That's all I need to see. Do. Not. Want.

Carol, I wish you had done a quick confirmatory search before publishing the National Vaccine Information Center's claim. The CDC reports that the vaccine was tested on 11,000 girls ages 9-26 and showed no serious adverse affects in any. Although I don't feel that the HPV vaccine should be mandatory, the Center's alarmist rhetoric on the dangers of vaccines in general has little basis in fact and discourages the use of other, even more important vaccines. I wish you had looked at their website with a more critical eye.

I think this is too new and too controversial for authorities to be on a bandwagon to make it mandatory. Why not let parents choose for minor girls, and girls over 18 choose for THEMSELVES?

Recently, I have seen a girlfriend struggle with this over her 13 year old daughter. She took the girl to her own OB (the daughter has never had an internal exam) just to have the first of the 3 vaccine shots. The daughter flipped out over the thought of having a shot, leaving the mom in a position to have to "explain why it was necessary".

My friend is deeply religious, though not a rightwing nutjob by any means. She said she was utterly flummoxed by how to tell her daughter this was to protect her from cancer caused by having sex with multiple partners!

As in this Broadsheet item by Carol Lloyd, conservative concerns are often denigrated by claiming that they "would rather have a daughter die of cancer than have sex" or that "they think having a vaccine will cause a girl to go out and be promiscuous". I sort of accepted these ideas blankly until my friend's experience.

How do you tell a girl as young as 11 that you EXPECT her to have multiple partners -- when this violates your own moral beliefs and the beliefs you are raising your child with? Women who stay virgins until marriage and marry another virgin and remain monogamous are at ZERO risk of HPV. Of course, this doesn't describe many women's real lives.

I am not opposed to the vaccine, and I would have it myself and if I had a daughter who was around 15-18, I think (despite some risks) that I would want her to have it. And I know that some girls have sex at 12 and younger, despite their parent's naive wishes for them. But asking parents to have a sixth grader vaccinated and tell her at a very vulnerable age that they genuinely expect her to be having a large number of sexual partners is a HUGE problem for many parents, even moderate and liberal ones.

There are many issues related to the strict age range that Merck has determined for the vaccine (yes, some Dr.'s will give it "off label" but not most and try collecting from your insurance company if you are over the age range!). They are making some pretty extreme assumptions about who is sexually active, at what age and with how many partners -- things that are not easily quantified. I personally know of 12 year olds who have ALREADY had sex with multiple partners (and probably already exposed to HPV and thus not good candidates for the vaccine) and 30 year old virgins, who might very much benefit from it. What about the 45 year old woman, in a faithful marriage for 25 years, who finds herself divorced and dating again?

Like a lot of women, I have MANY questions -- I have written to Merck and emailed them with ZERO REPONSE -- and they are not being answered.

My first reaction was "No way, no how!" to the idea of mandatory vaccines. Then I realized what a moron and hypocrite I am being. Most of us as infants and children had mandatory vaccines against measels, mumps, rubella, smallpox, whooping cough, and a host of others that I cannot think of now. In other words, mandatory vaccines aren't necessarily Orwellian, although I do think each new one should be well discussed and thought out before people allow it to become mandatory. Based on what I have read of this one so far, it seems like a good idea to require this vaccination.

It claims that Merck tested the vaccine on only 1,200 girls under age 16, with some reporting temporary side effects after getting the vaccine including nausea, fever, fainting, numbness and facial paralysis.

The facial paralysis and numbness indicate some kind of nerve damage.

Now remember -- the human brain is basically a giant collection of nerve cells.

Maybe they should start testing this vaccine for cognitive impairment. Anything that can make the nerves in your face go numb can do the same thing to the nerves in your brain.

Measles and mumps epidemics used to sweep through schools and leave scores of dead children in their wake within a matter of weeks.

THAT is why measles and mumps vaccines are mandatory for children entering school.

The HPV problem is different. It takes years and years for cancer to develop. You do not see an HPV epidemic sweep through a school and leave scores of dead bodies in its wake in a matter of weeks.

The neurological side effects of this vaccine are troubling and they need more research.

Any drug that causes numbness above the neck needs to be thoroughly tested for its complete neurological effects. If you're damaging nerves above the neck -- well, that's where your brain sits, and your brain is filled with nerves.

Do we want to make mandatory a vaccine that could potentially cause brain damage? Is it worth reducing the risk of cervical cancer if the cost is knocking a few percent off of your child's IQ?

This is where we need large numbers in a large scale clinical trial.

I'm shocked that a drug with such troubling neurological side effects was approved so quickly with so little testing of its potential to damage the brain.

Why doesn't Salon do some real investigative reporting.

Why was Gardasil fasttracked? Was it because it really was the best drug available, or did it have to do with Merck's lobbying and fear of competition.

Who wrote the bill? In other states, it was Merck that wrote the bill.

Why doesn't Salon do some real investigative reporting.

Were there flaws in the tests? It's been reported that the "control" was contaminated with elements from the experimental drug. This would artificially reduce the numbers of problems associated only with the drug.

Who was tested? Is it true that almost no one in the targeted age group was tested?

How was it tested? Is it true there were no long term longitudinal studies of the drug used to detect long term problems caused by the drug?

What were the results? Is it true that the test did not prove conclusive in the targeted age group, but conclusions had to be inferred from older age groups?

How does it compare? Is it true that Gardasil would be the most expensive mandatory vaccine? (If not the most expensive vaccine?)

What are the other uses of the money? Is it true that women that get Gardasil still need an annual pap smear? Is it true that with annual pap smears, most of the occurrences of cervical cancer are detectable at an early state to make them much more treatable? What has been happening to the rates of cervical cancer of the years? Would a better use of the money be to buy Gardasil, or to make low cost annual women's health clinics available to all populations?

When will the target age group get cervical cancer? Is it true that the targed age group is 10 year old girls that will probably not get cervical cancer for 25-40 years?

What will happen to medicine and cervical cancer in the next 25-40 years? Will this vaccine be obsoleted by new treatments in the 25-40 years these girls will have before they come down with cervical cancer?

Are you folks reporters?