We do know what’s in it, check the last EPA drinking water report.

Did you read the bit about nearly that many girls dying from getting the vaccine?
As for the 70% efficacy, who did that research? The company that made the vaccine? Did the research authors benefit financially in any way from sale of the HPV vaccine, eg shares, directorships? As pointed out above, industry funded research tends to produce far more favourable results and be cited more often than independent research which often says the exact opposite..
Without knowing the sources of this claim to 70% efficacy, can we be sure that it can be trusted?

Well said, Stephen. Look to my above post, or even the CDC website, to disprove shanti om’s claims on the death rate.

I have seen what cervical cancer can do. The treatment is surgery, chemo and radiotherapy. Most times it doesn’t work. What we are trying to do is stop a KNOWN risk factor for cervical cancer from taking wives, mothers, sisters and daughters.

Bottom line folks, with this vaccine you can withhold it from your kids if you want. Deal with the consequences yourselves. With the MMR however, due to herd immunity failure it’s not your kid you are likely to kill, it’s your neighbors 6 week old child who was too young to get the vaccine and due to your stupid decision, your own child gave measles to them.

Ok Sean, throw in a red herring, an appeal to authority, and whatever other fallacies you like.
But answer me this.. Who funds the CDC??
And ps – it wasn’t my claim, it was referencing what was written above – ad hominem tu quoque?

If the government cared for public safety rather than being bought off they would insist upon thorough epidemiological research before they launched a countrywide program and encouraged everyone to get it. Not just the industry hype.

This research doesn’t exist. There are NO long term safety trials. And there is evidence of harm, but that’s how it works isn’t it? The FDA weighs up benefits and harms and decides that way, but do they have all the info? Can we be sure that no adverse events were hidden from the trial? Have the trials authors been researched and conflicts of interest ruled out? The answer is no.

In fact when most of the people sitting on the boards of the FDA and the MHRA are shareholders in the companies seeking approval from them – would that not be considered a conflict of interest??

All I’m saying is caution should be exercised, with the track record on recent vaccines and newer drugs it would be wise to hang on and see how it pans out before getting something that may or may not work (and could be harmful) injected into you or your child. In the absence of more conclusive data.
It’s called exercising due care and attention.

As for your other appeal to fear fallacies..
No, chemo doesn’t really work at advanced stages, but look how effective screening has been (and why do the FDA seem to isolate and hamper development in this area? Many possible cures have been presented as the FDA prevents further research into them..) prevention and early diagnosis are the best defence.. And when you look at the numbers, screening has reduced the number substantially.

As for your comment on herd immunity, if that’s the case, then how come the more recent outbreaks of measles have been the vaccine strain instead of wild measles? The vaccine strain is far more dangerous, but it’s not found in the wild.. Could the vaccinated kids have made those kids sick? We’re any of the infected vaccinated already? Because these are questions that got conveniently swept under the carpet when those sorts of scare tactics went public..

The last swine flu vaccine (1976) proved to be rather dangerous indeed and cost the US govt an awful lot of money in compensation.
This is why flu vaccines today come with a disclaimer, discharging the government and the manufacturer from any liability if it all goes pear shaped.

So, gods forbid, any of these young girls do fall ill or die, there may be no avenue for recourse at all :(

Don’t know much about this but ever since watching Bill Gates talk about reducing the worlds population by 15% to 20% through vaccinations, they’re off the menu for me.

Oh for gods sake. Right folks there is NO LINK between MMR and autism. The reason the autism diagnosis rate rose was because (a) the MMR booster given at 4/5 years of age COINCIDES with the age when autism is generally diagnosed (ooh is there a link?) and (b) the criteria for autism diagnosis were broadened just before the guy did his research, hence picking up children who previously were not included (rates rose, see?).

Finally, the guy who did the research paid children at his own child’s party for blood samples. This research was found to be highly suspect, and considering “informed” sceptics such as shanti om parrot on about suspect research, this should be put to rest NOW.

“lots of doctors don’t give it to their own kids”…I don’t believe you. All doctors know that that research was disproved, so if any doctor didn’t give it on that basis they are betraying the basis medical tenet of practicing evidence based medicine and therefore you should probably switch doctors.

I did read that it only vaccinates against two (perhaps 4) of the strains of HPV, of which there are many more..
So in that sense it’s like the seasonal flu vaccine, if the strain you are Inoculated against is the one you encounter then you should be protected, if not, tough luck..
This explains some of why flu vaccines have such a low efficacy level, predicting the circulating strains is like forecasting next years weather.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20614424/ note that in the authors conclusions they clearly state; “An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies”)

It’s also worth bearing in mind that there has not been ANY long term trials for this (or any other current) vaccine. These young girls ARE the long term study.. Conclusive safety cannot be confirmed by any rationale.

CDC website – “no evidence that Guillain-Barre rates are higher than in control population”
Also of the 71 deaths reported IN THE TIME AFTER THE VACCINATION, In other words reported during the early teenage years of the entire US population, only 34 have had verified death reports. Of those 34, no evidence linking it to the vaccine, and some deaths were clearly unrelated.

Shanti, I like reading your views. They give me a perspective that I don’t agree with, but I make sure to consider them. Here, however, you are twisting the facts. Google “hpv vaccine deaths” and check out the CDC page, for anyone who wants to read the reports.

Ok Sean,
I realise that I posted a link to meta analysis on flu vaccines, but no such thing exists as yet for the HPV vaccine. At present we have short term industry funded studies. The quote from the research into flu vaccines was to highlight a very important fact.
And I’m not quoting Sanevax here, I’m just being cautious in light of the proven inefficiency and possible danger of other modern vaccines.

It is WELL KNOWN (if you are a doctor and you don’t know this, then shame on YOU) that industry funded research almost always produces a positive result. They wouldn’t spend so much money on it if they were not going to profit from it.
Independent research is far more likely to present with far less positive and often negative results, but it doesn’t get out in the most prestigious journals and doesn’t get cited as frequently, if it sees the light of day at all..
Physicians and authors failing to disclose conflicts of interest is a common occurrence, as is ghostwriting, and a whole host of ingenious ways to rig a trial..

So, until conclusive epidemiological research has been done into this vaccine, no, I wouldn’t let ANYONE I care about sign up. I’d encourage them to nourish their immune systems, and insist upon safe sex. Because the trials we are working from now should be seen as fancy advertising, until backed up by truly independent research.

Think about it, they want to sell the vaccine, they’re hardly going to ‘fess up about any flaws, they certainly never have in the past – how many times has a drug company removed a drug from sale amid safety concerns only for it to emerge that the risks were known before the drug came to market?

As for Wakefield.. That dude Brian Deer that “exposed” him, not the most honest man on the planet himself.. Has financial ties to manufacturers too, how convenient..
Ps, Wakefield never said the vaccine caused autism, he advocated the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines – he just felt that the combined vaccine was overloading the system. Amazing what a smear campaign can do huh?

Lots of red thumbs indeed…Often times people don’t like being told that they have been conned and duped into believing that they were actually helping and protecting their childen when the reality is quite the opposite..And, like you say Manfred, the same red thumbers who enthusiastically allowed their children to be jabbed will be the ones looking for compensation when it does go pear shaped.. Rather than red thumbing I suggest people give it a google – no reason for ignorance in this day and age.. Good luck to all who have been given this “vaccine”…

Sometimes it’s the message of a post that’s thumbed down rather than the messenger. Something to bear in mind when delivering wake up news!

Why what does it do?

They illicit an immunogenic response and are bonded with/carry the antigens which bind with your antibodies. They form a necessary part of most vaccines.

Aluminium is linked to cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Polysorbate -80 is an industrial detergent, what’s it’s function? Bearing in mind it’s going right into the bloodstream without the filter of digestion..

1. Adjuvants such aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate are important as an immunogenic response to a hapten can provide immunity to the real pathogen without exposing the patient to the actual real virus. its there for an important reason see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapten for a basic explanation.

2. Aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate is not elemental aluminium.

3. No causal relationship between elemental aluminium and alzheimers has ever been shown and the overwhelming majority of scientific literature out there at present refutes this link, including reports by non profit alzheimers charities

4. Aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate has been in many vaccines for years and is probably the most tried and tested and probably safest ingredient in the vaccine

And the industrial detergent?
Polysorbate 80, according to the MSDS sheet there is not sufficient safety data available on this product for it to be injected into the bloodstream – in fact, in terms of carcinogenic status there is no data at all, ergo, safety remains uneatablished.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926645

Finding the MSDS sheet for your aluminium hydroxysulphate is proving difficult, apparently it is on some “need to know” style database, it is certainly not readily available, the closest MSDS sheet is for aluminium hydroxyphosphate and I fear posting that may be misleading in this case.

My apologies, but as Wikipedia is user contributed and largely unmoderated I cannot accept it as a credible source, I would prefer hard data, hence why I have offered MSDS sheets.

MSDS sheets are aimed at people working with large amounts of the materials in an industrial setting, not in the context of miligrams of the substance used in a medication. if you look at the MSDS for regular table salt it has pretty much the same health concerns, actually even worse. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593

I gave wikipedia as a quick sort of reference, I know its not the most reliable source but i had a quick skim through the article and it seems OK but there’s more reliable reading out there, If you have access to a medical library theres a half a chapter on haptens in the textbook Immunology by Janis Kuby and a fair bit of useful information in Cellular and Molecular Immunology by Abul K. Abbas and Andrew H. Lichtman

Im not a pharmacist and I dont know what the detergent is for, at a guess I would think it has something to do with maintaining ionic strength of the solution or to assist in solubility in the blood or as some sort of emulsifier. I dont think they put it there just for the craic.

Nit-pick all you want but you probably encounter far more hazardous chemicals in your everyday life.

On that I agree, there are far too many chemicals all round us every day, our immune systems are under constant attack. But the body has defences, like the integumentary, digestive and urinary systems to try and protect us from them getting into our bloodstream. Vaccines – including all of their ingredients are injected directly into the bloodstream, bypassing all our defences. I realise that’s the point, and that is what I take issue with. By no means do I think all vaccines are bad, look at polio, I have said all along that my issue remains with recent vaccines.

I’m a prevent rather than cure kinda person myself, but I would rather make sure my immune system is working at optimum efficiency than to damage it with more chemicals!

By the same logic it’s unsafe to inject water:

CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available

And yeah I just looked up the MSDS on water for the craic :)

Actuallly to inject water wouldn’t be particularly safe as the serum of the body is saline.. Water being the safest thing ever is a misnomer, you can drown yourself from drinking too much water and not balancing sodium and potassium, look at the tragic case of Leah Betts RIP.

If you injected air you could kill someone.. The point is that these things usually enter the body via the digestive, respiratory, or integumentary systems, not the bloodstream. In this sense there are checks and balances in place.
Unlike water or air, man made chemicals that have no business being there in the first place, bypassing the safety checks and going straight to the organs via the blood could pose a larger threat than simple skin exposure or ingestion..

True pure water injected wouldent be good and yes it would burst all the red cells :) thing is pretty much everything is known to cause cancer these days. reminds me of a quote from the West Wing -

“Red meat has been found to cause cancer in white rats. Maraschino cherries have been found to cause cancer in white rats. Cellular phones have been found to cause cancer in white rats. Has anyone examined the possibility that cancer might be hereditary in white rats?”

Our bodies have in built tendances to both fix themselves and screw themselves up, Were not made of glass and can handle a lot more chemicals than you think but exposure to chemicals is best kept to a minimum unless benefits outweigh the risks. and that’s for each of us to decide what’s best for us.

Y’know it’s funny you should mention rats.. I keep them as pets and they are very prone to cancer indeed :(
(Mind you, I don’t see why they use most animals as a test subject when their physiology is different.. Humans, Guinea Pigs, Primates and Bats are the only mammals which do not synthesise vitamin C. It might not seem that important, until you consider the role vitamin C plays in the body, and at the levels it is produced in other mammals bodies)

My point here was the same as my point about the lack of clinical evidence as opposed to studies on the HPV vaccine, I do not call a handful of industry funded trials conclusive evidence of safety or efficacy given the level of fraud that exists in the industry, likewise – no available data for a man made chemical does not fill me with confidence that it is safe.

I will admit, I have personal reasons for erring on the side of caution. I and many others I know have suffered quite serious side effects and complications from medicines and chemicals that were sold as safe, and their side effects downplayed, I am sure you can appreciate that the high incidence of negative consequences among my peers would spur vigilance.

Yeah all rats will get some form of cancer if they live long enough and you can cause them to get certain types of tumour fairly reliably,

That’s one of the reasons they’re used so much in cancer research. They’re physiology is more similar to a real patient than using in vitro grown human cell lines, I ran into this problem with oxidative stress in artificially grown human cells during my final year thesis [Han et al 2008 physiol. genomics (34) 112-26] but for ethical (there was enough existing data out there for work with) and financial reasons (a breeding set of lab rats would have cost over €500 for a fairly basic strain with no custom genetic work done to them, and I would have needed to use piglets since their skin is similar to humans… much more expensive, never even tried to find a price but it would have been thousands)

I don’t really want to get into the whole animal testing debate but I will say at the research centre I was working in at the time the animals were treated well and cared for by a vet who was involved with study designs before the animals were even bred and he made sure that the experiments were necessary, ethical and kept to a minimum.

I have only ever seen one lazy scientist treat animals with a lack of regard for their welfare and he found himself out of a job fairly quickly, and rightly so.

Rats are nice intelligent creatures and I would hate to see them mis-treated

Shame on you, poisoning the well..

I quoted a meta analysis where they said industry funded vaccine trials are biased. I can quote you lots more evidence of industry bias and how it skews results if you like.. It’s rife in the healthcare industry, anyone working in the sector who is unaware of it is failing in their duty of care pledge..

There is a distinct lack of independent research, and as posted above (the huffington post link) even one of the lead docs working on the HPV vaccine doesn’t recommend it.

I have done my research, I question things.. I read the article, check the grammar, weed out the fallacies and check the sources.. This is how you sort propaganda from truth. Industry funded trials are not enough, we need conclusions from people who aren’t financially benefitting from the sale of the drug before we can draw ANY conclusions..

Fyi folks: This is taken from an article by Dr. Barrett about the anti-fluoride campaigners but the same principles apply here.

How Poisonmongers Work

The antifluoridationists’ (“antis”) basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them—because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the big lie is the laundry list. List enough “evils,” and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports. Another variation is the simple statement that fluoridation doesn’t work… In fact, the Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed matter. Because of this, antis are very eager to have their views printed. Scientific journals will rarely publish them, but most local newspapers are willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate—expecting that it will increase readership.

The aim of anti “documents” is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. Often they quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals are often used. Another favored tactic is to misquote a profluoridation scientist, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.

Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances—even pure water—can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.

Full article here
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

Ah, Stephen Barrett MD.
Officially Declared by the US Court System, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court Decision (NCAHF v King Bio), to be “Biased, and unworthy of credibility.”

The guy claims to have authored papers in published journals – but he failed the exam to become “board certified”, to use any of his research in a court of law in the US is considered a “fraud on the court”.

Check out your quackwatch gurus credentials here;
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

Notice, they can provide evidence, rather than using fallacy as you have here.

You need to study logic man.. And learn about the way the world works..

In defence of Dr Barrett he was successfully prosecuted once in relation to the hundreds of studies he takes against pseudoscience. The article I posted was correct in all it’s facts, the prosecution you revered to was in relation to an article he write on chiropathy not vaccinations or flouride (BTW OJ Simpson was found innocent at time). He puts himself out there and despite been proven right 100′s of times he was shot down once. Which is now being used as a stick to discredit all his findings.
I have studied logic and the way the world works: the 2 aren’t always connected, surely you know that better than most Shanti?

And the fact he’s not board certified and isn’t actually entitled to the MD at the end of his name, yet authors papers..

Non board certified doctors signing off on med papers is one of the many things considered medical fraud.. The very thing he claims to be against..

Wow, more people are giving you thumbs down than up, because you recommend people do some research before taking a vaccine, that is a very scary, why would you not research the effects of a drug before giving it to your child, is that not a parents responsibility, do we blindly trust our government?

Ed, I read your link. Too vague for my liking.

I also read this one which appears to discredit Sanevax Inc pretty thoroughly. Any comment?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/beware-hpv-dna-in-gardasil/

P Wurple, I checked that blog out the last time someone held it up as some sort of example..
A) it’s a blog, what are the authors credentials?
B) he was arguing efficacy of flu shots in the link I checked out, but as I pointed out below – meta analysis conducted by qualified research analysts concluded that flu vaccines had “a modest effect on working days lost” and have no impact on secondary infections at all.

Yet that author still reckons the flu vaccine is worth the money..

I ask this: who is the author? A doctor? A research analyst? If so, does he have any conflicts of interest declared or undeclared? And if not, is he just a joe soap writing a blog, the body of the text in the article I read seemed to suggest the latter..

Just did a quick bit of research – there appears to be several authors on that site..

Dr David Gorski – undisclosed ties to Sanofi Aventis and Merck.. Most honest Doctors involved in research disclose their conflicts of interest, Dr Gorski denies them apparently..

Shanti, indeed, an opinion piece on the web… Much the same as “sanevax” , but much less hyperbole and more reason.

The guy recieves a quite large sum of money from vaccine manufacturers.. It could be reason, or it could be industry persuasion.
Again I refer you to the part of the authors conclusions I quoted below on the meta analysis of flu vaccine trials. And ask you to read up on medical research fraud, there are plenty of industry mouthpieces out there who claim to have no ties to industry, but just a little digging uncovers their ties quite easily.

As a Medical Laboratory Scientist with experience in cervical cancer screening I read the savevax “fact sheet”This resource (notice I said resource, not publication as no peer reviewed medical or scientific journal would publish material of such a low standard). Most of the “facts” in this document are wholly unsupported by their references and at best are taken wildley out of context. It appears to be written to be aimed at lay people and be deliberately misleading. For instance controls are completely ommited everywhere, and the fact that ALL deaths and injuries post vaccination are documented in studies such as these, including the likes of getting hit by a bus and COMPARED with the placebo groups. This kind of comparison is missing from the fact sheet.

“Fact” no. 7 in particular stood out out as total BS.

“Chart below indicates that HPV 16 & 18 does not even appear in a studied population of Columbian
women until their mid 20’s – long after the initial efficacy of the vaccine has worn off” (Worn off based on what exactly… the authors of the paper they are misrepresenting said explicitly that low complience with screening programmes was the issue… not patient age)

This is a good place for anyone to start if they want to see through the sensationalist garbage people interpret scientific papers as to sell newspapers or other stuff, promote ridiculous fringe viewpoints ect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Hi Anthony… I don’t profess to be an expert and I am inherently suspicious of vaccine companies whose number one priority is profit and share prices so I am probably not impartial. But I think people should do there research and not blindly believing whatever a drug company says…

Here’s another interesting article from a Merck Insider.. Maybe you can give us professional opinion on this too..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html

Although that link appears to be biased I will say people should always do research before taking anything like this as I remember the swine flu vaccine being on the news multiple times saying it went wrong and turned out they didn’t do any research on it besides that it got rid of swine flu thankfully I was one of the smart secondary school children and didn’t get the vaccine. Instead I just used anti-bacterial scrub(it was €2 for 4 bottles each of which lasted months,great value!) and other non-medicinal/ non-vaccination methods to avoid it which all went perfectly well the ones that got it(a lot of them) ended up sick for days or weeks even months in some cases.

First of all I would like to say my job has no involvement whatsoever with the vaccination programme but I do think that giving the HPV vaccine is the right and responsable thing to do.

I’m not saying that people should blindly take vaccines without asking questions but if they are unsure they should ask their doctor or another healthcare professional. In particular your local chemist can be quite helpful, they are free to talk to and they know much more about drugs and potential risks of drugs and vaccines than doctors since, well its their job to be the leading experts on all forms of medication. If people have concerns about vaccines this is a far better approach than relying on the internet for medical advice because there is a lot of stuff out there that is just plain wrong, dangerous and irresponsible and often deliberately so.

I remember reading an article on the MMR from some fundamentalist Christian group claiming that aborted foetuses were used in making the vaccine, when what was actually used was proteins made by an artificially grown cell line which was grown using foetal CALF (cattle, not human) serum.
The article at first glance looked to be very professionally written with the help of scientists (Mad scientists or highly paid ones I guess) but reading into the articles it referenced none of them said what the original authors were claiming.

Newspapers aren’t that much better really I’ve seen articles even in the Irish Times that completely missed the point of different types of scientific studies, not deliberately but still a lot of scientific journalists are people that failed science courses and took up journalism. The bottom line is talk to a healthcare professional about medical matters rather than goggling it if you’re not sure.

Ed the link you posted to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/an-interview-with-dr-dian_b_405472.html is a far more rational argument. I agree completly with a lot of what she says about informed consent and the idea of making vaccinations mandititory for immigrants with a view to prevent them from bringing HPV into the US is ridiculous.

The author touches on some important points such as the importance of regular pap smears being the gold standard with regard to cancer death prevention, I wont argue that point because its true but a lot of women dont get regular pap smears and the vaccine is an important safety net.

She goes on to say that the vaccine provides some additional protection particularly to women that don’t get pap smears regularly. I think that constantly trying to improve public health and addressing as many risks as possible is generally a good thing and if the herd immunity effect of 70%+ of the relevant patient population can save lives its the right thing to do to vaccinate your children if you are informed properly of the risks involved which are actually quite small.

There risks with taking any medication but each patient should evaluate these with the help of a healthcare professional

Anthony, the reason people have to research for themselves is because at this stage Doctors are being bombarded with false research via med journals (which could accurately be described as drug brochures dressed up as research for the most part). They have pharmaceutical reps pretty much bribing them to write scripts for their drug (pharmacists too), in the UK they have launched the Bribery Act to try combat this practice.
It’s because these conflicts of interest exist that people should be taking more personal responsibility when it comes to introducing man made chemicals into the human body.

I personally have had a doctor insist that the side effects I was suffering from a medication were not caused by the medication because the research said it only happened to 2% of people taking it -yet independent research put that figure far higher (mind you, they were anti depressants, conclusively proven to only be 5% effective by meta analysis). He obviously wasn’t up to date with the research in his field. Can you guarantee that your doctor is? It would be a tall order to expect that of them, there’s a lot to keep up on.

Find the research that demonstrates concern and bring it with you to the doctors or pharmacist, you would be surprised how much research can be missed..
Like the docs where my friend was in hospital never having seen any research on the role of nutrients in mental health (coincidentally, neither had the shrink I saw).

Yeah, researching yourself is fine and I do it all the time but I was just pointing out to people that there is a lot of total crap out there on the internet that can look fairly convincing until you really look at it. If something Isin’t published in a peer reviewed journal or another reliable source and sounds a bit outlandish I’d look it up properly on pubmed.gov and try to do some background reading with review articles until I fully understand it and then read it again. If its an area I’m not too familiar with or I was still unsure I’d ask an expert.

Agreed, there’s a lot of cods wallop out there, some of it claims to be clinical research. We are not expressly lied to every day, we are simply bombarded with false rhetoric. Then false rhetoric gets repeated until it becomes “fact” in the minds of all those repeating it. It is not unreasonable to expect that all medical research should be trustworthy, unfortunately it is unrealistic. As we are all too aware, conflicts of interest are rife in this world, corruption is everywhere. It is only by people learning to spot the false rhetoric that they have any hope of sorting fact from fallacy.
Good evening, it’s been a pleasure debating with you :)

Good point, however we should consider even vaccinating the girls as a real step forward for our country

Yeah, but are mouth and throat cancer caused by HPV?

Wow, ditch the fallacy and then try making your point. You have made appeals to fear, the false dilemma, the ad hominem, presumed guilt by association, straw man arguments too -and thats just at a glance..

You also fail to recognise the point I was making, which was the simple fact that industry funded research is known to be biased (as in, risks massively downplayed, benefits greatly exaggerated – and in some cases risks are completely suppressed – eg, vioxx, bextra, Avandia etc), in the absence of sufficient INDEPENDENT research, and quality reviews of all research, as well as sufficient long term research, conclusive safety cannot be established. For this reason, by all means take the choice to be one of the long term research candidates. But if you would rather wait until this criteria is fulfilled before getting jabbed, safe sex and regular pap smears are far safer, and would have the same preventative effect.

If your kids are vaccinated what are ya worried about :/

Yeah, there have been outbreaks of vaccine strain measles (eg – the strain of measles made in a lab and not found in nature), so would you mind keeping your kids away from mine? The lab strain is far more virulent..