Coming from the guy that just ate some shrooms and doesn't understand the connection between math and science >.>

I understand it.  I am just not interested in it.  Basically, it is like asking me to memorize a bunch of scientific names for animals.  Is it useful?  Maybe but I don't give a fuck; I'll just use the common names since I don't talk to scientist around the world.  I'd rather observe and find things out on my own.  Amazing what you can observe in nature while everyone else is going about their meaningless everyday tasks.

example : I saw a fat lady throwing a ball to her dog in the doggy park at my apartments while walking by it.  I then realized it should have been the dog throwing her the ball.

Anyways, back to the FDA.  It is obvious that most of the people that are in the FDA (especially the ones on the boards that make the decisions) also collect money from pharmaceutical companies.  Conflict of interest?  YES

His statement "44.6% of that group had an increased risk" is not true because he states that all sexually active females compose this risk group.  Quadrant IV is incorrect; being sexually active does not mean you have been exposed to the virus.  Furthermore, it is possible to be exposed even without being sexually active.  Fortunately, microbiology and seriology labs can detect if someone is in this risk group.  The Doctor has no reason to even inquire about a girl's sexual past for this vaccine; all the lab needs is a blood sample and a tissue swab.  The results will indicate presence of virus or antigens and the Doctor will be informed.  The lab cannot conclude how the virus got there because viruses are tiny SOB's and the vehicle/vector of viral transmission isn't limited to being sexually transmitted.  Knowing the risks, the Doctor can give the girl a choice, informing her of the risks and adverse reactions and leave the decision up to her with her privacy intact.  

Even if the Doctor behaves unprofessionally and asks personal questions, the female in questions can simply say "Irrelevant.  Even abstaining I cannot guarantee non-exposure.  Run whatever tests need to be done."  The tests can only confirm the presence or absence of whatever they are looking for; they cannot conclude how exposure took place.

Now, please demonstrate the validity and soundness (Wikipedia will be your friend) of his argument based on his 'Four Quadrants' (my bold).  The bolded sections corrects his assumptions and destroys his conclusion that the vaccine "adds no benefits to any quadrant!".

"Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:

Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer. (This is a falsehood; it is possible to contract HPV without sexual contact and there is no guarantee that the individual in question will remain non-sexually active throughout her life.  The vaccine is beneficial thus.)

Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No medical benefit from vaccine. (This is a falsehood; since it is possible to contract HPV without sexual contact, the vaccine would do what vaccines do and immunize 95+% of those who receive it from contracting it.  Furthermore, if one becomes sexually active later, they will actually have protection against sexual exposure to the virus.)

Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer. (HPV-16 has been found in the tumor cells of most patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.  I'm not going to get into the science of it, just recognize that the virus in these cases have proven to not be self-limiting and may lead to cervical cancer.)

Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: 44.6% Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in cancer risk. (Those sexually active may not have the virus and even among those who do...they might not be part of that particular risk group.  Ergo his math is grievously incorrect and there will be sexually active people who benefit greatly from the vaccine.)"

Quadrent One: While I am aware that certain types of HPV can be contracted prenataly  ( which obviously is not through sexual activity) from what I have researched and correct me if I'm wrong but there has to be some form of sexual contact (though does not require actual penetration and it seems that all of the cancer causing hpv strains are classified as these) to contract the virus. So technically, Quadrent One is not really inaccurate as you described.

Quadrent Two:  While the recipients of the vaccine will eventually become sexually active, there really is no guarentee that the person who recieves the vaccine will in fact have immunity to the virus  after receiving vaccination as studies are still ongoing to determine whether booster doses will be needed  down the road and how long the vaccine protects you ( I could be vaccinated and contract it 3-5 years later). Also, to my knowledge the vaccine itself as they claim only protects you from 2 of the 5 HPV strains that cause cancer. If we are to beleive this,  that only gives you a 40% chance for an uncertain amount of time which gives you less odds than a game of Russian Roulette. (Although I do find that most of the information coming from government organizations, tends to be rather misleading at times)

Quadrent Three: The science does seem a little hasty as there are still many unaswered questions regarding the vaccine.  While I understand your view point on how the author could have been more descriptive and did seem to miss a lot of factors, we also have to take into consideration that the statement is not necessarily false.  From what I've read they did not give an exact base of people surveyed because lets be quite honest, certain genetics will determine (for some viruses,infections and cancers) whether or not you do have an immunity or are more prone. Again from what I have seen they have not shown which (and I'm not trying to sound bigoted) races were tested who had increased chances to the cancers etc because to beleive that everyone is affected equally is utter bullshit.

Quadrent Four: I will agree with you on this one as he did not properly describe the group of people he was referring to . The vaccine from what the studies show increases the risk by by 44.6 percent in those who had been carriers of the HPV strains found in the vaccine. Now they say that 90% of people will carry a strain of HPV at some point in there lifetime so technically the results could be more than what he stated or less.

I'd say vaccinations are most likely a good thing.

Some people blame them for the rise in autism, I THINK later medical studies have proven that not to be the case, but i haven't studied it in any great degree so couldn't say which if either groups experiments were valid.

There probably some decent sized lobbies on both sides of the argument.

Either way, something in modern life is causing a huge increase in autism. With the CDC suggesting in the US its now 1 in 88 which seems crazy high.

Pharma companies can earn just as much or even more with curing diseases or treating  symptoms instead of preventing them or get rid of them.

They arent white knights but definetly not devils without conscious either. Not helping someone because of the cost and actively make people suffer or killing them for higher profits are two different things. If Autism has anything to do with vaccinations why is the increase happening right now and not in the 80s ?

Social akwardness is no sickness let me introduce you to the various fashionable diseases:

AD(H)D, Depression (Burnout), Autism (Asperger)

or the fainting which was envogue decades ago. 

I am not saying those sicknesses dont exist but people are very susceptible when it comes to stuff like that through media its spreading faster than in the old days. Its like a giant placebo effect. I was diagnosed with ADD and I ofcourse used this new excuse for everything. Now people say they have Autism (Asperger) and its a great excuse for not trying to put up with people. Heck I even have almost Autism  according to this test:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Autism has forms that are very serious. But being just a grumpy teenager afraid to make social bonds and being painfully shy wasnt called a sickness 50 years ago same for hyperactive rebellious kids. Those were personality trades. Its like there is a gold standard how people have to feel to be considered healthy.

Depression is a life threatening disease but nowadays its also an overused diagnosis.

BTW: Studys arent flawless. They can easily being misread or just totally wrong from the start executed in a sloppy way or even tempered with to show certain results. Every doctor can make a study and show the results to the world. There were tons of myths started by studys: like Ecstasy makes holes in your brain. The autism caused by vaccination was also BS. Some guy said 1998 that according to his study the MMR vaccination causes autism. This guy faked evidence because he got 55000 pounds and was decleared guilty in 2010 and lost his license.  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

It was all BS from the  begining the pharma giants dont need the money from those vaccinations they can treat the symptoms measels, mumps and rubella cause and let the viruses roam freely instead of selling a once in a lifetime vaccination. Also after the licence for a certain med runs out the profit margin becomes small. New meds are were the money is.

 I wouldnt trust one result in anything even from a good source. Just like Neutrinos arent faster than light, MMR vaccination doesnt cause Autism. But we will hear about it for decades to come.