Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: anonsquared
If Perry truly believed that this vaccination would halt the spread of HPV, then why didn’t he require teenage boys to get it too?

That was almost 5 years ago.

More recently:

July 2011 - A Vaccine May Shield Boys Too Until recently, Gardasil was a girls-only proposition. Approved for young women ages 9 to 26, the vaccine promised a great benefit: protection against four strains of sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), including two that can lead to cancer of the cervix, vagina and vulva.

Yet the vaccine has been a tough sell. It requires three shots, often painful, over the course of seven months. So far, only one in four teenage girls younger than 18 have completed all three shots.

Now, in the wake of new research suggesting that the vaccine protects against other cancers, Gardasil is increasingly marketed as an important vaccine for boys, too. The Food and Drug Administration has approved it for young men ages 9 to 26, expanding the list of indications just last December. ....."

100 posted on 09/13/2011 8:54:28 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: Cincinatus' Wife
Quoted from the article in your post:

"When first approved in late 2009, Gardasil appeared to offer little to boys aside from a selfless opportunity to curb the sexual transmission of HPV to future partners."

So I ask again, if the purpose of the legislation was to halt the spread of HPV, why didn't he require it for boys?

121 posted on 09/13/2011 9:00:15 AM PDT by anonsquared
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson