I refer to the Malaysiakini report Cervical cancer vaccination: Parents given choice .

I refer to the statement issued by our Health Ministry with regards to the anti-cervical cancer vaccination to be imposed on our Form 1 students effective next year.

Dr Hasan Abdul Rahman, director of the disease control division at the Health Ministry, confirmed that the vaccination will only be given after getting the consent of parents.

This is good news for parents in the city who have access to Internet knowledge that this vaccine is dangerous. What about the ‘kampong’ parents who are not on the Internet and do not read English? There is not enough information in the mainstream media for them to make a decision.

Hasan said that the decision to introduce the HPV Vaccination Programme for girls as young as 13-year- old was made as that age group produced a better immune response compared with those in the older age groups. At that age, the girls are considered to be still naive to the HPV infection and are free from the disease, he said.

I believe we cannot compare the need to protect our children based on the social values of the West. At that age, the West promote safe sex whilst we promote abstinence. The risk of cancer caused by genital contact with multiple partners should be used as another strong reason to promote abstinence and maintain a single partner relationship after marriage. This is as mandated by our religion.

Hassan said the impact from HPV vaccination would only be seen in the long run, between 15 and 20 years, as benefits from the vaccination will reduce any side effects as well as prevent premature deaths among women who were in their productive years.

However, Dr Diane M Harper, scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group in the US and a lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for the humanpapilloma virus says ‘data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.’

Harper says ‘If we vaccinate 11-year-olds and the protection doesn’t last...we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit. The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.’

She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through a normal Pap screening.

Hassan also said the Health Ministry had ‘a secondary prevention programme’ since 1969, the PAP Smear Screening Programme, to help detect cancer, but the response has not been satisfactory.

So if the government is serious about spending money to reduce cancer then it makes more sense to introduce a one week 'Health against cancer educational programme' and a free mandatory PAP Smear Screening Programme for all female students after their SPM exams.

Interestingly, I have come across only two studies quoted by our Health Ministry with regards to the implementation of this programme. One is a research done by Prof S Al Junid of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, whose results showed that prevention of cervical cancer by vaccination was cost effective.

He estimated that the cost of three vaccination doses was RM400 compared with RM235,000 for a lifetime of treatment for cervical cancer.

Another study was done by the Malaysian Public Health Specialists Association (MPHSA) who recently conducted a study on the economics of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections and cervical cancer in Malaysia.

I wonder why these two parties are more interested in justifying the economic benefit of the programme than studying the health impact on the recipients. They have left out the study the potential risks from the side effects of the vaccine and took for granted the words of the pharmaceutical supplier, the World Health Organisation and the Center of Disease Control on the issue.

Anyone who reads the alternative mainstream media will tell you that WHO and CDC are in cohorts with the pharmaceutical companies for a political and financial agenda. Are our ministry people so naive or ... ? I hate to think otherwise.