HPV Vaccine: Mandatory?
 

Ok.... so I just heard on CNN or CNBC that starting in 2008, Texas has made it mandatory for girls entering 6th grade to get the HPV vaccine.

I don't know much about this, except that it is supposed to prevent HPV and cervical cancer. One of my sisters that works in a pharmacy said that this vaccine isn't good because it's actually injecting HPV into your body (like the flu vaccine) and if you don't have the virus in your body, then you'll most likely get HPV anyways... or something like that.

Does anyoen know more about this?

The vaccine is called Gardasil. I actually asked the nurse at my GYN's office in Nov/Dec about it (when I went it for my Depo shot). She said that my GYN was actually recommending for her patients to get the shot.

www.gardasil.com has more information.

Here's what I don't get, Merck is saying that girls/women from 9-26 should get the shot, what about women older than that? What about women who are older than 26 but not sexually active (ie. haven't been in years or still virgins)? Shouldn't they get the vaccine as well?


I'm not to sure I would want my 9 year old getting a vaccine for HPV. Yes, if when she gets older she comes to me and say's "I'm having sex". Hell, she be taken to the GYN and put on BCP's and given the vaccine. But I'm not sure I would want my 9 year old having the shot and thinking "hey it's okay when I get older to have sex". Because no matter what parents say, teenagers are going to experiment. We can just guide them to make the right decisions (I'm not a parent but a teacher, which means I basically act like a parent).

I imagine that it's like any other vaccination where you are given a weakened or inactive organisms. The chance of getting an infection from the vaccine is rare just as though you were being given an MMR or tetanus vaccination which most of us received when we were infants.

I don't necessarily agree with it being required- I think it should be a parental choice. Particularly since it's not a disease like TB, measles, etc.

I don't remember the particular explanation, but it is not like a flu shot. You can't get HPV from the shot- something about it not having the viral DNA.

I had my first dose of Gardasil a couple weeks ago- it's a series of 3 shots, each 2 months apart. It was just approved by my insurance company for 26 year olds on January 1st, so I'll be able to get all three doses in by the time I turn 27. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why it's limited like that. I had absolutely no side effects from it, aside from the injection site being slightly sore if I touched or bumped it.

HPV is scary, particularly for women who don't get to the gyno on a regular basis. There are no symptoms (well, aside from the strains that cause genital warts) and its not really detected until there's been a change in your cells that is seen on the pap and follow up testing. HPV itself isn't necessarily a huge deal, but that it can lead to much bigger issues (i.e. cervical cancer) its not something to mess around with.

Gardasil has not been extensively tested in women over 26 which is why it's not FDA approved for women older than that. The Gardasil fact sheet says that research is still being conducted on the effectiveness of the vaccine on women 27+.

If it's proven safe over time, I think Gardasil should be required just like any other vaccine. If we can essentially eradicate cervical cancer with this vaccine, then I see it as a matter of national -- not sexual -- health.

I would absolutely get my daughter to get the vaccine as soon as she was old enough. For me, it's not a matter of my daughter thinking it's okay to have sex. If, God forbid, my daughter were a victim of sexual assault or molestation she would at least be protected from HPV. Besides, I got hepatitis vaccinations when I was in middle school (some strains are sexually transmitted) and I never got the idea that it was okay to have sex or anything like that. It was just another routine vaccine for me.

I probably wouldn't even get into the shot's purpose with my daughter. It's not like my mom or dad ever sat down with me and explained how TB or polio was contracted. I just knew I had to get a bunch of shots.

It just bugs me that as a 27 year old I can't get the shot.

Rephrase, I can but I'll have to probably pay a butt load out of pocket because my insurance company won't cover it. I'm sorry the risk for cervical cancer or genital warts doesn't just suddenly disappear the moment you turn 27 years old. I find it asine that 27+ women cannot get the shot with their insurance covering it.

I wonder how it works if there is a history of cancer in the family. Cancer is cancer.

Maybe I should contact Merck and volunteer to be part of their 'research' on 27+ women. :D

I'm wondering why people have issues with their daughters getting this vaccine when many 12 or 13 year olds are getting Hep B shots.

Yeah, I got the prescription too, but I'm not getting it unless I get a favorable second opinion.

I've heard that Merck is really pushing states to require it--because if there's ever a recall or problems with it, the fact that it would be governmentally mandated would relieve Merck of any liability. Cervical cancer isn't a major health issue here as it is in developing nations--where it's the cancer with the highest mortality rate. Also, the cervical cancer rate has been declining so much. So, I don't understand why this is such a major deal with states.

On the Gardasil fact sheet my doctor gave me, they said that there would be more research done on women over 27 and men.

I have mixed feelings.

One the one hand, because we as individuals typically don't pay full cost for our health care (in some cases because we're in an employment pool for insurance, in others because we're government employees for whom health care is paid like the military, or in others because we get public assistance because we're poor), it seems a little bit like the agents of the state can/should require that we take actions that will limit our health risks and health cost down the road.

On the other hand, requiring this vaccination of sixth or seventh graders to enroll in public schools, which is what I think the Texas governor just did, seems like gross interference in private individuals' lives.

In the other cases that I can think of, required vaccinations are for diseases that are transmitted through casual contact. (As far as I know, hepatitis vaccines are recommended but not required, right?) It's hard for me to see the compelling reason for the state to require this vaccine for school. For enrollment in insurance coverage, sure. As a condition of receiving public health services, sure. But to attend middle school, I don't think so.

ETA: my guess is that in women over 27, the assumption is partially that you're fairly likely to have already been exposed to the virus. Isn't the stat something like one in four college aged people?

I googled HPV rates and found this: "According to a 1997 American Journal of Medicine article, nearly three in four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their life."

Because you can get Hep B other ways besides sexual contact. I teach in a jail 2 nights a week and had to have the Hep B series--all the corrections teachers were required to--because the incidence of Hep B is so high in the prison population and we could acquire it from, say, blood. Hopefully not from spit, since somone always seems to be hacking and sneezing in my face over there.:(

Here is a news release I received from the NVIC which outline concerns over this new vaccine by a vaccine safety group. I've bolded a few of the more interesting passages.

Vaccine Safety Group Finds Serious Reactions, High Costs

VIENNA, Va., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Vaccine
Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed
consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate
the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all
pre- adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine
laws.

In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use
recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of
consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a
separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private
pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the
Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their
daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

"GARDASIL safety appears to have been studied in fewer than 2,000 girls aged 9 to 15 years pre-licensure clinical trials and it is unclear how long they were followed up. VAERS is now receiving reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, arthritis and other neurological problems in young girls who have received the shot," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher.

"At the same time, parents who take their daughters to private
pediatricians are going to be shocked to find that they will be paying two
to three times the widely publicized $360 cost for the three-dose series.
The cost is going to break the pocketbooks of parents and break the banks
of both insurance companies and taxpayers, when the reality is that almost
all cases of HPV- associated cervical cancer can be prevented with annual
pap screening of girls who are sexually active."

Between July 2006 and January 2007, there have been 82 reports of
adverse events filed with VAERS following receipt of GARDASIL by girls and
boys ranging in age from 11 to 27 years. Reaction reports have come from 21 states, including Virginia and the District of Columbia. All but three of
the reports were for adverse events which occurred within one week of
vaccination and more than 60 percent occurred within 24 hours of
vaccination.

"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are
neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN,
Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness,
temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction
of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands
and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during
what appears to be seizures." Debold added "The manufacturer product insert should include mention of syncopal episodes, seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome so doctors and parents are aware these vaccine adverse responses have been associated with the vaccine."

VAERS reports also indicate the doctors are administering GARDASIL to
girls and women at the same with Tdap, DT, meningococcal (Menactra),
hepatitis A, and other vaccines, even though the Merck product insert
states that, with the exception of hepatitis B vaccine, "Co-administration
of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied." There is no publicly
available information about how many of the 9 to 15 year old girls in
Merck's pre- licensure clinical trials received GARDASIL simultaneously
with hepatitis B vaccine.

Although approximately half of all families in the U.S. select a
pediatrician in private practice to provide their children routine care,
including vaccinations, children can receive government subsidized reduced
cost or free vaccinations in public health clinics through the Vaccines for
Children program if they cannot afford to pay for vaccinations administered
by private pediatricians. NVIC's survey of four private pediatric practices
in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. found that parents could be
charged anywhere from $525 to $930 for three GARDASIL shots depending upon whether the child was a first-time or current patient. Costs for the
vaccine plus an administration fee ranged from $140 to $275 per shot with
an additional office visit charge that fluctuated between $35 and $185
depending upon whether a nurse or doctor saw the child.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. and
most persons naturally clear the infection from the body without symptoms.
However, many years of chronic HPV infection is associated with a higher
risk of pre- cancerous changes in the cervix that can lead to cancer unless
diagnosed and treated promptly. High risk factors for chronic HPV infection
include smoking, long-term use of oral contraceptives and co-infection with
HIV, herpes and chlamydia. There has been a more than 70 percent drop in
cervical cancer deaths in American women since the 1950's due to routine
pap smears and nearly all cervical cancers can be prevented with regular
pap smear screening and treatment.

In its product manufacturer insert, Merck states that "Vaccination does
not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening. Women who receive
GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care." Merck also states that "The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established."


For more information about HPV infection and GARDASIL safety, including
NVIC's five-page report on GARDASIL adverse event reports to VAERS as well
as a direct link to VAERS reports, go to NVIC's website at
http://www.nvic.org.

Absolutely, I think all girls should be getting this vaccine. We have a vaccine that can actually help prevent a type of cancer, and people are all jumpy because they think it's going to give their daughters a free pass to go out and have sex. Promiscuity has very little to do with vaccinations, IMHO, and a whole lot to do with poor instillation of morals. If you raise your kids right, a vaccine isn't going to change that.

What hasn't really been discussed, and should be, is that little boys should be getting the vaccine as well. Women are at a much greater risk of developing squamous cell carcinoma related to the HPV virus, but the men are the ones spreading it to those women. Vaccinate boys and you have a shot at stopping the spread.

Women who want to get the shot who are unfortunately over the age of 26, its going to cost us almost 400 dollars and not counting the doctors visits. Totally bites!

It sucks that I'm being, basically, discriminated against (although I'm sure someone will argue the point with me) because I'm 27 and I want the shot to protect myself, and my insurance won't cover it. Bites just a bit!

Not to split hairs, but parents could resent the government telling them to have their sixth grade girls get this shot for reasons other than the idea that the shot will encourage sexual activity.

Personally, I've yet to see anyone actually make the claim that the vaccine will encourage sexual activity, but I see a lot of people assuming that people will oppose it for that reason.

Have I just missed the news stories?

NVIC is the oldest and largest parent-led organization advocating reform of mass vaccination programs.

Notice that it's 'parent-led', not physician- or scientist-led. These are the same people who passionately believe that autism is caused by vaccinations. I'd suggest checking with the CDC and the FDA before believing anything that comes from a crackpot fringe group. I consulted a PharmD and an OB/GYN about this and was soundly chastised for even suggesting that the NVIC was a reliable source of scientific information.

This comment was actually made by another poster in this thread.

Untrue.

What part of the news release was incorrect?

Can you say "agenda"?

PM_Mama00, I hope that your sister that works in the pharmacy is a cashier or general store manager or something and not a pharmacist or a pharm tech, because that would be scary that she's giving out misinformation like that.

Is this the comment you mean? It seems to suggest that sexual activity is taken for granted.

Yep. By the time they're having sex (and especially by the time they're admitting to having sex), it can be too late for the vaccine.

Chances are VERY good that your 9 year old would never even dream of going to you and saying that she's having sex. Like you said, teenagers are going to experiment. But why is getting a shot that only protects against a very specific and narrow set of strains of one disease going to encourage her to have sex? It's not like it's a magical anti-HIV shot or something (using HIV b/c its probably the most "scary" disease for a kid to think of getting from having sex). If she's educated and knows the facts before she has sex, she'll be prepared. But she doesn't necessarily need to know them at age nine. Treat it like any other vaccine.

Well, it's not too late, but that is the most effective. It protects against several strains of HPV. And I believe it's only good for like four years so you'll have to get them redone anyway.

She's a tech. She's not out freely giving this info. We asked her about it and she just told us. I guess she's heard about it from her doc and her co-workers. Maybe I got part of it wrong. This vaccine just came out to the public, right? I'm not sure I'd feel ok with giving my child this when it hasn't been out for that long.

Every part that isn't backed up by a reproducible, statistically significant scientific study published in a respectable journal. So, pretty much all of it.

It protects against 6 and 11, which cause genital warts, and 16 and 18, which are two of the most virulent cancer-causing strains.

As of now, they've confirmed the vaccine's effectiveness for up to four years. They don't know how long it lasts past four years, because the study was only four years long, so to cover their rear ends in case it doesn't last longer, they recommend boosters.

And hopefully four years from now they'll have ones that protect against even more strains- I believe they're working on that currently.

I think it's a really positive thing for women's health.

Co-sign! :)

Maybe I got it wrong, but I've been hearing "the Christian conservatives are all going to be against this because. . ."
and I haven't heard that kind of opposition. It seems to me that most parents will want to protect their daughters from cancer and aren't interested using fear to motivate their daughters to be chaste.

I understand that the vaccine has to be given before the onset of sexual activity to be effective, but I think the 9 year old end of the range just seems weirdly young to most of us.

Someone else earlier in the thread made the point that kids don't even usually know what they are being vaccinated against, so I suspect it would be pretty easy just to tell them it will keep them from getting a certain kind of cancer later without getting into HPV at that age at all.

Coincidence that tonight I was talking to a friend who has a close friend who is 23, and getting ready to undergo a hysterectomy because of cervical cancer. I can't even imagine...

Oh, absolutely! They definately have an agenda.. but doesn't Merck? The sale of the drug is expected to reach $1 billion dollars next year and could reach $3 billion per year. Merck has a lot riding on this vaccine. Don't forget, it's still smarting from all of the money it lost when Vioxx was pulled from the shelves.

The whole "seeding" of this vaccine was done brilliantly. When the company was close to FDA approval, it established a website "educating" the public of the connection between HPV and cancer. A consumer group has harshly criticized Merck for this, calling the website "deceptive" and "dishonest" and alleging that the site was only there to sell Gardasil.

The company then started bombarding the airwaves, magazines and newspapers with HPV "awareness." It then courted conservative political groups to try to ward off anticipated objections.

Merck has been doing some heavy duty lobbying among lawmakers as well, including courting the non-partisan group of female legislators, "Women in Government." For the past year, they've been bombarding the media with massive print and broadcast ads.

This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated to win over legislators and put lots of money in their pockets.

Aren't we jumping the gun on a mandate like this? Gardasil was only approved by the FDA in June of last year. Personally, I would like to take a "wait and see" attitude before rushing in and vaccinating the masses. We're only beginning to see the side effects of the vaccine, and the long term side effects are not known.. neither is how long the vaccine will act as a prophylactic aginst HPV.

Consider these facts:

-It will not fully protect everyone who receives the vaccine.

-There are more than 100 different types of HPV. Gardasil only protects against four types.

-Even if a woman is exposed to HPV, including one of the four types Gardasil protects against, there are no complications in the vast majority of women.

-It will not protect you from HPVs that you've already been exposed to.

-Women who have received the injections must still have yearly pap tests.

-Cervical cancer is already on the decline in the US. It's very treatable and there is usually a very good outcome when caught early (hence, PAP tests).

-Cervical cancer only accounts for less than 1 percent of all female cancers.

So... is it enough to run out and get your daughter vaccinated? Only you can decide. Oh wait.. you can't... if you live in Texas, the government has already decided for you.

Yeah, I don't like the government deciding it for you either.

And I agree that the efforts the Merck put into lobbying for making the vaccine mandatory are a little bit creepy and intrusive too.

(I've go no problem with them generally promoting the vaccine and the link between HPV and cancer, but I draw the line at their lobbying states to compel people to purchase and use their product.)

If it turns out that the vaccine will do what Merck hopes that it will, it's a move forward in women's health, and I hope that girls get vaccinated.

As soon as I heard about this vaccine I figured I would make sure my daughter got it before she "needs" it. Ideally, I'd prefer to wait for a couple years to see how it pans out long term though. I can confidently say she's not having sex yet because she's very open with me right now about that stuff.

However, I am opposed to the government requiring that she have it to attend school. I agree that it makes sense with highly infectious diseases such as the MMR, etc., but I think this one should be a parent's decision, not the government's. It's a matter of principle, not related to this particular vaccine.

If it's going to cost parents up to $900 to get the series, then that brings up a whole different problem because that's a hefty chunk of change for the government to require us to pay. Only the rich and well insured get to go to school then? It seems too similar to other government requirements.. they put the requirements in place, but don't fund it.

Regarding the cost. Our health dept. is offering the shots for 21 dollars total. 7 dollars per shot. I cannot imagine that a city of 100,000 is offering it at a ridiculous discount. Don't go to your doctor for vaccinations if you're going to have to pay for them out of pocket. My Dr. recommended me to the health dept. for my meningitis vaccine so I wouldnt' pay crazy amounts for it.

Oh and don't go to biased websites for your information either... talk to your doctor about it.

I don't think I agree with the HPV vaccination being mandatory to attend school, but on the other hand, I think that when people are told it's "optional" they'll think it's just not something they should bother with. Even with all the attention this shot has been getting lately, a lot women I know still think it's no big deal--it's just like everything else, they think they won't get HPV because they don't "sleep around" or "they're careful." Well, guess what...HPV is very, very common. Actually getting cervical cancer from an HPV infection is rare, yes, but how do they know they won't be in that small but unlucky percentage? They don't. And you don't actually have to have sex sex with someone to contract HPV, so they may think they're "safe" when they're actually not. It really sucks that Gardisil is so damn expensive, because obviously the cost is going to deter a lot of people who can't afford it or don't have insurance, and that's really unfortunate. This is a chance to possibly avoid getting cancer, for crying out loud, not to mention all the unpleasant stuff that goes along with treating problems caused by HPV. It ain't a picnic, believe me. I honestly feel that the decision on whether or not to get the vaccine should be left up to the parents and/or young ladies themselves instead of mandated by the government, but I also wish there was a way to impress on people just how important this is so they'll take it seriously.

Best statement so far made on this thread.

Last I read, the texas requirement was due to many pediatricians not giving the injection due to the costs they incur by giving it, storing it, etc. While insurance companies are paying for it, doctors are only receiving $5-10 more than the cost of the vaccine to them (ie insurance is paying 130$ but the injection costs the doctor $125 to purchase).

As for BlueAngels assertions

1)Yes, technically it won't cover everyone who receives it. That's a fact of medicine, not a reason to not get vaccinated. It does "reduce the risk" to such a degree that the benefits far outweigh the risks of getting the injection. That's the aim. Further, there's this thing called "herd immunity". Get enough people vaccinated so that infection cannot spread rapidly, and you end up nearly eradicating the disease. Typically, depending on the disease, herd immunity starts to take effect when between 75-90% of the population has been vaccinated. The public health benefits of required vaccination cannot be ignored.

2)It only protects against 4 types because those 4 types are responsible for the overwhelming majority of illness and cancer. 16 and 18 are responsible for nearly 90% of invasive cervical cancers, and some studies have found them in as many as 80% of non-invasive cancers as well. If you have to pick a strategy for preventing a cancer with a vaccine it only makes sense to pick the serotypes most commonly responsible particularly when they are THAT involved. It's just like with newborn screening for metabolic disorders, they only check for the 6 most common types of Cystic Fibrosis mutations, because those 6 mutations account for more than 90% of all CF cases. It's simply not cost-effective to look for or create immunity to every possible form of a disease.

3)I'd consider exposure to one of the serotypes Gardisil protects against to be significant, especially when one of the complications is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide.

Girls and young women have generally under the age of 26 have rapidly replacing cervical cells.

HPV rapidly infects cells that are constantly dividing. Cervical cells generally do not divide that much as a woman ages.

The thing about HPV is that it's a gateway virus for other more virulent STI's, such as Herpes and HIV.

HPV vaccination may only cover 4-5 strains but it is a first line of defense for those girls and young women to never develop a horrific illness starting in their 30's or 40's or later.

Even though cervical cancer rates are not as high as breast cancer rates, the treatment efficacy is poor with the current chemotherapeutics.

The issue is that determined horny kids will have sex. And more than likely without any condoms or birth control pills...

What is more unfortunate is the number of poor and minority girls and women who have barely any control of their bodies due to piss poor livelihoods and barely concern for their future.

So somehow, maybe this would be safer for these kinds of women or it is a massive sterilization mechanism...

Only time will tell.

Thank you kindly. Seriously, if you have a good rapport with your doctor, you will find they aren't "on the take" with drug companies and really do tend to give a damn.


As for requiring it, I'd like to see it approved for men and women to really curb the spread of HPV. Or at least these strains of it. No vaccine is 100% but this does not mean that we should stop vaccinating for dangerous diseases.

I don't see requiring it as giving a child permission to have sex. A 9 year old does not need to know that it's preventing an STD, just a virus. And if you've so poorly educated your child that they think that HPV is their only barrier to unprotected, promiscuous sex... well then you have other issues.

I have to see about getting this for myself, and seeing if there's a way to ensure that I haven't already contracted the virus before getting a shot. My odds are very very low but better safe than sorry. I'd rather get the vaccine even if I really don't need it.

Yep. For those of you who are wondering why they're not recommending the vaccine for women over 26, there are some reasons for that...

The younger women are, the more likely they are to have unprotected sex.

Unprotected sex is the leading cause of HPV.

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.

So, you see the connection? Older women just don't get HPV at the same rate as younger (and poorer) girls/women. And, as with most cancers, the younger you are, the more serious/advanced your cancer is likely to be.

Regarding the comments about cervical cancer being easy to treat - it's not. As AKA Monet said, cervical cancer does not have the same targeted cancer treatments available as in, say, breast cancer. Chemotherapy is literally poisoning the body...it has massive consequences along with the benefits, especially for women of reproductive age. Imagine your 18 or 19-year old daughter getting a hysterectomy or becoming infertile as a result of getting cervical cancer. She may live, but she will have lost a big part of what she may have wanted for her life.

As someone who used to work with a major biotech company that developed cancer treatments, I would encourage parents to seriously consider the vaccine. But, I think Texas has overstepped by mandating the vaccination. The only reason i say this is because the vaccine was only approved very recently. Merck will continue to do research on the vaccine for several years, will track side effects/safety over time, and will likely continue to announce data/side-effects/benefits, etc. as they come up. I do not think it's a good idea to mandate this vaccine for every girl in the state until more time has gone by.

Regarding the educational Web site someone mentioned here, those are quite common. The reason they exist is because the FDA heavily regulates marketing to consumers...there are a lot of rules about how they can advertise. But, one of the other reasons these Web sites and educational campaigns exist is because often these drugs are treating complicated disorders/diseases that can't be explained in a 30-second commercial. Also, doctors do not always know about all the newer treatments, so most cancer centers/organizations/companies will tell you that it's a good idea to keep yourself informed so that you can have a dialogue with your doctor and ask questions, not just wait for him/her to tell you what to do. Contrary to what many people believe, my experience has been that biotech and pharma companies generally work very hard to ensure the safety of their treatments and to make sure their products reach the people they will help. The "cover ups" that make the news are only half of the story and they're certainly the exception more than the rule.

You don't even need to have sex in order to get HPV. The people who do "everything but" sex are just as able to get HPV. You don't need actual intercourse to transmit HPV.

What is also scary is that there's no real testing available for men, so men don't even know that they're carrying it.

I was just going to mention the bolded.

As for the "kids will have sex if the get the shot" logic...That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They are going to do it no matter how much you try to keep your kids in a vacuum, so at least let them armed with information and ways to stay safe and responsible.

And doctors aren't biased? Have you seen the junkets and incentives given to doctors by the drug companies?

The best thing to do is research for yourself and to read, read, read and then read some more.