No way to autheticate? If you actually read the entire article instead of claiming you did, you would have found direct links to the FDA and other sites (you do realize that the continue arrow brings you to the next screen right?)

For someone who claims they have a "BACHELOR" in biology and biotech and are pursuing a Master's it's very surprising s that you resorted to ad hominems and choose to use the type of language you did, like in the previous post. If anything, you come off more as an ignorant hillbilly then someone with any credibility at all.

Oh wait, let me guess; in your next post you will post a link directly from the A.C.S or one of those organizations, or hell maybe you'll provide me something from the W.H.O! Well I would highly suggest researching into who funds or created the majority of these organizations where alot of this scientific data comes from and who there founders were (you should already know this, considering how smart you are).

Anyways, until you can speak and act like an adult and debate intelligently without swearing or name calling, do not bother replying as I have nothing further to say to you.

Good day to you sir, and kepp drinking that kool-aid.

No way to autheticate? If you actually read the entire article instead of claiming you did, you would have found direct links to the FDA and other sites (you do realize that the continue arrow brings you to the next screen right?)

For someone who claims they have a "BACHELOR" in biology and biotech and are pursuing a Master's it's very surprising s that you resorted to ad hominems and choose to use the type of language you did, like in the previous post. If anything, you come off more as an ignorant hillbilly then someone with any credibility at all.

Oh wait, let me guess; in your next post you will post a link directly from the A.C.S or one of those organizations, or hell maybe you'll provide me something from the W.H.O! Well I would highly suggest researching into who funds or created the majority of these organizations where alot of this scientific data comes from and who there founders were (you should already know this, considering how smart you are).

Anyways, until you can speak and act like an adult and debate intelligently without swearing or name calling, do not bother replying as I have nothing further to say to you.

Good day to you sir, and kepp drinking that kool-aid.

I read the article.  The author did not even do his basic math correctly.  In study group 013, one subgroup had their risk of developing pre-cancerous lesions by 44.6%.  The author (whom I cannot call 'journalist' based on the rampant illogic in this article) then concluded that all non-virgins had a 44.6% chance of developing cervical cancer if they receive a vaccine.  But wait a minute...they experienced an increased risk by 44.6% (not to 44.6%); if they were only 0.1% likely to develop pre-cancerous lesions to begin with, you multiply that by 1.446 (44.6% increase) and you get a whopping 0.1446% risk of developing this condition.  The article doesn't cite the initial chances, though, so that's up to speculation.  Perhaps if the sources were properly cited the actual figures could be found for this one sub-group (and apparently the only one that raised any alarm; at least any that he found to be newsworthy) in at least 13 separate studies.  But no, he states that people have 44.6% chance of developing cervical cancer if they get the vaccine.  This is a grievous mathematical error.

Somehow this has led him to conclude (without any evidence whatsoever) that virgins will be "interrogated" as a result, and that their sexual history would be revealed because apparently doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't exist in his country.  The leaps of illogic taken by this man discredits everything he had to say on the subject, a statement I can make with confidence because he subscribed to at least one logical fallacy every time he tried providing the reader a fact.  Every time.

You will find that those who have actually studied microbiology will tend to call BS on this article.  

Their links were cherry picked, taken out of context and generally spun so much that they no longer resembled the actual content of the original sources. The FDA sources were in fact in support of HPV vaccine because they concluded that it was generally safe and that it prevented cancer caused by HPV - the 'article' picked out individual sections which when taken out of context seemed to support the opposite of those conclusions.

The scientific establishment is not some giant conspiracy out to get you.

Good job picking out my one typo. For the hell of it I bolded all your grammatical mistakes, do I win?

The links that do work simply link to request forms and overviews that are protocol for stage II testing. If you understood half the words in those papers you would realize that there is no 'conspiracy'.

Furthermore in order to defend your crazy view point you attack me instead of addressing any of the points I made? I get worked up over this stuff because people like you who don't have a single shred of medical knowledge think they know the secret cure to diabetes, and that all the evil scientist are keeping the information locked away to make millions of dollars. One of the cornerstones of scientific research is reproducibility. Every claim made by any organization is looked into by countless universities and independent research firms. Heck one of my current research projects is doing exactly that. But oh no I must be getting paid millions of dollars by some shady organization to change the results of my research 

Rath explained it better than I did. You can believe whatever you want, just don't go running to a hospital when you realize your voodoo magic didn't cure your cancer or keep you from getting polio.

You guys actually believe the FDA... lol

Any argument besides the FDA is full of shit is pointless.  Full of shit in everything since they are owned by the pharmaceutical companies.

I actually didn't mean to point out your "one error" that was my spelling mistake as the keys stick to my keyboard and I've never been a fan of proof reading and could not really care whether or not I spell correctly on an internet forum :P You can still give yourself a hero biscuit for pointing my mistakes out!

Anyways, back to the conversation. You obviously still have yet to read the article and it seems more than anything you do not understand because you could not even clearly point out what you disagreed with that had any relation to the subject. The protocol for stage two testing was not a huge part, keep reading.

Instead, you once again resort to either name calling or ignorant comments  and then make assumptions of other's intellect while (hysterically) portraying yourself to be that exact persona.

Let's not forget your attempt to piggy back on other user's comments who seemed to have read the article as for some reason "Mr. On His Way To A Master's degree" could not advise "Ignorant Ol' Me" why you disagree.

P.S  The funny thing is, I use more alternative methods for staying healthy and stay away from vaccines and out of everyone I know, and I rarely gets sick compared to those who take there flu shots and follow everything the health organizations tell them to. I guess I just must be crazy !