To clarify my discussion below about Gardasil, Merck's HPV vaccine: I am not opposed to Gardasil, I am opposed to mandatory vaccinations at middle schools. Merck lobbied some twenty legislatures to this end, despite the paucity of clinical data on the effects of Gardasil on girls or on its long term effects. I think the decision to vaccinate girls should be up to the parents and their doctor, not to governors and Merck lobbyists.
I also wonder why no one is calling for vaccinating boys, when males can unknowingly transmit HPV to their sexual partners, and males can get genital warts (no day at the beach, that). Wouldn't boys benefit by Garadsil's (limited) protection against genital warts, which can lead to penile cancer and anal cancer? Some 500 men per year die in the U.S. of these cancers. This article at the BBC discusses vaccinating boys and homosexual men:
"Merck is currently testing the vaccine's efficacy in 4,000 men, including 500 men who have sex with men. And the US National Institute of Health is also carrying out trials to see what benefits it could have for people with HIV. Merck said its priority was to tackle cervical cancer, but has not ruled out giving the vaccine to other groups - including men who have sex with men."
"Roger Peabody of the Terrence Higgins Trust said if the trials were successful, there would be a good case for vaccinating young boys, not only to stop the spread of HPV to women, but to protect men against HPV-related disease. Dr Szarewski agreed, saying: "It is bad enough suggesting to people that their 12-year-old daughter might need a vaccine against a sexually transmitted infection. I would be interested to see the response of suggesting to parents that they should vaccinate their boys at 12 in case they become gay."
Many groups (including Planned Parenthood) seem to be willing to jab our 9- to 12-year old girls, why not jab the boys too?