Amy 'Man,
Note how fast the finer point of science get lost by the rank-and-file unscientific. Lower and middle class kids for example will think "they're protected" period. And that's how the commercials word it. "Protected", period (smallprint hidden on bottom of screen).

John A.: It's not being claimed that the vaccine prevents all strains of the virus, & reducing the risk by 75% is well worth doing. (It's 70-75% of cases, not strains.)

Disappointed in this segment - it offered nothing more than what is already being presented in advertisements and mainstream media. What kind of safety research has been done? How long have these studies been in process? How has risk to reproductive health of our boys and their offspring been assessed? Too many questions for such a quick, news 'light' segment.

Very necessary but will never happen because boys are afraid of needles! Teach abstinence instead.

Martin, I have to say that our current health insurance company for which my husband and I pay over $20,000 a year -- limits our coverage to a much greater degree than Obamacare. Our previous health insurance company refused to pay for a cast for my broken arm. We were paying over $20,000 a year and then they raised our rates to $30,000. Please get a grip on who really is preventing us from getting adequate care.

As a mother of a 12-1/2 year old boy who already had a steady girlfriend for nine months in sixth grade (and as far as I know never progressed beyond the kissing phase) --- I actually would consider the vaccine for my son as a lesson in being responsible when he does reach an age when he might do more than just kiss a girl.

I worked in the field of HPV epidemiology, and one of the forensic tests conducted in cases of sexual abuse is to test the victim and the accused for HPV infection. There are over 100 types of HPV (the vaccine covers the most prevalent), and if there is a match for the genotype with the victim and the accused, then that is strong legal evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

It has been shown that infection can occur with just finger to genital contact, so those of you who think that consensual sex is and issue here- think again.

The vaccine is covered by United Healthcare

My wife is an OB/GYN. My daughter & three sons have had the vaccine. No side effects other than a satisfaction in knowing that they have been protected and we have done the responsible thing

When my daughter started middle school, we got a letter that she needed a booster of another vaccine and we couldn't get an appointment with her pediatrician. We went to the Dept. of Health on West 28th St. in Manhattan and got that plus chicken pox booster and Guardasil completely free. We were given a health record which was accepted by the pediatrician, no problem.

Just another item throw on a heap of "reasons why sexual promiscuity is more expensive". The real reason why Americans, post 1920, were more sexually conservative may have been just to do with what they could afford, and what society had to spend (, and perhaps where the US is today too).

Life is getting soooo complcated. Where was this HPV when I was growing up??

More risky behavior? What planet do you live on? In the real world a horny teenage kid full hormones is going to try and screw anything that moves, vaccination or not....

If it was known that HPV caused cancers in men, why wasn't it recommended for boys as well as girls in the 1st place? Or to keep women from getting the virus from men? And why was anal cancer mentioned only for men?

Parents should ask themselves :"Do I want grandchildren?"
The HPV virus can cause lesions and cancerous situation in the cervix which requires surgery and procedures that can impact the ability of the cervix to maintain a pregnancy. If you have daughter, it's obvious you don't want your daughter undergoing a surgical procedure. Does someone want their son passing HPV to a duaghter-in-law and making pregnancy difficult?
As a reproductive health specialist, I have had both my children, boy and girl twins vaccinated at age 13.

I am the mother of a first grader and we have been told to start talking about sex to our kids as early as possible to give them the best information as we can, and to be able to control the message they get. 10 is the new 14, as far as sexual messages go:
Dr. Fred's book How to talk to your kids about sex...

Thing is, second caller, even if you wait until marriage to have sex, you can still catch the virus from your lawful spouse. Even if you only have sex when trying to create a child.

And, second commenter, God forbid we vaccinate boys to protect the girls they're having sex with!

Is there any reason that the vaccine can't be given at a very early age? Like at 2 or 3 years old? Then it wouldn't be so associated with sexual activity.

When Gardasil was approved for girls, almost everyone of my fellow physicians had their daughters AND sons vaccinated, anticipating the efficacy for boys.

2 points:
-
I heard the vaccine prevented 75% of the variations of the virus. That is not a complete solution - and should not be presented as such.
-
There exists the concept of "offsetting behaviors", like when a person with a SUV thinks they can drive more dangerously, or a person with a shot thinks they can drive . . . .

I am the mother of an eight-year-old boy. Up until this week, this was someone else's problem. Now I have to think about it, too. I will be listening carefully.

Vaccinating men/boys makes great sense. It protects them and it protects their partners, male or female. In fact, vaccinating boys will do a much better job of curbing the spread of HPV since it is very unlikely that women are passing it on to each other. I have a son, and i will vaccinate him when he is old enough.

I don't understand why this was even an issue in the past. Men are very much susceptible to this. Friends of mine, all in their mid-20s, have needed invasive surgery to treat this.

Does this mean that we won't have to pay $600 for the vaccine now that it's recommended by the CDC, or will insurance still not cover this?

Another example of our corporatist political system. What better way to guarantee huge company profits than to deceptively convince our government officials and institutions, already held hostage to corporate donations, that such products are for the public good and, therefore, the government should enact laws that "force" citizens to purchase these questionable products. These are the innovative ideas (geting government to force products down our throats) justifying the vulgar salaries for our CEOs? Come on!! Can't we do better? Let's get some real leadership into our government and corporations.

The NYT story on this much more honestly highlighted the gay sex aspect of this controversy. It’s being sold as protection for girls.

The risks to gay men from unprotected sex are once again being universalized for politically correctness….this time, unfortunately, with real consequences to 97.2% of boys between 9 and 13.
Let’s get real……the recent census figures (Sam Roberts, NYT, October 10,2011) confirmed the many studies (but hushed up by mainstream media….have you ever seen the actual percentage of the population that is actually “gay”?) that admit that only 2.8% of men are self–identified as gay or bisexual. It’s not 10% (LOL, they wish), not 8%, not 5%, not even 3%. It’s 2.8% …… and that is a consistently reproducible and remarkably stable finding. No matter how supportive of gay rights we may (and should) be, let’s be truthful about the parameters here.

So now we are going to vaccinate the other 97.2% of 9-12 year old boys (with all the attendant risks) for a semen-induced throat and anal cancer of which they will never be on the receiving end to be vulnerable??!!

This is absurd…..and people should have the courage to speak out in this oppressively politically correct hothouse and question this insanity. The frontpage NYT article on this HPV panel (October 26,2011) was surreal….admitting that it would be much more effective, more economical ($400 per child! Merck thanks you.) and safer if we just inoculated gay boys (yes, I know the problem with that)….but we can’t, so, basically, we should just do them all! And forget the amazingly inappropriate (and bizarre) remark in the NYT piece by one panel member about the war in Afghanistan!!!
The government (under Obamacare) wants to significantly, but so far unsuccessfully, limit women’s breast cancer mammograms and screening programs as a cost burden, but then submit to this??

This is what happened with AIDS in the 1990’s when it was spun that everyone was equally at risk. They weren’t. We now know that it in this country it was…..and remains…..a disease mostly affecting gay men (still the biggest source of new cases) who have unprotected sex or drug users who share needles (a lower fraction of the new cases in recent years). Let’s not make this mistake again just to pander to solipsistic gay political sensitivities.