Replies

I think I will have my 10 year old daughters get this vaccine when they are older like when they are 16-18. But I'd like it to be used a few years to see what the real side effects are before I start giving it to my daughters who are not sexually active.

I do not want the govt in on my husband's and mines decision.

But I'd like it to be used a few years to see what the real side effects are...

Exactly. I would be very surprised if this was tested extensively on prepubescent girls to see if there are any developmental, or other side effects. I am not against the vaccination, I am against the government deciding what my is best for my daughter.

One of the things I got to thinking about this was that it's been posted on this thread in a couple places that the vaccine needs to be repeated about every 5 years because it's not effective any longer than that.

So thinking that through, if that's the case, that means that every five years for the rest of her life, that woman needs to have this vaccination to protect her. And if she misses it, she's susceptible to the virus and therefore capable of spreading it.

Now, what's the point in making it mandatory for 10-11 year old girls get it if it's effectiveness is gone just about the time most of them are starting to become sexually active? Shouldn't they then make it mandatory for all 15-16 year olds, too? And then for 20-21 year olds who are even more likely to be sexually active,.. and so on, and so forth,... So what's the point of making it mandatory for that age only and not all the other ages?

So then, are they now in a position of having to make it mandatory for all women of all ages? And how would this be tracked? And how would it be enforced?

Nice little money maker for Merck, producing a vaccine that needs to be repeated so often for the rest of someone's life.

As an aside, pneumonia kills more people a year than cervical cancer and yet we don't see anyone mandating the pneumonia vaccine. As a matter of fact, the doctors I've talked to won't give it to prevent pneumonia until you've had it at least once. What's the point of giving a vaccine AFTER the disease has struck and lung damage has occurred not to mention that pneumonia can progress pretty quickly and kill someone in a matter of hours to days.? I thought the idea of a vaccine was to prevent you from getting it in the first place.