I'm a little surprised, honestly, at the bent of the reporting on the HPV vaccine, especially here in Salon. Let's take it a piece at a time.

Of course I'm pleased that there's a vaccine that is shown to reduce the risk of cervical cancer. Who wouldn't be? But what do the longitudinal studies show? What are the side effects? What are the long-term risks? What are the possible neurolgical health risks? Do these vaccines contain thimerosal? Have any of these potential problems been considered? Given the fact that Salon has been in forefront of reporting on issues of this type (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html), I'm somewhat surprised not to see these types of issues mentioned. This vaccine was only approved by the FDA last year; do we know enough to start injecting it into girls as young as 11?

In addition, the reports we hear down here in Austin are that Merck has been lobbying the members of of the Texas legislature heavily to pass the "mandatory vaccination" bill. I can't help but be nervous when I hear that the folks who are going to make the most money out of the deal are the ones pushing the bill the hardest. They're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Um, yeah, right.

And then I can't help but be amused (in a sick and twisted way) by the fact there it is here in Texas--the reddest of Red states, a state where suggesting that we give up capital punishment, or have gun control, or introduce state income tax would be an invitation to political suicide--it is in Texas of all places that this sort of classic "nanny State" procedure is occurring. California or Massachusetts, maybe, but Texas? Did I fall through the rabbit hole?

But finally, the thing that I find the most bizarre is that the argument against the vaccine is not on libertarian grounds, or health grounds, but on right wing-nut, anti-abstinence sex-ed grounds. Folks are up in arms not because the state is forcing a new drug onto their kids, or because their kids are being used as guinea pigs for a multi-billion dollar drug company that may (or may not) have state legislators in its pocket, but on the dubious theory that an 11 year-old getting a shot may thereby be encouraged to jump in the backseat with Johnny?

Now folks, I don't know whether or not this drug is, in the long run, the Right Thing for my 11 year-old daughter--the daughter who already may have suffered neurological damage from the other vaccinations forced on her. I need to do more research, and I sure don't appreciate having my hand forced by Gov. Perry, no matter what his intentions. But I do wish we were spending more time debating the medical facts, and less time worrying about what the abstinence-only folks thought, you know?