I did Google one interesting fact from this one: The Tango and Tangle of Human Papillomavirus and the Human Genome.
(Toward the end of the article) The "tangle" is trying to figure out what these factors might be and how the relationships among virus variation, host variation, and persistence lead to cancer. Long-term follow-up of vaccinated individuals should reveal whether the virus is eliminated
They don't know for sure, they're still studying it.
-----
Many people don't consider seat belts, fluoridated toothpaste, or the Second Amendment necessary -- sometimes the government has to override those opinions.
Equating seat-belts and toothpaste to the second amendment is asinine.
The second amendment is a right, and not subject to the 'opinion' of ANY political office holder.
-----
and genital warts may soon become part of the schedule of vaccinations for preteen girls
There's that word again....MAY
The CDC had had a meeting, but has no public recommendation to date.
-----
Here are a few accessible articles:
Human Papillomavirus Type 16 Infections
The 2-year absolute risk for cervical precancer attributable to infection by human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16), the most common and oncogenic HPV type, in the millions of women diagnosed annually with equivocal or mildly abnormal cytologyhas not been definitively evaluated.
Human Papillomavirus Types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 in the Majority of Cervical Carcinomas
However, although the oncogenic potential of E6 and E7 is well established and the expression of E6 and E7 has been found to be necessary for conversion to malignancy (19, 31, 52), few studies have so far been performed to verify the actual presence of these transcripts in clinical cervical carcinoma samples. Such a study would provide valuable information, as the detection of the E6 and E7 transcripts of high-risk HPV types could serve as a better risk evaluation factor than DNA detection for the development of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and the progression to cervical carcinoma (25, 28, 29, 41).
(Emphasis mine)
-----
The bottom line is that a vaccination should be given based on the wishes of the parents and established, acknowledged medical facts, not the mandates of government.
They are NOT the government's children.
The Second Amendment is not a right; it is a restriction upon the government. The only reason it exists is because the representatives of the people voted it into existence. Some people think it shouldn't exist; fortunately wiser people have made it constitutional law. Some people think Texans shouldn't be vaccinated; the duly-elected government of Texas, operating under its constitution, the legislation of its representatives, and its governor, disagrees.
Regarding Tango and Tangle, they are still looking for the mechanism by which HPV causes cancer, and the reasons why some people get cancer who don't have HPV and vice versa. They do not question the fact that certain HPV variants are a carcinogenic. I don't think anyone does -- not seriously, anyway.
From the JNCI paper:
We demonstrated in this population of mostly young women with either equivocal or mildly abnormal cervical cytology that having a baseline, prevalent HPV16 infection (HPV16+) was associated with a very high absolute risk of [severe dysplasia or invasive carcinoma] over a 2-year period, a fivefold greater risk than the collective risk attributable to other prevalent oncogenic HPV type infections. ... Of note, six of the seven women (median age = 36 years) diagnosed as having cancer were HPV16+.
It is noteworthy that women who were HPV negative by either HPV test had low, although nonzero, risk of ≥CIN3 over 2 years and that women with either ASCUS or LSILs who were negative by both tests had an approximately 1% risk of [severe dysplasia or invasive carcinoma] over 2 years (data not shown). We suggest that this residual risk for precancer is attributable to failure of cervical cell sampling, false-negative test results, or incident disease. These data highlight that no test or combination of tests will provide perfect negative reassurance for cervical precancer or cancer.
From the JCM paper:
The oncogenic potential of the human papillomavirus (HPV) early genes E6 and E7 is well established. ... The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the majority of cases of cervical neoplasia has been considered evidence of an etiological role of HPV in cervical cancer. The association is strong, consistent, and specific to a limited number of viral types (2, 5, 32, 46).
It is universally acknowledged that HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer, but greatly increases the risk. You seem to be arguing that because it is not the sole cause -- or because not everyone with HPV gets cancer -- then anti-HPV measures are not anti-cancer measures. Is that right? It looks like you're caught in one of those forest/trees things.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that seventy percent of wumps are associated with widget washing. Everyone washes a widget at some point at another, but only a few of them get wumps. Those that do get it suffer greatly, then they die. Of people with wumps, seventy percent have been washing widgets. And although widgets are devilishly complex little things, widgeologists have made great inroads into learning how, exactly, they cause wumps. (A wumpogenic protein was discovered that deactivates the antiwump genes of the unlucky victim.) Building on this research, Werck, a great American corporation, discovers Wardasil, which wards off those widgets that cause wumps. They perform a trial with over 20,000 participants, and determine that it's over 98% effective in protecting even the most zealous widget-washer from wumps. Would you then say that Wardasil is not a true wump ward, based on the imperfect (although universally accepted) understanding of widgets, or do you just have issues with the washers?