Even in April of 2005, the medical world knew this new vaccine was going to cause major controversy. Here it is 2007 and just as predicted in this article, you can not turn a channel without someone or something bringing attention to this controversy. This article drew on a few good points that I think is worth repeating.
It is estimated that cervical cancer could jump fourfold by year 2005. Now this is the estimate for the world, which includes third world countries. This vaccine can cure the papilloma virus that is sexually transmitted, only. But the vaccine is only helpful if given before a girl becomes sexually active. The article gives two different views and one is this will give excuse to have sex at a younger age. (Which you can find this view with topics like this everywhere.)Besides, it appears no one knows the potential out come of giving this to young girls and the article points out this outcome results may be a few decades down the road. This seems to be my point!
I have noticed that the news is covering stories of this sort and I understand states are arguing over which state is going to mandate that all young girls must have this vaccine. But we don't know what this medicine is doing to our daughters and it might be too late when we do. Remember, this article points out, this is a problem mostly in third worlds. Life in third world countries is a totally different ball game. Women live in extreme conditions all over the world. Because of this article, I can see things differently. It was suggested that men be forced to take this vaccine since it was men who was spreading the problem in these third worlds. I thought this had merit and a much better idea.
I went looking for more information on this subject when I saw school boards in West Virginia and other states was making mandatory to have this vaccine in order to register for school. This vaccine was to treat a world problem, not to treat young American grade school girls in the states. Not down playing the amount of cases of cervical cancer we have in this country. It has dropped over the years. Which this article points out clearly in more then one paragraph.
It clearly stated in the article, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline had positive things to say about the clinical trails and felt the use of this drug could be passed as early as 05. Well this is 2007 and we see it's use being force to give our daughters a vaccine that we must wait for several decades before the results will be apparent. This article gives good stats and offers good understandable information that I wasn't able to understand on the news. I know eliminating sexually transmitted disease is a problem around the world. After reading this article I don't feel it's important enough for me to give my daughter medicine that has no long term effects.