Why Not Give Gardasil to 9-Year Old Boys?

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?   

Comments

[Iggy]

Sounds alot easier to me than asking us to cut half their penile skin off (circumcision).

[Teresa]

I think that requiring a vaccine for a virus that is not over-all life threatening is wrong. Current vaccines that are required take care of illnesses that can strike hard at the population at large - killing many people in a short period of time.

This vaccine is for a virus that "might" lead to cancer in 30 years or so... it certainly doesn't meet any criteria of imminent population threat! I really hate scare tactic medicine and it's being used to the fullest extent with this vaccine.

I am not against the vaccine - after all, it does serve a purpose. I am sure though, that the timing of the medication is certainly not well thought out. Especially since we have no data on the efficacy after 5 years.