not brought into campus, creating a school wide epidemic. This vaccine is not to protect the masses, only those girls who engage in pre-marital sex, a topic that remains firmly in the privacy of a girl's own home and not with the public schools. I'll opt my daughters out until more is known, especially long term risks of this vaccine. This is really none of the business of school districts and just another example of the 'nanny state'. Merck should be ashamed of itself. It's already agreed to stop its advertising campaign towards making this vaccine a requirement for school, yet our stupid legislators continue to press on with limited knowledge and facts,just to get their name in the papers.

Randy wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:58 AM:As a caring and responsible father of four young girls, I object to politicians constantly unilaterally deciding what is best for my children. Usurping my responsibilities as a parent is unacceptable, though not unexpected. Regardless of poitical affiliation, politicians continue to demonstrate their belief that they are God.

DS wrote on Mar 14, 2007 8:20 AM:People who struggle with cervical cancer should speak out more about their thoughts on this vaccine. Forced vaccination may be the wrong way to go. But before making a decision on whether the vaccine is right for your daughters, research cervical cancer and its treatments. They are not something I want my daughter to go through.

DOC wrote on Mar 14, 2007 8:57 AM:ONE MORE THING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO TRY TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES. IF THEY ARENT IN MY WALLET THEY TRY TO GET INTO SOME OTHER PART OF MY LIFE. LETS EDUCATE, NOT ONLY THE CHILDREN BUT THE MORONS THAT ARE IN OFFICE

Words of Caution wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:36 AM:Ironically, men can be carriers of the HPV virus, may show no smptoms and can infect hundreds, if not thousands of women and there presently are no tests to indicate whether a male is infected. Meanwhile, women who become infected may not know until they are in their 30s or 40s and by then there is no way to determine the origin or source. There is also no test to specify which type of HPV virus it is. And, there is really nothing that can be done to eliminate the virus, so all the doctors can do is watch to determine whether it clears on its own or if other symptoms develop. There is a fine line being crossed here. Merck stands to make millions of dollars if states mandate their vaccine and millions more if a booster shot becomes necessary. But, there have been no long term studies to provide evidence that the side effects are worth the protection. What if they develop another vaccine that protects against ALL of the variations of HPV? What will that mean for the girls we have already vaccinated with Guardasil? The FDA has been long approving drugs on the promise by pharmaceutical manufactuers that additional studies would be performed, that weren't. There may be implications of vaccinating our daughters that far outreach what we know today.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:04 AM:I'm with DOC 100%. Question: If it's sexually transmitted and the girls are the ones "getting" it; what about the boys? If there are at least 30 of the sexually transmitted viruses and they give a shot for 4; what about the other 26? Advice for the government..."Butt out!!!" What ever happened to Freedom of Choice? Anybody seen it around anywhere lately?

Bad Bob wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:27 AM:I am planning, as soon as I can, to move out of this insane state! California is hell bent on becoming the first socialist / communist state in the union.

Explain this to me like I'm a 3-year-old wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:50 AM:What is exactly so bad about a vaccine against a potentially fatal disease? (answer this assuming of course that the vaccine is perfectly safe)

Kathy wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:08 PM:No way! Politicians do not know what is best for our children. How can anyone consider forcing it on children, especially since it is not thoroughly tested and all the risks associated with the vaccine are not known. There are good kids out there who will wait for marriage to have sex and will not need this vaccine. Schools should be in the business of teaching, not butting into the personal lives of their students.

ralphie wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:37 PM:Cool! Now I don't need to use a rubber!

Whoa, Kathy wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:48 PM:You had me, then you lost me. I agree with the other commenters that this vaccine is WAY too new and much more data should be gathered before it is made mandatory. However, the statement that "there are good kids out there who will wait for marriage to have sex and will not need this vaccine" is patently false. I have to assume that you are just uninformed about this issue, because the plain fact is that a marriage certificate does not protect a woman from getting cervical cancer. The reasoning behind giving it to young girls is that once a woman has been exposed to the virus, the vaccine will no longer work. Thus, vaccinating those who are presumably not yet sexually active is the only way to prevent the disease. You can argue the finer points of "christian" parenting until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that the vast majority of young women in this country will have sex long before they are married. Thus if this vaccine is demonstrated to be safe and effective via long-term study, it absolutely should be required for school-age girls, for the reasons I cited above. This is CANCER we are talking about here, not mumps or chicken pox.

TK wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:06 PM:How nearsighted and narrow-minded can people be? As a father, I would inoculate my child. If they had a vaccine of this sort for boys, I would certainly have my son inoculated. The efficacy of this drug is being tested for males, and if it is found to be effective, I'll take my son to his pediatrician. I feel I'd be a more responsible parent by helping to prevent the spread of the HPV virus. Would you hesitate to have a child inoculated against skin cancer? Lung cancer? Furthermore, many people claim that this is a license for a child to have sex. Think about this realistically for a second. How many 12 year old girls are really going to say "Sure Bobby, I'll have sex with you. I got the shot!"? Also consider those that are not VOLUNTAIRLY sexually active. How would you feel if your child was sexually abused by someone with the HPV virus, and then when she was in her 20s, she developed cervical cancer due to it? How could you look her in the eye and tell her you could have done something to prevent it?

Ask wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:15 PM:Welcome to the United Socialist Society of America. What did you expect would be next? They already drug tests kid athletes, breathelizer tests, what they can and cannot eat in school. Did you not see this or something like this coming?

Skip wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:16 PM:Right on, Ralphie!

Theotis wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:17 PM:There go those darn democrats again!

4freeLOVE wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:18 PM:Sexcellent! Perhaps this will reignite the sexual revolution. Let us all join in!!

Sam wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:22 PM:$120 per shot the corporation makes who manufactures the vaccine. Follow the money.

Roby to TK wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:51 PM:Have you read anything lately on AUTISM? How about the April 2007 issue of Discover magazine? If only we knew then what we know NOW. I HAVE a child with autism and I'm NOT sure this vaccine is the right thing for her (& that's why I'll do what I said I would above). You're right, if I wasn't sure & she got the shot because it MAY prevent cervical cancer but it MAY also effect her in other ways....how could I look her in the eye & tell her that I could have prevented it? Please explain how researching something first before you do it is nearsighted & narrow-minded?

Please have some sense wrote on Mar 14, 2007 2:41 PM:Commenters "Ask" and "Bad Bob" clearly should do a bit of research before firing off such ludicrous comments. Socialism is defined as "An economic system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth" and communism is "a political and economic system under which productive property is owned by the people of the community collectively through the state". Thus, their comments make no sense whatsoever, because this issue has nothing to do with economics, except those of the vaccine manufacturer. I believe what they meant to describe was fascism, which is defined as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts the nation above the individual; characterized by a centralized government and headed by a dictatorial leader", but even that is a spurious argument at best, as there are many other gov't regulations that are aimed at protecting our (collective) health and that alone does not make this a fascist society. Please back up your arguments with logical examples, as commenter TK has. He/she put it better than anyone here.

susans wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:09 PM:what country do we live in??? boy i'll tell you cali sure is getting socialist these days soon we'll be counting toilet paper

Yo Roby wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:16 PM:So your kid is artistic? Is he pretty good?

Ask wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:36 PM:I've learned my policiticing from those in the county of San Diego. Where debt and corruption are the norm. Where it costs $80 million for a simple high school. $1 billion to upgrade a community college. Couple hundred million more for carpool lanes that will not serve the masses. Where we charge smokers more tax because they put extra stressers on the healthcare system, and then use that money for other things. I may have used the wrong descriptor, but you cannot deny the facts. Not everyone will be happy with our so called gov't we have in California or San Diego.

I have sense wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:42 PM:The real issue here is do you want the government to be able to force you into becoming a guinea pig for a pharemceutical company; not is the medication good for your daughter or not. That is a question each parent must decide on their own. While TK may think this is a "no-brainer" there are plenty of others who are concerned about the long-term efficacy, unknown side-effects and the financial impact of this study. The reality is there is no long-term study for this vaccine. And what medication and vaccine doesn't have a side-effect. Sometimes the side-effect is immediate othertimes the side-effect comes into play years later and may only effect a segment of the overall population. One has to gamble that the benefit outways the future side-effects, whatever they are. These are things people think about and should think about. Mandating a vaccine for papillomavirus is much different than mandating a vaccine for Polio. Earlier this century Polio was infecting a large percentage of the population and it's spread was not in any way controllable, and the effects were serious. Back in the fifties everyone knew someone who had died of polio. The spread of Papillomavirus is very much controllable, though it requires some ability to practice self-control and judgement. And as someone mentioned earlier, it can hardly be spread in a school environment (during school hours anyway). Given the issues, the potential backlash, lawsuits, it makes a lot more sense (to me) to provide parents with state-sponsored un-biased education about the vaccine and give them the option of vaccinating their daughter against the virus. Low-income families would be subsidized if they chose to vaccinate. There's a good chance you would get better cooperation this way anyway. People are more likely to take something if you offer it to them, rather than stuffing it down their throat - it's human nature.

Heathen wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:52 PM:Further sexual liberation is coming!!

NotPolitical wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:54 PM:This is not a political issue. At first glance, I was appalled that someone other than her father and I could dictate the course of her protection against STDs. I will be the first in line to claim that abstinence is the only true protection against all STDs. However, I am not so naive to not consider that sexual choices are in the hands of teenagers! Or that even if my daughter is virtuous until marriage, who's to say that her husband was as well. HPV in males is, as of yet, undetectable. For those who claim this would be a license to whore around, COME ON! Pregnancy and AIDS are by far the most consequential deterents against premarital sex. Most people, let alone teenagers, didn't even know what HPV was 2 years ago. As for the "fascist, socialist, communist" role of the government telling us how to parent, no one seems to be complaining about the requirments for measle and polio. Isn't the same platform? The government has stepped in on our children's behalf to prevent catastrophic diseases. I think most people have a problem with Gardasil because of it's relation to sex. Now, all of a sudden, you all think it's an infringement on parental rights. Maybe so, but you're hypocratic in your failure to stand up to the chicken pox vaccine! This is cancer! Which can lead to infertility or death. Other commenters have critisized the vaccine's protection against only 4 of the 30 strains of the virus. The 4 strains that it does protect against are the 4 strains that cause 96% of cervical cancer cases. So calm down. Having said all that, I do agree that Gardasil certainly has not been tested long enough for anyone to "require" that it be given to a child. But let's not be so quick to jump conclusions based on fundamentalist beliefs. No matter how incredibly diligent you are in sheltering or instilling Bible-based morals on your children, sex is too much of a reality in our generation to ignore it's risks and what we can do to protect our children against some of it's consequences. And to all of you who want to move out of California, sex, HPV and state governments still exist in Kansas!

Frustrated in Murrieta wrote on Mar 14, 2007 5:35 PM:What would the reaction be if a vaccine for AIDS was developed? Would people call the government "socialists" if they mandated the administration to children to save lives? Why is noone questioning the mandatory vaccine for Hepatitis B? "HBV is transmitted horizontally by blood and blood products and sexual transmission. It is also transmitted vertically from mother to infant in the perinatal period which is a major mode of transmission in regions where hepatitis B is endemic". Hepatitis B, AIDS and HPV are all transmitted in the same manner. The only difference is one is not questioned, another would be welcomed but the third is panned.

To Not Political wrote on Mar 14, 2007 5:48 PM:Don't forget Merck is the same company that brought us Vioxx, the arthritis drug that caused close to 30,000 deaths from 1999 to 2003. They stand to make billions of dollars off of Gardasil, especially if it is made mandatory. There have been no studies on the long term effects of Gardasil; it hasn't been tested long enough. Yet you're willing to trust this company with the health of your daughter. That's your right. But it should be my right to make decisions regarding the health concerns of my daughter. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with my right as a parent and my daughter's right to make decisions regarding her health. As far as the other immunizations, they've been around long enough for us to know about adverse and long term effects. I don't want my daughter being forced to be a guinea pig.

The Voice wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:59 PM:There are two real problems with this vaccine--1) it is supposed to vaccinate against four of the more than 30 strands of HPV, which, according the Merck's own commercials, "may" be linked with the development of cervical cancer. HPV may not even be the cause, ladies and gentlemen. We are vaccinated against a possible causal relationship. 2) Vaccines are under a great deal of scrutiny right now for their possible/probable relationship of auto-immune disorders, including diabetes (DPT vaccine); asthma and allergies (DPT/HIB vaccines); and yes, autism (MMR vaccine). The injection of live virus directly into the blood stream, can, in some cases, cause the immune system to go haywire and begin attacking major organs of the body. Are we willing to take yet another vaccination before long term studies have been done? Children already receive 33 jabs before they enter school now. I think caution is the key word here. And, that doesn't even address the interference of government into private issues, parents, and personal beliefs.

NotPolitical wrote on Mar 18, 2007 6:04 PM:In regards to the rebuttal to my first comment for "To Not Political", read the whole thing! I agreed that it was too soon for Gardasil to be required as the long term effects are unknown.