Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gardasil"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Abstinence and HPV)
(Abstinence and HPV)
Line 222: Line 222:
::::: Would I deny that 2+2=4 if liberals told me to? I'm flabbergasted by that response to be honest. I have no idea how to respond to or desire to reply to that sort of rhetoric. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Would I deny that 2+2=4 if liberals told me to? I'm flabbergasted by that response to be honest. I have no idea how to respond to or desire to reply to that sort of rhetoric. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Why question the analogy rather than consider the point it is intended to make? Abstinence is still the answer to preventing infection: for the child to be safe, the parents need to be abstinent. Abstinence is a trans-generational safeguard, and ''all'' need to play their part. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 11:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Why question the analogy rather than consider the point it is intended to make? Abstinence is still the answer to preventing infection: for the child to be safe, the parents need to be abstinent. Abstinence is a trans-generational safeguard, and ''all'' need to play their part. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 11:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: MikeSalter, when you explain it like that it all becomes clear. I will concede that I was completely wrong. Andy and MikeSalter, well played sirs. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)
== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 10:30, 13 January 2009


Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --Hojimachong 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)
please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. Palmd001 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See here.--Aschlafly 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [2][link title] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.

Your potential friend, Peter Palmd001 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.Palmd001 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--Dave3172 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Condom effectiveness

Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--AustinM 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.Murray 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--Dave3172 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years after your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--Dave3172 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--AustinM 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Austin, also from your link:
"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a

condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."
Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--Dave3172 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy accurately. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --Ed Poor 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.PalMD 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will prevent transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.Murray 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [3]
I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --Ed Poor 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. PalMD 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --Ed Poor 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. PalMD 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--Dave3172 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: - 1 - 2- 3 Murray 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to present the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the male condom "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

  • Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the male condom, calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see Pygmalion effect). Telling people if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --Ed Poor 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.PalMD 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
  1. That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
  2. That the "second-best" method is condom use?
  3. That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods other than abstinence as "effective"?
  4. That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
It's a complex problem. --Ed Poor 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption. I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. Midnus


There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. DrSandstone 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Before making major revisions..

Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--PalMDtalk 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --PalMDtalk 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. Chrysogonus 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--Dave3172 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." Midnus

Article Title

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--All Fish Welcome 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverted Liberal Bias

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--Aschlafly 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. JoshuaZ 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. JohnSmith 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
If we are going to change In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated antibody levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects. [1] to In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated antibody levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls)., then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--Hsmom 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


The term "sexually active" is liberal bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk. {zero risk by virtue of simply being married? um....... no. it severly lowers the risk, however simply getting married does not magically erase any chance of spreading anything to your wife or husband} - Jros83 15:53, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

This is true ONLY if both partners are and have always been monogamous to that partner ONLY. What are the chances? Considering a 50% divorce rate in this country (with much remarriage), and the amount of cheating that goes on within marriage (even among "Christians"), it would be foolish for a woman to NOT get the vaccine. Even if she were pure as the driven snow, she has to hope that her partner was and always will be as well.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--Aschlafly 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--Aschlafly 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. SSchultz 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. SSchultz 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--Aschlafly 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the HPV vaccine controversy. --Ed Poor Talk 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Article quality

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --Ed Poor Talk 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." Midnus

Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine

Time says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent venereal diseases: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that chlamydia was the most common. Who says it's HPV? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --Ed Poor Talk 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Speaking of that, there is an article here that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is much less prevalent in the U.S. and First World countries than the liberal hysteria of the media would have us believe. ThomasB 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)
But is is still very common relative to other cancers. The reason that the rate of cervical cancer is so much lower in western countries is that there is wide-spread screening and treatment of precancerous lesions. Most cancers are caught BEFORE they become invasive and lethal. But some still get missed or are more virulent, and many women don't get screened because they can't afford it. PAP smears and colposcopy and LEEP procedures are not cheap. I've had to take of twenty and thirty year old patients dying from cervical cancer. It's horrible. And to think that their deaths could have been prevented by a vaccine.......ukie 12 October 2008
Thanks for another excellent observation, ThomasB. By the way, often vaccine manufacturers get big tax write-offs by dumping their stale or defective vaccine products on the Third World. Recently the vaccine caused a tragic epidemic of polio in one African country.--Aschlafly 21:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Careful what you write, please, Aschafly. The vaccine that caused the (small, local) epidemic of polio was a polio vaccine one which contained a rare mutation in the attenuated polio virus[2]. Nothing at all to do with HPV or with "dumping" "defective" vaccines. Loose talk about vaccines can cost lives by creating ill-founded hysteria. KennyMac 18:22, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Your comment confirms rather than rebuts what I said. By the way, all the "hysteria" seems to be in favor of duping people into taking shoddy products.--Aschlafly 21:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Soreness" Admission

The statement by the CDC that the injection commonly causes soreness at the injection site is meaningless, and almost comical. Unless there is a good reason for including such an obviously meaningless statement, let's remove it.--Aschlafly 09:38, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I felt that the CDC statement validated and quantified the anecdotal evidence from the news story - it showed that it was not just a few silly high school girls saying "ooohhhh, that hurt!" to a newspaper reporter, but rather that it was a widespread and well-documented reaction to the vaccine. I'm not sure I understand your objection? At first I thought you thought the whole paragraph was not worthy of inclusion (which I could see both sides of), but since you've just removed the CDC part, I realize I don't understand your objection. How is it meaningless? Please understand - I'm not criticizing your opinion - just trying to understand it. I can be a bit ditsy at times - blonde, actually! - so sometimes I don't get the obvious unless it's spelled out to me. --Hsmom 22:19, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Most injections cause soreness at the injection site, so the CDC statement obscures the dangers of this particular vaccine by making an obvious and meaningless statement. It would be as though an entry on a breed of dangerous pitbulls admitted only the obvious truth that "the most common encounter with this breed of pitbull is a harmless one!"--Aschlafly 22:23, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Good analogy. I'll remove the rest of the paragraph. --Hsmom 23:03, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Your reasoning does not follow at all. A news story explaining that the Gardasil vaccine hurts more than others is obviously still relevant. In the pitbull example, would you delete a statement explaining how a bite by a pitbull is typically more painful than a bite by other dogs? I hope not.--Aschlafly 23:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Name change

Seeing as people are more likely to search "Gardasil", could the article name be changed to that? JY23 21:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Think so?--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Abstinence and HPV

How does abstinence provide 100% protection against HPV? TheGuy 22:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"TheGuy", I'll humbly try to answer your question. HPV is transmitted virtually only by sex. Abstinence is the absence of sex.
Let's try this logically. A is caused only by B. "NOT B" cannot cause A.--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Let's try a bit more logic...
Wife abstains from sex until marriage, according to the article there is no possible way she can contract HPV.
Husband has sexual encounters in early adulthood in which he contracts HPV. He dates wife for a number of years but does not have sex with her, nor does he tell her about his previous encounters.
Is the wife's abstinence providing her with 100% protection? TheGuy 23:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)
The wife in your rare, obscure hypothetical did not remain abstinent. Abstinence does provide 100% protection against HPV, exactly as the entry states.
Nice try in obscuring the advantage of abstinence, but it fails. Try logic next time. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 10 January 2009 (EST)
How did the wife not remain abstinent? Are you meaning to say that in this case abstinence means to never have sexual relations? TheGuy 23:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)
"TheGuy", find a dictionary, and use it. Look up the word abstinence. But most importantly, when you are proven wrong, be honest enough to admit it, so you can then grow. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)
TheGuy, your metaphor does not make sense. 'He dates wife for a number of years'. So is she actually his wife? Have they been married and entered into a sexual relationship? Your example is so confused nothing can be made of it. Abstinence means to refrain from having sex. Therefore, there is so chance of contracting an STD. ETrundel 11:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If I may point out, HPV can be transmitted during child birth from mother to child.--Able806 09:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Then vaccinate every child in utero??? Your statement lacks a relevant point.--Andy Schlafly 10:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)
I assume that the point is that abstinence won't save the child from contracting HPV. AndyJM 10:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)
The liberal comments just get wackier and wackier. Guys, welcome logic and truth. For own sake, if you don't care about its beneficial effect on those around you.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, that hardly addresses the point raised. The claim is that abstinence is 100% effective against HPV. If a mother can pass it onto her child then lifelong abstinence failed to protect that child from HPV. Hence the claim cannot be true. See counterexample for an explanation of the logic here. AndyJM 10:43, 13 January 2009 (EST)
No, AndyJM, you're wrong. A lack of abstinence caused that infection also. The entry is correct, and you're on a fool's errand in trying to deny it. Would you deny that 2+2=4 also, if liberals told you to?--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Would I deny that 2+2=4 if liberals told me to? I'm flabbergasted by that response to be honest. I have no idea how to respond to or desire to reply to that sort of rhetoric. AndyJM 11:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Why question the analogy rather than consider the point it is intended to make? Abstinence is still the answer to preventing infection: for the child to be safe, the parents need to be abstinent. Abstinence is a trans-generational safeguard, and all need to play their part. MikeSalter 11:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
MikeSalter, when you explain it like that it all becomes clear. I will concede that I was completely wrong. Andy and MikeSalter, well played sirs. AndyJM 11:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)


  1. CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [1]
  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7037462.stm