No, you didn't mention those. But I can find no other logical explanation for why you are so totally against a vaccine that is as safe as any other vaccine on the market, and which protects against the strains of HPV responsible for about 70% of all HPV-related dysplasias and cancers. I really don't know why anyone would be against protecting people from real disease and saving real lives in favor of fear-mongering. The worst part about the fear-mongering is that in its worst-case scenarios, the alleged death toll from the vaccine isn't even a fraction of the real death toll from HPV every year. And you *still* don't want people to be vaccinated.
The American Cancer Society page you've linked does not detail the statistics you've listed.
Actually, it does. I skipped the part where I used a calculator to come up with percentages and so forth. But my numbers were *all* from that website. Your computer has a calculator, too; you can derive the same numbers from that data.
"HPV is rarely passed from a mother to her baby. The rare cases where this has happened do not involve the types of HPV that can cause cancer." This indicates your "babies who get it from their mothers" scenario is little more than outlandish fear mongering on your part.
Then I guess that the gynecologist I worked with who told me about the babies--some of whom she delivered--who had extensive HPV infections in their mouths and throats requiring, in some cases, upwards of 100 surgeries to scrape warts from their throats so they could breathe was just being sensationalist. Yes, those were babies who acquired HPV from their mothers during birth, just like I said. I suppose I should dismiss all the other stories she told me about her HPV patients, as well. Like the 19 year old hysterectomy patient, or the 67 year old patient who, even after a hysterectomy, STILL had HPV lesions. And the pictures she showed me of cervixes so disfigured by HPV that they look more like a mass of hamburger than a discreet body part were just photoshopped, right?
No one here is advocating that you not be allowed to pursue vaccination for yourself. Certainly not I. Feel free and I sincerely hope you never find yourself regretting the decision.
Oh, I'm well past the age at which an HPV vaccination would do me any good. I sure as heck wish it would have been available when I was young enough to benefit. The pain of HPV treatment isn't just physical, you know. Once you've had a dysplasia, then every time you go to the doctor, there's a fear. There's a knot in your stomach when you are awaiting the results of the PAP test, because you never again can be confident that it's just a "routine" test. What if it's abnormal again? What if the dysplasia is more extensive this time? What if a carcinoma is found? I think every woman that's had a dysplasia (or worse yet, cancer) lives with those fears for the rest of her life.
A few years ago, when my 17 year old intern complained that her arm was sore after receiving her third Gardasil shot, I was happy for her, because her chances of developing dysplasia or cancer are so much lower now that she's protected against HPV-16 and HPV-18. The discomfort of a localized vaccine reaction (common to many vaccines) is NOTHING next to the pain of a colposcopy or dysplasia surgery.
Dr. Diane Harper was part of the team that carried out the safety and efficacy studies for Gardasil that helped to get it approved (click). You may find her grasp of the scientific method exceeds your own and certainly her statistical analysis is more sound.
In that whole article, I saw nothing that indicates how well Dr. Harper understands the scientific method, nor did I see a single statistical analysis. What I saw was that whatever Dr. Harper might have said was exceedingly difficult to discern because most science reporters have only a vague grasp of the subjects being discussed, and their interpretation ends up being an unscientific muddled mess that bears little resemblance to the original subject. (Note: that article *does* remind me of why I do not read articles about scientific matters that are directed towards the general public.) If you think that that article represented solid scientific method or sound statistical analyses, then that only reflects that your understanding of either is rudimentary, at best.