Interesting reading...It's from a blog (not a news article) but it contains some great information and points to ponder regarding this vaccine.
10 Things You Might Not Know About Gardasil
1. The vaccine only decreases your chances of getting cervical cancer, it doesn’t eliminate the risk.
Straight from gardasil.com:
Merck is upfront with this information; they don't try to hide it or spin it. But with all of the media coverage and information floating around about the "100% effective cancer vaccine", it's helpful to remember that Gardasil is only 100% effective at doing what it is supposed to do, which is preventing certain specific types of HPV, not preventing all cervical cancer.
“HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.
GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings.”
2. Even without the vaccine, the number of cervical cancer cases is trending downward and has been for years. (This is only true in the U.S.; worldwide it is one of the top cancer killers of women because women in many other countries have limited access to Pap tests and other health services.)
The Gardasil commercials refer to "thousands of women" being diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. each year, which is true, but they don't put that number into context.
So Merck wants parents to have their pre-teen and teenage daughters vaccinated. But if current trends continue, by the time these girls are old enough to be at risk, how big will the risk really be? Check out the government's statistics on cervical cancer for yourself at the National Cancer Institute website.
“Cervical cancer has gone from being one of the top killers of American women to not even being on the top 10 list. This year cervical cancer will represent just 1 percent of the 679,510 new cancer cases and 1 percent of the 273,560 anticipated cancer deaths among American women. By contrast, some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer and 72,130 will die of lung cancer.
According to the American Cancer Society
, "'Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74 percent.' Think about it: 74 percent.”
3. Gardasil is one of the most expensive vaccines ever, at about $360 for the series of three shots, plus the cost of doctor visits. Call me cynical, but I can’t help but think about how much money Merck stands to make from this if they can manage to convince all young women and all parents of young girls that this vaccine is a necessity.
Gardasil is a cash cow. The revenue stream is big now, with the potential to get much bigger. This is especially important for Merck, which is still dealing with the scandal surrounding their pain medication Vioxx, which they had to withdraw from the market in 2004 after it was found to increase the long-term risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it regularly. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed by former Vioxx patients. Vaccines like Gardasil are needed to provide the constant stream of cash that will help Merck to recover from Vioxx.
“Merck, struggling since the 2004 recall of its blockbuster pain pill Vioxx, has staked its turnaround in part on vaccines. They accounted for $1.1 billion of its $22 billion in revenue last year, or 5 percent, the highest share since at least 1995." 
4. While we're on the subject of liability, lawsuits, and profits, there's another angle to consider. If Merck can get state governments to put Gardasil on their lists of vaccines that are required for schoolchildren, it can become a part of a federal vaccine liability program. Meaning that Merck will not be liable if Gardasil turns out to be harmful some time in the future.   
5. There have been no long-term studies done on the effect of the vaccine after 5-10 or more years, and testing on young girls has been extremely limited.
If parents are expected to take their daughters to get a series of expensive immunizations, wouldn’t it be nice if they had any idea at all about what effects these girls might have to deal with 5 or 10 years down the line?
“Merck has tested the cervical cancer vaccine in clinical trials of more than 20,000 women (about half of them got the shot). The health of the subjects was followed for about three and a half years on average. But fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 got the shots, among them only about 100 9-year-olds, Merck officials said, and the younger girls have been followed for only 18 months." 
If you're wondering what the rush was, part of the answer could be patents. When a company's patent on a particular drug expires, that's when generic versions of the drug can be developed and released into the market, which obviously drives the price and the profits of the original drug way down. Merck's patent on the extremely profitable cholesterol drug Zocor expired in June of this year, and Gardasil is one of the new drugs being counted on to bridge Merck's financial gap. According to the FDA, Merck filed an application for a patent extension for Gardasil on December 6th.
6. It is unknown how long the immunity provided by Gardasil actually lasts.
“Public health officials want to vaccinate girls early, before they become sexually active, even though it is not known how long the immunity will last.” 
“Tests show that the vaccine lasts at least four years. Long-term results aren't known yet.” 
And straight from the FDA
“The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established.”
So if I do decide that it’s worth the risks to my hypothetical nine year old and that I should go ahead and give her the vaccine, in the end I don’t even know if it will do her any good at all by the time she actually becomes sexually active.
Merck isn’t telling women that their immunity may only last for a few years. The women and girls who get the vaccine may base some of their future sexual choices on the assumption that they are protected, but by the time many of them become sexually active this may not be true anymore.
7. The studies done on Gardasil were not set up to investigate whether the vaccine itself has the potential to cause cancer.
9. Gardasil is only for women.
“GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”
8. Gardasil is one of many vaccines containing aluminum, and there is increasing evidence suggesting that aluminum-based vaccines can have harmful effects
. Aluminum is a neurotoxin and the aluminum in vaccines can potentially reach the brain. Since the list of required childhood vaccines is only getting longer over time, children are being exposed to doses of aluminum that may exceed what their bodies are capable of managing. Aluminum in vaccines has been linked to a variety of neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s, although a lot more research is needed.  
It's also interesting to note that according to the FDA, Merck tested Gardasil along with the Hepatitis B vaccine (currently on the required list), to make sure that there were no negative effects to administering both vaccines during the same doctor's visit. The tests showed no apparent problems. 
However, the hepatitis vaccine was the only one that was tested, so it is unknown whether any of the other required childhood vaccines could be potentially harmful when combined with Gardasil. There was also no information in any of the studies about what adding Gardasil to the required list would do to the cumulative aluminum levels in children's bodies.
Men can get HPV. Men can give HPV to their partners. Men can get genital warts from HPV. Men can get cancer from HPV. (80% of HPV-related cancers affect women, but the other 20% include penile and anal cancers affecting men). 
"Boys would not have to be vaccinated, although they can get HPV. There are no HPV tests for men. The vaccine has not yet been tried on men." 
So why wasn’t Gardasil tested on men, and why isn’t Merck funding PR campaigns to educate men about their HPV risk? Is it because they feel that there’s more of a stigma surrounding men’s sexual health, and that it would be more difficult to convince men and parents of boys of the risks? And as a result they wouldn’t be able to make nearly as much money off of men as they will off of women.
And women, because they are being asked to take full responsibility for HPV prevention. Women and girls are expected to take on all of the costs and the risks of this vaccine, and even if they do get vaccinated they could still be infected with HPV by a male partner who has been told that HPV isn't something that he needs to worry about.
From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website:
"There is no clear health benefit to knowing you have this virus—since HPV is unlikely to affect your health and cannot be treated. For most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available— since it usually goes away on its own." 
Isn't it a little irresponsible (and sexist) to say there is no benefit to a male HPV test? Regardless of the possible health issues such as penile or anal cancer, isn't not infecting your unsuspecting partner also considered a benefit? Men are reassured that tests and treatment are unnecessary because their HPV infections will likely go away on their own, while the fact is that most women's HPV infections will go away on their own as well.