Yesterday in New York Times-Gardasil

[Asiago]

This is a new article on Gardasil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/he...er=rss&emc=rss

“We feel confident recommending people get the vaccine; the benefits still outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Barbara A. Slade, the study’s first author and medical officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which did the study together with the Food and Drug Administration. She added, “This is the most complete picture we have.”

Nevertheless, an accompanying editorial questioned whether any level of risk is acceptable when inoculating a healthy population against a disease that can be prevented through screening.

“There are not a huge number of side effects here, that’s fairly certain,” said the editorial writer, Dr. Charlotte Haug, an infectious disease expert from Norway, about the vaccine. “But you are giving this to perfectly healthy young girls, so even a rare thing may be too much of a risk.

“I wouldn’t accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she’s older, she’ll never get cervical cancer,” Dr. Haug said in an interview. “You don’t have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.”

[Marnica]

I wouldn't expect anything less from any study done by the CDC and FDA.

This Dr. Haug is right about the fact that NO level of risk is acceptable!

[not_telling]

This was in the Phila. Inquirer today and there's a part where they talk about the big hullabaloo people raised when some states were considering making it mandatory, since it's about preventing sexually transmitted disease. People were not comfortable with the "sex" part - if I remember correctly, these people were the ones who thought it would make it seem "ok to have sex."

My question: where's the hullabaloo about requiring Hep B for young children??

Using the same logic, shouldn't people be worried that it makes it "ok " to inject drugs and have unprotected sex?