I am a sexagenarian who has considered the subject of vaccines for a great number of years. It is well to remember that we didn't lick smallpox until we stopped vaccinating for it. There is something of a paradox with regard to demonstrating vaccine efficacy even when you can trust the science which is almost never the case today. I have gotten to the point where I question the whole vaccine paradigm. I think a case could be made that vaccines are designed to weaken the immune system and increase the risk of chronic poor health in later life. This is not as heretical a notion as it may sound if you consider who benefits. I haven't had a vaccine in twenty years and will not willingly get another and most especially if it has anything to do with that "gonna kill your whole family and your dog any day now" bird flu.
A thought provoking video on the subject here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8610554679207090010

Jeffrey Irving, Pinehurst, NC, NC, US

Ignorant fools, google Gardasil and enlighten yourself as to the toxicity, and deadly side effects of this crap, which is after all just another money spinner for Big Pharmaceutical multinationals.

Eric, AUSTRALIA, Nth Quensland, QLD

To the Editor:
This article's headline is sensationalist and irresponsible if not factually incorrect
The mass paranoia about the hidden agenda of vaccines coupled with uninformed views about teaching an abstinence message (IT DOES NOT WORK!) created one of the most amusing assembly of crank comments ever witnessed on The Times' website.

If anyone would bother to read up on the actual evidence regarding both vaccines and the failure of teaching abstinence, we would not get to laugh so much reading your comments.

'Nuff said.

Holger, London,

An excellent article.

What it omits is that many other countries - not just Australia but USA, Canada, Germany, Italy and many others - have introduced this vaccine.

While their reasons vary, mostly they have done this based on a rigorous evaluation of the cost of vaccination, compared to the costs of treating people with cancer, pre-cancer, and genital warts.

My daughter had her second dose of the vaccine this morning. I am delighted to have been able to dramaticlly reduce her odds of having an abnormal smear requiring treatment (relatively high), an early and horrific death from cervical cancer (not very high risk, but very nasty), or genital warts - an embarrassing condition that could seriously harm her self-esteem, which in turn could seriously affect her health (fairly high odds - about 1 in 20 people get genital warts at some time in their life).

Peter English, Epsom, Surrey

Interesting article, although the quote that "the virus [HPV] accounts for 70% of cases of the disease" is quite an underestimate, since HPV infection is an absolutley necessary step in cervical cancer, therefore the figure is essentially 100% - underscoring the importance of this vaccine

Andrew, Bucks, UK

The Human Papilloma Virus vaccine is only effective against 4 of over 120 different strains of HPV, this 'vaccine' also contians for the 1st time an actual cancer virus. Many adverse reactions to this vaccine have been reported with many young girls experiencing crohns like dissorders.
I for one think this is a dissasterous decision both ethicly and fianacialy.
My children WONT be taking this 'virus'.

Jock, Oxford,

I think everyone is out of their minds. The problem is this vaccine was only tested in an age group that does not have time to develop this type of cancer. To say a woman in her 40's is going to get cervical cancer but they only test the 16-26 age group is ridiculous. Also, it was only a two year study, that tells us nothing. Put aside that there was no testing on interaction between other immunization shots or medications, the side effects are more dangerous than the disease it may or may not prevent. Furthermore, Gardasil, does not protect against the broad spectrum of HPV viruses that exist, only a few. Check out this article: http://www.judicialwatch.org/6299.shtml Don't take my word for it, do your own investigating. It's your child's life.

M, LA, CA

FAO John Snow.

Safe sex/abstinance is the answer, not routine mutilation of our male children.

sam, sussex, uk

I wonder why this vaccine is being restricted to females? HPV virus it appears from research at an American univeristy may well be the trigger for some Head and Neck Cancers. While research into these 'rarer cancers' doesn't appear to be a priority, perhaps some consideration should be given to boys as well as girls receiving it.

National Associaiton of Laryngectomees Association

Jean Fraser, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Anyone who says it is bad because it encourages kids to have sex is clearly extremely old fashioned.

"About 1,000 women die from the disease every year. "

And you're worried about underage sex? Kids arnt worried about cancer when they're having sex, they're more worried about getting pregnant, and getting STDs.

"We need to begin teaching abstinence in schools."

I agree (sarcasm) , lets show them the 3 or so people that die every day from this diesese. And explain to the kids and the dieing victims, that we could fix it, but we'd rather you were afraid.

Luke, Melbourne, Australia

If this legislation is following the path taken in america, the vaccine to be given is Gardasil, a Merck product. Merck sponsored many women's groups to extol the virtues of the vaccine, and lobbied extensively to get the vaccine into legislature. It is expected to be their signature drug, and should raise their market value after the huge losses they have made over the vioxx scandal.

This decision smacks more of the power of corporate lobbying than of common medical sense, especially when no long-term studies have been conducted.

Des, Amsterdam,

Instead of taking steps to discourage the youth against early sex, this policy is surely is going to give green light to boys and girls to have more sex. It is sending the message that now sex will be risk free. I think it was a very foolish thing to take this road. We need to begin teaching abstinence in schools.

Z Hussain, Rochdale, UK

But it does protect women against the WORST four, the ones which are responsible for MOST of the cancers, so that's why it's still worth doing

Geoff, London,

Anyone remember Merck's last side-effect free offering? Vioxx killed at least 60,000 people before it was 'voluntarily' withdrawn in 2004, said the FDA safety officer Dr David Graham at Congressional hearings.
As Roger from Epping says, this drug targets only a minority of HPV types. In the US, one of the the lead researchers has her doubts about efficacy. But as she says, she finds it extremely difficult to have her views published in the mainstream media - unlike Merck and the JCVI.

Colin Downes-Grainger, London, UK

Once again its the Woman's body they are experimenting on!
Whether it be the pill, or hormones to dry up breast milk, whatever, its always the Woman that fall foul!
And what about the side affects?
Will we have to wait 20years to see if it causes cancer! have they thought about that?
I suspect "NOT" and if they did its a cas off? "its only a Woman" "lets try it anyway"
While this jab may well help protect against cervical cancer, it wont stop it, to many man made hormones given to woman to see to that!
It wont give a green light to a girl to think its save to have sex now, with or without this jab, sex happens when it happens, and its stupid that some are concerned about this as in this report..
It wont stop HIV infections!
This one I "DISSAGREE" for a 12year old girl!

Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh, UK

No wonder NHS costs are out of control. Across time 30 million plus females will be vaccinated to save...err, 700 lives a year. Brilliant, it must be one of the least cost effective projects ever devised. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be.

Mike Cobbe, Curacao,

"What is so wrong in teaching children to abstain from an activity that only leads to confusion, misery and sometimes, an unplanned pregnancy?"

What activity were you referring to, Anne?

I agree with avoiding unprotected sex, but I am sure I am not alone in my experience that sexual activity does not "only lead to confusion, misery and...pregnancy."

Erika, London,

Once again its the Woman's body they are experimenting on!
Whether it be the pill, or hormones to dry up breast milk, whatever, its always the Woman that fall foul!
And what about the side affects?
Will we have to wait 20years to see if it causes cancer! have they thought about that?
I suspect "NOT" and if they did its a cas off? "its only a Woman" "lets try it anyway"
While this jab may well help protect against cervical cancer, it wont stop it, to many man made hormones given to woman to see to that!
It wont give a green light to a girl to think its save to have sex now, with or without this jab, sex happens when it happens, and its stupid that some are concerned about this as in this report..
It wont stop HIV infections!
This one I "DISSAGREE" for a 12year old girl!

Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh, UK

Why are the boys who contaminate girls with the virus not being vaccinated?
This is typical, girls/women are always under siege: Do this, do that, take this, take that - while boys/men get away with irresponsible behaviour without reproach or medical tinkering.

Cicely Francis, Chichester, W Sussex

Routine circumcision of all boys would solve this problem insrea of spending all this money on a vacine whose long term effects are not yet known..

John Snow, Oxford, England

Actually Roger, about 40 types of HPV infect the genital tract and a handful account for the majority of the lesions (they don't cause 1/40th of the cases each). Therefore, as HPV 16 causes half of all invasive cervical cancer and HPV 18 causes 25% it should be possible to prevent around 75% of all cause cervical cancer using this vaccine. The other 2 types, 6 & 11 cause 90% of all genital warts.

Anita, Leeds,

This vaccine has been waited upon eagerly for years. Roger, your views are a bit anti-scientific. Yes there are over 100 types but there are only a smaller number that are associated with cancers. This is not profiteering, this is a significant medical breakthrough that will hopefully save hundreds of lives a year in this country in the long run.

Paul, York,

What is so wrong in teaching children to abstain from an activity that only leads to confusion, misery and sometimes, an unplanned pregnancy? If abstention is taught, we would not be thinking of injecting little kids with this vaccine. The problem that I find in this country is that unlike the USA, there are no groups of teenagers who think it is "cool" to abstain from sex - that is what is wrong with this country: most people scared to speak what is right and most following the band wagon of political correctness and so-called sexual revolution. Absolute fraff I say and if you will, do call me "old-fashioned" -- I will happily wear the label!

Anne, Longstanton, UK

Why not work on a vaccine for males to stop them spreading any kind of STD?

Alison, Dubai, UAE

Completely distorted facts from the Department of Health. The vaccine will only protect women from FOUR strains of HPV, but there are approximately one hundred !

There is a lot money going to change hands for nothing more than easy profit for the manufacturer.

Roger, Epping,

Cervical cancer incidence fell by 42 per cent between 1988 and 1997 (England and Wales). This fall is directly related to the cervical screening programme. Mortality rates for cervical cancer in 2004 (2.8 per 100,000 females) were over 60 per cent lower than they were 30 years earlier. Despite these figures, the British government is proposing to get into financial bed with pharmaceutical giant Merck over the Gardasil vaccine. So far 25,000 patients have taken part in clinical trials to test it but only 1,184 of them were preteen girls. Three girls have now died according to information released by the FDA. More safety trials over this vaccine are needed.

At a time when hard-headed decisions are having to be made about what drugs can be made available on the NHS should we be spending hundreds of millions to save a few hundred cases of cervical cancer? Surely more education on the screening programme already in place would be more cost effective?

Jane Bryant, London, United Kingdom

Once again its the Woman's body they are experimenting on!
Whether it be the pill, or hormones to dry up breast milk, whatever, its always the Woman that fall foul!
And what about the side affects?
Will we have to wait 20years to see if it causes cancer! have they thought about that?
I suspect "NOT" and if they did its a cas off? "its only a Woman" "lets try it anyway"
While this jab may well help protect against cervical cancer, it wont stop it, to many man made hormones given to woman to see to that!
It wont give a green light to a girl to think its save to have sex now, with or without this jab, sex happens when it happens, and its stupid that some are concerned about this as in this report..
It wont stop HIV infections!
This one I "DISSAGREE" for a 12year old girl!

Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh, UK

Once again its the Woman's body they are experimenting on!
Whether it be the pill, or hormones to dry up breast milk, whatever, its always the Woman that fall foul!
And what about the side affects?
Will we have to wait 20years to see if it causes cancer! have they thought about that?
I suspect "NOT" and if they did its a case off? "its only a Woman" "lets try it anyway"
While this jab may well help protect against cervical cancer, it wont stop it, to many man made hormones given to woman to see to that!
It wont give a green light to a girl to think its save to have sex now, with or without this jab, sex happens when it happens, and its stupid that some are concerned about this, as in this report..
It wont stop HIV infections!
This one I totally, "DISSAGREE" for a 12year old girl!

Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh, UK