It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lancet calls for compulsary HPV vaccination

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:53 PM
Today's Daily Mail reports on 'The Lancet' calling for compulsary vaccination of schoolchildren against HPV, the cause of cervical cancer.

Despite claims that it encourages under-age sex, medical journal The Lancet has called for compulsory cancer jabs for schoolgirls.

The magazine has published an editorial which says all schoolgirls aged 11 and 12 should be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The jab, against what is effectively a sexually transmitted infection, is controversal because it is argued that they encourage under-age sex.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Please notice, in a stunning example of the 'Oh why, oh why, oh why' journalism that the Daily Mail is famous for, a positive public health measure, which would probably save thousands of women from death and morbidity from cancer and treatment of cancer, has been turned into a 'how underage sex is being encouraged'.

Still, I suppose it makes a refreshing change from bashing illegal immigrants and homosexuals for the core readership of the Mail.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:08 PM
Does everything have to be compulsory? i mean if it's such a good idea, why not simply encourage and maybe subsidize it?

So, either these vaccines are not the best thing since sliced bread, contrary to official drivel and the industry is simply trying to sell its stuff through coercion, or they have an agenda. let me explain: most vaccines are designed for everybody, this one is only for girls, apparently. let's see.


ring a bell?


posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I guess they should abolish those disgraceful hep vaccinations, too...

Nothing should ever be required, but provide these vaccinations in the same manner: an optional vaccine available to parents at an early age of their child.

it should be noted that HPV is not the cause of cervical cancer, rather a few specific strains are the leading cause. Those same strains are also a leading cause of throat cancer.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by apc]

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:19 PM
I believe strongly in free choice,
However there may be something in this, as recent research has shown tenuous links behind people infected with the HP Virus and an increased ability to contract HIV if the HP Virus is present already.

If this would then lead to a cancer being slowed and stopped, increased fertility rates in older women and also some protection against the growing menace of HIV I belive it should be considerd compulsory.

Good Points about the Mail to im surprised they are not using the increase in immigration as an excuse for the rise in STD's in britain, as well as making all the UK teenager girls they way they are!



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:23 PM
If smallpox vaccinations weren't compulsury, then smallpox would still be a threat...
Polio- same...

But compulsury vaccines really only work if they are done worldwide, and over decades... (and on both sexes)
so if that can be done, then HPV deserves to be a top candidate, since there is such a danger of infection.

I would love to think of a world without HPV, but only if the vaccine works 100% and only if it is done worldwide...

that is the only time that vaccinations should be compulsury, when humanity as a whole, agrees to take the hit....

And as far as the contention that the vaccine will promote underage sex is stupid...
does someone run out and jump in a latrine, just because they got the Hep vaccine?

people have sex for entirely different reasons than "great, i am now immune to 1/20th of the sexual diseases, so lets go celebrate"

[edit on 6-10-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:53 PM
I don't think this should degenerate into a 'anti-vaccination' vs 'pro-vaccination' argument - there's a place for that, and it's called the Medical Conspiracies thread. I know there are strong opinions and both side, and I know where I stand, but I don't think this link is the place to do it.

I think the really interesting thing about this article is the way the Mail is pushing it's own agenda and twisting the science into an 'underage sex being encouraged thing', which is the last thing the Lancet would be doing.


top topics

log in