Should Your Daughter Receive the HPV Vaccine?

If you have a young daughter, you would do anything to ensure her safety. The FDA has already approved one HPV vaccine, Gardasil, believing that the vaccine could potentially save young women’s lives by preventing cervical cancer. However, some parents have hesitated to give their daughters the vaccine, questioning its safety and effectiveness. Can the HPV vaccine really save lives, or does it pose a high dosage risk?">adidas angel js wings mens shoes

Moncler Coats Mens
Moncler jacket
Moncler jackets
Moncler Coats Womens
Moncler coats
Moncler store
Moncler online
Moncler vest
Moncler outlet

Welcome to our Louis Vuitton Outlet. We all know that Louis Vuitton Outlet Online are very famous all over the world, for Louis Vuitton Factory fashionable design, beautiful appearance, and suitable for all ages of man and women, ladies and gentlemen. Now Louis Vuitton Sale has become the representative of wealth and taste, we can find any where that Louis Vuiton bags were take by famous stars, successful business men, or fashionable girls. Louis Vuiton bags will always in the trend and never out of fashion. And we are very dedicated to the provision of fashion Louis Vuitton bags which are all in highest quality and the most competitive of prices.

moncler jacket
canada goose chateau parka
herve leger dresses
cheap herve leger
herve leger sale

Had been following charms detailed plans drawn up months ago and had been waiting for a bangles signal to act. That signal was "iftar" -- the moment when earrings Muslims observing the holy months of Ramadan break bracelets their daily fast. It was at this moment that imams started broadcasting their rings message from the mosques, residents necklaces said.

The near-term ladies dresses effects on oil prices will be limited. "Psychologically anyway, it's going designer clothes to force some additional selling," Ritterbusch said. "But selling womens clothes may not be pronounced because there's still a lot of question marks remaining" on designer dresses how long it would take for production to women designer clothes resume.

Factory production red bottom shoes rose in July because automakers made more cars. And Wall Street analysts who high heels analyze companies and advise investors when to buy and sell don't christian louboutin heels seem to be worried. As stocks were falling Friday, research firm FactSet released figures cheap high heels that showed just how much more optimistic these analysts are than the average investor.

The United chanel handbags Nations then acted quickly, clearing the way for creation of chanel classic bag a no-fly zone that NATO, with a campaign of bombing, used ultimately chanel wallet to help drive back Gaddafi's forces. "It's over. Gaddafi's finished," said Saad Djebbar, former chanel 2.55 handbag legal adviser to Libyan government. Al Jazeera television aired chanel flap bag images of people celebrating in central Tripoli.

Says that another big plunge christian louboutin sale in stocks could "push us closer to the brink." The Standard & Poor's 500 cheap christian louboutin shoes stock index ended Friday at 1,123.53, down 5 percent for the week. The christian louboutin online shop average is down 16 percent during the four-week losing streak. One reason for the drop is fear that another high heels shoes recession, if not certain, is more likely now.

Critics say they would raise prada handbags costs unfairly for solid countries and could even deepen debt troubles. "Solving cheap prada the current crisis will not be possible with eurobonds, and so eurobonds prada shoes are not the answer," Merkel said in an interview with ZDF television. She added that prada outlet she didn't know whether things might change "in the prada sunglasses distant future.

To add to it,

-The Gardasil promotions have said again and again that the vaccine should not replace pap screening. Of which regular pap smears is already an excellent if not the best way to detect abnormal cervical leisions.

-As for Gardasil, there is also no evidence to suggest whether it might actually increase the risk for cancerous leisions or aggravate if a girl/woman already has HPV. Or whether it might even cause an ecological gap, allowing non-malevolent strains of HPV to flourish.

-Gardasil costs about $360-$400 on average if a girl were to get it, making it one of the most expensive vaccines ever. At a time in which Merck was swamped with lawsuits on Vioxx amongst other skeletons and dark secrets in their closet. And it was racing against GlaxoSmithKline to develop the HPV vaccine (GSK's HPV vaccine is Cervarix, and still hasn't won approval yet in the US).

-What more, Merck wants to expand the market to push this vaccine to boys too.

I'm disgusted that girls and women are always being used as guinea pigs. That they have the nerve to charge you for this useless and dangerous poison. Based on all these reasons, there is absolutely no rational basis for the cervical cancer vaccine. It's a breach of ethical conduct, and is an assault on our daughters.

-In 2006-2007 Merck engaged in a flurry of clandestine lobbyings to state legislatures in an attempt to have it mandated to girls. And many lawmakers who are proponents for the mandate either have ties to Merck or received generous campaign contributions or other donations. That's the same as bribery.

-Gardasil was given the fast-track by the FDA without any evidence that it's safe or effective. There is no evidence whether it might increase cancer risk, cause infertility, or is mutagenic (damaging to genes) or cause problems later in life. Or if it'll actually prevent cervical cancer. We'll have to wait years to see.

-The vaccine will only protect for a few years. Most women who contract cervical cancer are in their late 20s to mid 30s.

-There have been thousands of cases (only the reported numbers, mind you) of adverse reactions to Gardasil (look it up, each one is a parent's horror story) and a number of girls who died from it. As well as spontaneous abortions. Girls are dying, suffering, or have suffered from it.

So, NO. My daughter will be ONE LESS to get Gardasil. Our daughters are not guinea pigs nor are they Big Pharma's moneymakers. Where's the dads in this? What could be more important than your little girl? The conservatives were right to say no, but for the wrong reasons. I don't believe it'll encourage promiscuity or premarital sex.

I would never ever let them shoot up my daughter with this crap. It's ALL about money and whatever sick agenda they have. Because:

-HPV goes away 90% of the time in the vast majority of women without any symptoms.

-It's not HPV that causes cervical cancer, it's a persistent HPV infection that can increase the risk. So to sell it as a "cervical cancer" vaccine is misleading.

-Gardasil contains 225mcg of neurotoxic (poisonous to the brain) aluminum heavy metal, and sodium borate (an ingredient of ant and cockroach poison).

-The FDA allowed Merck to use an aluminum placebo during the test trials that could

-It only protects 4 strains out of over a hundred HPV strains. Not to mention there are other agents that can lead to cervical cancer, and all can be contracted through the same sexual activity

-Less than one half of one percent of individuals in the modern US die from cervical cancer. And it's been declining.

that there would be no long term negative health effects then i would *consider* it. At this time, i would not do it as i don't believe it's been around long enough for anyone to know the long term effects. i think at this date and time it is too risky..more risky than not getting the vax.

An 11-year old female weighing in the 50th percentile is intoxicated with 6000 ppb aluminum from each Gardasil shot received. This happens 3 times during 6 months. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin.

See the math and supporting citations at #HPV

Other chemicals used in the vaccine are described there too. Adverse events following Gardasil vaccination include

o Unusually high rates of fainting shortly after administration.

o Rapidly increasing cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) -- a disease where the body's immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system resulting in numbness and tingling, decreased sensation in the hands and feet, weakness and difficulty walking, and in some cases paralysis.

o Life-threatening challenge-rechallenge reactions.

o Spontaneous abortion and fetal abnormalities

I think if you are given the chance to protect your children against any illnesses take it, every medicine we take have adverse side effects of some sort but sometimes you have to take risks in life to benefit for the future otherwise we wouldn't need medical research and all die from whatever is handed to us, life is precious

..and Gardasil is no different. There is no such thing as a safe vaccine. With the mercury-based preservatives in serum being shown to cause autism in certain individuals, and with the lack of effectiveness of any vaccine to prevent or protect against illness, this one (along with the rest of them) has got to go.

I challenge bagpiper2005 to produce one shred of evidence to support the nonsensical notion that "vaccinations of any kind are ineffective". This is total and complete humbug. If vaccines were ineffective, the world would still be plagued by smallpox. If vaccines were ineffective, most of the world would not be free of polio.

M. Glass

That makes a heck of a lot of difference you know. As stated by alisaterry, these diseases were on the decline before vaccinations were ever around. If vaccines are so darn effective, how come vaccinated individuals can still contract said diseases? You think of vaccinations as a godsend and in reality they are not.

Of course, modern medicine is a scam anyway. The only reason to become a doctor or go into the pharmaceutical industry is to pad your pocket book. Bogus medicines (anti-depressants are a load of crap because there is no such thing as mental illness, among other medicines), vaccinations (painful and not very effective, and of course inflicting pain on a helpless little child is morally wrong), male genital mutilation (of course, you already said you had a bias against natural men, which is disgusting). All these medical "advances" yet we live, on average, shorter lifespans now than we used to..interesting!!!

Thank you Kevin Trudeau for exposing doctors and Big Pharma for the snakes they are.

Bagpiper, here is some evidence for you to consider. Read the article on smallpox vaccination in Wikipedia If you read it all, you will see that it describes both the benefits and the dangers of this vaccination. Nevertheless, despite these dangers, vaccination was able to eradicate this illness throughout the world.

Similarly I would like you to read the article on polio in Wikipedia Once again it gives an overview that points out the advantages as well as the risks of this vaccine.

Because of these two vaccines, the world has been freed from smallpox and largely freed from polio.

As for the rest of what you said, your description of medicine is about as accurate as your description of my opinions on circumcision - the exact opposite of the truth!

M. Glass

And my own personal experiences. It might not be so bad in the UK, because you have free health care and doctors are paid specified government salaries. In the US, doctors are paid strict commission, and the more times the patient has to go back to the doctor the better, because he/she makes a fatter paycheck (all the more motive to just treat symptoms and not underlying cause of disease..that is after all what modern medicine does).

And my apologies for confusing you with Michael Bates who is very anti-intact.

Bagpiper, you're not the only one to have had bad experiences with doctors. After all, doctors are only human. Nevertheless, there are scientifically established medical facts that we can take advantage of.

One of the great advances is vaccination for so many common diseases. A former colleague of mine nearly died as a child from diphtheria; I was spared this because the vaccine had been developed by the time I was born. One of my childhood fears was polio, that I might end up in an iron lung. Then along came the Salk vaccine, and this fear was removed. As a result of vaccination, my son will be spared the mumps, which, I can assure you, is not something that any man would want to get. And it's the same with a lot of other diseases.

Now please note that I'm not saying that vaccination is perfect, or that it is completely free from side effects, but I am saying that it is, on balance, safer for an individual to have the shots unless the disease has been completely eradicated.

Finally, thank you for your apology. I hope you don't mind if I make one more correction: I am Australian, not British. However, we do have a national health service and a life expectancy (81.53 years) that is higher than the United States (78.14 years). See

M. Glass

We have all but eradicated some major diseases from the US population with the help of a number of Vaccines from polio to measles (although measles does seem to be coming back, a side effect of herd-immunity being lowered by parents who do not vaccinate).

Mercury hasn't been in the vaccines you mention since 2003, and the rates of autism continue to rise for a number of other factors (such as higher recognition of the disease by Psychiatrists). Furthermore, the best evidence we have at this time suggests that autism is genetically linked (boys are 5x more likely to be autistic than are girls).

I don't think we should go willy-nilly vaccinating everyone for everything, but to make a blanket statement that "the lack of effectiveness of any vaccine to prevent or protect against illness" is demonstrably false. We should be *extremely* careful to protect children from unnecessary, preventable diseases, but to allow horrible diseases like measles to spread because of irrational and unscientifically founded claims would be even more tragic.

Vaccine statistics show that most vaccine preventable diseases were on the decline before vaccines were introduced. That is because many are hygeine related so as were understood more about germs and how infectious diseases were passed, the spread of these diseases declined.

As for Mercury, it was never in the MMR, and that is the one most associated with Autism. It does contain aluminum, a toxic heavy metal.

The thing is, there are no government studies comparing completely unvaccinated children to vaccinated ones: usually the study subjects have had other vaccines, but they are divided by who does and who doesn't get one or two particular vaccines. They won't do the definitive studies. Why not?

"Vaccine statistics show that most vaccine preventable diseases were on the decline before vaccines were introduced. That is because many are hygeine related so as were understood more about germs and how infectious diseases were passed, the spread of these diseases declined."

You are absolutely correct. In fact, while most people attribute the rise of modern medicine to the declining rates of many disease, hygiene also played a major role, and helped bring down the rates of many diseases.

That said, while hygiene helps provide declining rates of disease, it leaves a certain gap of protection. That gap is meant to be filled by vaccines, and has worked extremely well. Last year, 131 people contracted measles (4x more than the previous seven years). Of those that contracted the disease, 91% were unvaccinated. The's the gap. (source: )

"As for Mercury, it was never in the MMR, and that is the one most associated with Autism. It does contain aluminum, a toxic heavy metal."

From what I understand, the majority of studies done do not back up the claim that MMR vaccines cause autism. While MMRs might be the most scrutinized, they also appear to be mostly vindicated. ( #saf).

"They won't do the definitive studies. Why not?"

If you considered not vaccinating children to be morally irresponsible because you believe vaccinating prevents diseases and suffering, how could you possibly commit an ethical study where you withhold a medical benefit from one group of *children*? That's the ethical dilemma behind doing a controlled study where one group does not receive vaccination and the other does -- unnecessary risk.

Also, money. There's limited funds, plain and simple. The medical community doesn't believe MMR leads to autism, and therefore the funds might be better directed toward more fruitful trials at this point.

It's not unethical if you invite a community already against vaccinations to participate. I don't vaccinate mine. I'm sure many of us non-vaccinating parents would be more than happy to participate.

Also - the FDA does not count as a valid source for safety studies in my book, considering all the crap they let slip through.

This study is certainly telling, though.

"Findings released Friday showed that infant monkeys given vaccines officially recommended by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) exhibited autism-like symptoms. Lead investigator Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues presented study results at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London. Safety studies of medicines are typically conducted in monkeys prior to use in humans, yet such basic research on the current childhood vaccination regimen has never before been done."

With the increase of an unvaccinated sub-population in the general US population we have allready started to see a resurgance in measels among children in the US. If we don't vaccinate against anything because if irrational fears of side effects we invite back the good old days when a virus could move rapidly through a crowded population creating an epidemic. On behalf of the rest of the population: Thanks.

If you want to see the effects of the diseases we vaccinate against visit a country where vaccinations are not available. But make sure you get yours before you travel. Some of those diseases are real killers.

I'm quite happy to have been vaccinated against some of the most devastating diseases to affect the human race. I have no desire to be patient "0".

All that would have to be done is to run a well-designed, prospective, randomly controlled study comparing the rates of autism between kids given either the combo MMR + 2 placebo shots vs. the separate measles, mumps, and rubella shots spaced out. All the kids would get the full protection within 18 months, and the risk of the partially vax kids being exposed to mumps or rubella before they're fully immunized is very low.

The 2002 Danish study most widely used to bolster claims of no link between the combo MMR shot and autism has known flaws and conflicts of interest. We need a better study to help parents decide what's best for their kids.

I'm not a doctor, I just have a degree in Soc/Psych and methodological problems are sort of a highlight of those degrees. From a methodological point of view, the Amish wouldn't be a very good control group as their lifestyles differ drastically from those of so-called "normal" children -- the statistical majority that live in modern cities and suburbs. There could be a number of environmental factors that could be problematic in studying these different groups and that would be hard to control for in the final analysis -- too many extraneous variables.

Furthermore, ethically speaking, just because there are parents such as yourself who chose not to vaccinate doesn't mean that the Review Board at a medical institution would consider it ethical to perform the study. The standards are based on their ethical guidelines, not on those of individual parents.

As for the study you mention, you must also say that what was presented at IMFAR was a poster with an abstract, not a peer-reviewed published paper which has undergone major scrutiny from the medical community.

Furthermore, it appears as though there were some methodological anomalies. The first being that the control group (unvaccinated) and test group (vaccinated) were considerably different in size -- 3 controlled compared to 13 uncontrolled. This isn't normally how controls are supposed to work -- the populations should have been equal in size (8 & 8), which still may not have been enough subjects to be statistically significant.

Moreover, the infant monkeys appear to have been anesthetized and sedated every time they underwent PET scans and MRIs, as well as having 3 colonoscopys during their short lives. The number of procedures appear to be above average, and may have been a confounding factor.

This is just to paraphrase , which is an article that discusses some of the problems with the study. Not that it shouldn't be taken seriously, but it also can't be considered *proof* at this point -- there are a ton of questions to ask.

There are often allot of problems with these studies. Here in Kansas, they have passed a law creating a Registration place for those who get vacinated. When you get your children vaccinated, you have the option of being registered. Any way, I have read different opinions on both sides and see that there are problems with both sides.

"Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You To Know About" by Kevin Trudeau. Exposes the pharmaceutical and medical industries for the snakes they really are, including the ineffectiveness of vaccines (as well as prescription drugs), and how they are designed to make you sick instead of make you well.

Kevin was also successfully sued for using deceptive marketing techniques.. Please do some cursory research on what the medical community thinks about the science in that book. I think you'll find that the doctors reviewing the book are both reasonable people and vastly more scientifically literate than Mr. Trudeau, and can explain logically (not conspiratorially) why certain things work and others don't (including MOST of the "cures" in his book).

Kevin Trudeau is the definition of a snake (according to the justice system).. peddling cures and false hope that have been shown to be ineffective in a deceptive way. While I'm not going to defend all pharma companies (as almost all corporations do some very bad things), the medical community itself has very reasonable scientific arguments about why this book is dangerous (examine the CLAIMS -- ad hominem attacks don't stack up).

Also, who is "they?" The Phrama community? Do you really believe there is a vast conspiracy to make you sick and perpetuate disease? I understand there is money in it, but next time you get a major infection let it go completely untreated without any prescription antibiotics. See who has your back then -- pharmaceuticals or Kevin Trudeau's miracles.

Furthermore, you don't refute my point in any way -- that Vaccines have been tremendously successful in MANY cases, or that mercury hasn't been included in vaccines since 2003. Mostly because these are both statements of veritable fact. If we've done such a good job of eradicating these diseases, how can you truly claim that everything "they" do is designed to make you sick?

I do have what would be called a "treatable" disease..namely Graves'. However, I'm electing to refuse treatment as I know the standard treatment for it would have horrible side effects. So I just deal with it.

We haven't eradicated disease any more than we've eradicated ourselves. Evolution is an amazing thing isn't it?

"We haven't eradicated disease any more than we've eradicated ourselves." When did I claim this? I said "that Vaccines have been tremendously successful in MANY cases," specifically measles and polio. You're initial claim was that "Vaccinations of any kind are ineffective.." which is something I just wanted to point out as a bad argument. I didn't claim we've cured all diseases, and you CAN'T claim that vaccines haven't done any good whatsoever.

Your latest argument conflates all disease into one generic category (ex: Graves' and infections) when these diseases have very different biological mechanisms. Mayo Clinic says "There's no treatment to stop your immune system from producing the antibodies that cause Graves' disease." However, the same could not be said of bad staph infections, which could be easily cured using everyday prescribed antibiotics. Would you really chose to not treat a bad staph infection?

Staph Infections are easy..stick a needle in them and they ooze. No need for antibiotics!