It's not a vaccination against getting cancer though. It's a vaccination against the sexually transmitted virus that causes genital warts. Some strains of that virus can increase the likelihood of cervical cancer, though even among people who have the virus only a small percentage ever develop into cancer. Otherwise 30%-50% of all women would develop cervical cancer since that is the HPV infection rate that you and others keep claiming. In reality it affects a fraction of a single percent of the population (about 5,000 people in the U.S. anually).
By calling this drug an anti-cancer vaccine you are giving it an improper medical description and a deceptive label. The purpose of doing so is clearly political because "anti-cancer vaccine" has a better ring to it than "genital wart vaccine" even though that's what it is. Vaccines are weakened, dead, or altered strains of pathogenic microorganisms that stimulate the body's immunity to those organisms. They prevent diseases you can "catch" externally from other persons. Cancer is not "caught" externally - it is a genetic mutation of the body's own cells.
If you are going to keep arguing for Perry's position on this particular vaccine I will respect your right to do so even though I disagree with it. You're entitled to take that opinion. You are not entitled to misapply language by calling this an "anti-cancer" vaccine though, nor are you entitled to suggest that people who oppose this STD vaccine are opposed to curing cancer.
Thank you for calling it what it is. This "anti-cancer" nonsense is pathetic. Those who even use such a term show their ignorance of scientific fact, as if cancer can be "caught" from someone. I think FR should call this by the correct label you have listed...ANTI GENITAL WART VACCINE. Somehow, I don't think Gov. Perry will find that as politically effective.
About 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US each year, and about 4000 die. The death rate has gone way down in the last 50 years because of pap smears, but it still has a rather high mortality.
There is another mortality that no one else here seems to have mentionned - fetal mortality. If a woman has abnormal cells on a pap smear, the doctor will do a biopsy. Depending on the extent of the abnormal cells, there may be a cone biopsy, which can weaken the cervix and cause pregnancy loss. I corresponded online with a woman who lost first a single baby and then twins after a cone biopsy, and another who lost one. It was a concern in my s-i-l's pregnancies as well.
There ARE other infections besides HPV that can lead to abnormal cells, and the woman who lost three babies found out she had a mycoplasma infection when abnormal cells were found again after the second loss - treatment cleared them up. Too late for her babies. It would be wise to be screened for other infections before having a cone biopsy.
Mrs VS