[RepubMommy]

I think what is being lost here is the fact that it's a vaccine for HPV not cancer. It so happens that cervical cancer CAN be prevented because of this vaccine.I could go back and forth with you, but I think it's pointless. You keep saying "it can be caught"- once you are diagnose with HPV, that is a lifetime disease and there is no cure, you just have to learn to live with your disease and attempt to prevent flare ups, etc. So the way you are using the term "it can be caught" is misleading IMO because once you have the disease, it's not going away, unless I am misintepreting what you are appempting to say. I agree about not wantng it to be a mandate, howeverif chances shows there are little risks and the HPV virus can be prevented in some istances, I am all for a vaccine with parents and young women making an informed decision. As I said in a previous post, a number of my colleagues have turned out + for this and these are professional women with children ( I am taking offense to the poster who is saying over and over that the government is calling your daughter a whore" nonsense, it's ignorant), so a preventative measure for something that is tunring out to be fairly common is not necessarily a negative stance, IMO.

[Nevernow]

It's not cureable but it's treatable. I do keep saying it can be caught. Because it can, and it can be treated. I'm not trying to say it will go away, I'm trying to say that a vaccine which hasn't been tested extensively enough, doesn't prevent all cervical cancer and strains of HPV, and isn't transmittable without sex (as I understand it, some forms of HPV are, but these particular strains aren't) shouldn't be mandated. It's 4 strains out of 100. You still need to get tested for cervical cancer from other strains, and you're still at risk for getting HPV. There's no telling how long the vaccine will last, either, since they didn't study that for more than 5 years. It will NOT prevent all cervical cancer, even Merck says you need to keep getting pap smears for dangerous HPV, even though they market it as an anti-cancer vaccine. I suppose anti-STD vaccine doesn't sound as appealing.

If it turns out to be safe, I think it should be a choice. I think it should be a choice now, even. I don't think it should be pulled from the market, like I said. Basically, I'm agreeing with you, so I don't know why we're arguing, except that my research shows that it's risky enough that I'll avoid it until more is known about it. I haven't seen anyone say it should be pulled from the market. I've seen people say they wouldn't take it, and they'd recommend against taking it, but I haven't seen people say that no one should be allowed to choose this vaccine. Maybe I missed it, though. What people are against is the fact that an anti-STD vaccine is being mandated, especially when it hasn't been tested very much.