[jalisco555]

First of all, whenever I comment on Gardasil on a thread on FR someone comes along accusing me of being a Merck stooge. For the record, I have never received a nickel from Merck. In fact, as a cytopathologist I can potentially see my livelihood threatened by widespread Gardasil adoption- i.e. less need for Pap smears, a major part of my livelihood. But even if I was the CEO of Merck it wouldn't change the facts of Gardasil's efficacy.

People get vaccinated and people die. Coincidence does not prove causality. There is no evidence linking the deaths or other injuries to Gardasil. Gardasil is very well studied. The various clinical trials have collectively involved tens of thousands of subjects over several years. None of these have shown any difference in death or serious outcomes between Gardasil recipients and controls. Sure, there have been a few deaths in each group but no greater than that expected actuarially in people that age.

[BenKenobi]

Ok, thanks.

I think we can dispense with the accusations that I’m with the anti-vaccination folks. And you aren’t with Merck.

I can see why you would support Gardasil. The problem is that the HPV vaccine doesn’t target all of the strains of HPV, in that people can and will get infected with HPV despite the vaccination.

Every single vaccination that has been required has had a high effectiveness against the disease targetted. DPT, MMR, they will protect a certain ratio of the people who would otherwise contract the disease.

Due to the fact that Gardasil only treats certain strains, it doesn’t reach the same threshold as DPT and MMR. That combined with the fact that it’s not a communicable disease, are both reasons why it shouldn’t be a required vaccine.

That being said, if people wish to get the vaccination, that should be their option. Like the flu shots, there is a certain segment of the population that will benefit, sexually active folks. Beyond that the Gardasil vaccine is not beneficial, and ought not to be required.