Thanks Brian

I am hopeful we have the arguments to counter this.

As you would be aware, the oral cancer angle is not so sexy and lacks political strength (too few people and no cohesive network). Best chance of success is in collaboration with other networks that would also benefit from a non-sexist access to vaccines.

The newspaper report is putting their spin on it without even understanding what is being said. The doctor they are talking about as you suggested is not a clinician, but has expertise in predicting epidemics and modelling the costs. He is speaking purely from a cost perspective and how many people are needed to treat in order to save one person. And whilst he is correct in that the gains from vaccinating boys will be nowhere near as dramatic as the vaccination of girls, his modelling does not consider the young human being behind the statistics.

The PR around this needs to continue to be about a YOUNG mother, brother, partner, father etc who is dying needlessly when we have the means to prevent it.

There is an obvious, politically heavy group bringing their power to bear.

Whilst we can continue to ensure the right people behind the scenes have the right information, we also need to keep reminding them that HPV caused oral cancer adds weight to their arguments and modelling in addition to the cost benefit argument.

We, as consumers, have the opportunity to write letters to the paper, and post on facebook etc to ensure this issue doesn't get buried or twisted.

For others reading this in Australia, the vaccine is available to boys but for them it is not yet part of the school immunisation programme as it has been for girls since the beginning of 2007.

The current negotiations are around providing the vaccine to boys on the school vaccine programme.

It is just a question of the money ...