There are two groups of people on FR who are objecting to Gardasil. The first are the folks who -- like yourself -- apparently object to all vaccines. I have nothing to say to you and them (and yes I'm a father and grandfather) other than the benefit conferred by vaccines over the last 150 years has been truly incalculable. Thanks to vaccinations, we no longer have to worry about yellow fever, or small pox or tuberculosis or polio or any of a number of diseases that maimed, crippled and killed our ancestors. Vaccinations have increased the quality of life in the developed world more than any other development in the history of human civilization.
The second group of folks have concerns specific to Gardasil. It's to that second group (that comprises the majority here, I believe) that I was speaking. I think their concerns are either ill-informed or based heavily on prudery regarding any sexually transmitted disease.
I respect your opinion but disagree that prudery is the basis for objection. I'd say there's another class, the group who says if it's good for the gander it's good for the goose.
My initial objections [Monday's first post] were that the data are insufficient for a condition which is not epidemic.
Later in the week, as I received a FReepmail from someone with a bad experience and I had time to research and visit nvic.org, I realized that there have been many people who have had adverse reactions to vaccines.
Do I think that means they were all too soon on the market? I don't know. I was lucky. I do think my parents would be horrified if they were alive to see what I have this week. The would probably think that's what killed my sister, who died in infancy.
And the third are those who simply want the ability to choose for themselves, as opposed to having government mandate their actions.