Any parent geniunely concerned for the health of their daughter should read.

EVERY PARENT OF A YOUNG DAUGHTER READ THIS: MERCK'S DIRTY BUSINESS IN HPV VACCINE(GARDASIL).

How much do you trust Gardasil, politicians, and big businesses?

Corrupt politics, medicinal slavery, and using little girls to make big money

Note: Really long. I plead and beg you will take the time to read through this and give meaningful feedback. For you, and your children. It's really long, but if you insist on not reading all of it, you can piece it together from the areas I bolded.

I just want to say, that over my dead body and not in a million years will I let my daughters get this vaccine whether law makes it mandatory or not. I will bullshit the goddamned politicians not, I will fight against it even if I have to file suit, move to another state for my daughters to attend school, homeschool, or go to Canada until they're in high school if they were in the 9-12 range age. And the rest of you should too, every parent of a little girl. That's right, I'm talking about every family, every guardian, every mother, father, grandfather of a daughter in America. It's not just my daughters, it's EVERY little girl in America and throughout the world collectively as a whole. It's not the concept of stopping a potentially fatal cancer-causing virus itself and its praise as a "breakthrough" in medicine that puts me vehemently against it, it's everything else about it and about the company Merck. I fully understand the perspective of those who have or had cervical cancer, but is not justifiable for the vast majority. Unfortunately, many people welcome the prospect of a vaccine that can actually prevent cancer with open arms without further thought. It's not as much a health issue as it is a moral and ethical issue. You can bet it's too a health issue and threat as well. I will elaborate:

NEUROTOXINS AND CARCINOGENS IN GARDASIL

1.Gardasil contains 225mcg of aluminum, a known NEUROTOXIN. The reactive aluminum can potentially reach the brain, causing inflammation and death of brain cells. Would you inject your precious beautiful little girl with toxin? I wouldn't. And not to mention trace mercury, often used as a preservative in many vaccines. It is also a known fact that aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades. Well, the more exposure to it, the more harm it can potentially do(see#9). This is good, isn't it? Our politicians can come up with every conceivable ridiculous idea but fail to recognize an unacceptable harm to society's young. One of Gardasil's ingredients is also listed as Polysorbrate 80, a known CARCINOGEN as tested through lab rats. Kind of hypocritical, isn't it? To have a drug that "prevents" cancer, but can potentially cause cancer. Bluntly put, this reason ALONE should discourage everyone from it. Here we are, complaining why there's so many kids with brain disorders and retardation. Why autism rates are at an all time high? Why they're underperforming in their ability to think. Could the long list of vaccines that contain harmful neurotoxins as one of its ingredients they are subjected to be one of the many probable causes? We love to complain, don't we? With the amount of pollution, chemicals, and pesticides we are exposed to already, we are already threatening our intelligience and fertility. It's sad that man creates its own suffering. If you don't get the vaccine, you're at risk of diseases but vaccines too can do you equal and lasting harm. And our children bear the brunt of it with school attendance admittance at stake and law requirements.

Many vaccines contain the chemical thimerosal , which is 49% ethylmercury and a extremely toxic substance known to affect the immune and nervous system(hence on the preparation vial bottle there is a imprinted international poisonous skull/crossbones symbol) . Is that what you want to be put into your child on a scheduled basis? Well, who am I kidding? People are willing to put over 4000 chemicals into themselves smoking and we laden our own food with pesticide and chemicals. Let's pretend we all care, for the children's sake. With the insurmountable influence big corporations have nowadays, they would even go as far as to having ABC's 20/20 in conjunction with Walt Disney Co. publically announce those who say thimerosal is hurting children's development is akin to "killing children". That's right. Walt Disney. Says the pharmaceutical companies who deliberately put poison to be injected into their bodies. Or are we forgetting the fact of the incessant number of pharmaceutical advertisements on public broadcast stations? Of 50 states , only an unacceptable 23 actually have introduced or passed legislation outlawing preservatives in vaccines with only about 5 states that have actually signed the proposal into law. As far as the Bush administration, the Bush administration refuses to address the problem in addition to actually giving much leniency on harmful nerotoxin preservatives in vaccines. This is no longer the political battlefield, it's ours. It does not matter whether thimerosal directly affects children's development or no in the midst of opposing viewpoints. Mercury, does not belong in people's system-anytime, anywhere much less infants and children(of one case on NVIC, one woman's child is diagnosed with mental retardation only to discover that a series of infant shots adminstered altogether contained 625mcg microgram of mercury, whereas the safe limit is only 0.1mcg) . If you want to know what I think, there is no such thing as a safe vaccine. They contain mutagenic agents, carcinogens, neurotoxins, metal adjuvants and God knows what else they put into it. The majority of these agents have little to no long term research. If there's no apparent trend or immediate effects, then everyone assumes it's safe. No. It's a never ending cycle-they develop vaccines that can potentially cause cancer, then they MAKE vaccines they say will prevent cancer. Isn't it fun?

The choice is simple. Would you have your daughter be "prevented"(reason for quotations, see #6) against a rarely fatal condition, or would you put her at risk of mental defects as a result of neurotoxins that she could possibly no longer be the happy, intelligient, and loving child she used to be-possibly for the rest of her life. Sure, it's easy to deny "It won't happen to my child", or "you're lying" like any personal fable along the lines of "It won't happen to me" when it comes to STDs, pregnancy, etc. Guess what? It can and does happen. It's 'impossible' for the "unsinkable" Titanic to sink, but guess what? 2012, it'd be in its watery grave 100 years.

VERY LITTLE TRIALS AND TESTING

2.Gardasil is not a vaccine that has undergone extensive testing to ensure safety and side effects both short term and long term and whether these side effects affects general health. A vaccine that prevents cancer is promising to hear, to anyone(trial tests were done on less than 1200 girls). Lawmakers, parents, the FDA, whomever. It's no wonder the FDA approved it without hesistation(or was it another lobbying ploy?). Indeed it is suspect how fast they pushed it. How fast Merck got it approved by the FDA by fasttrack, how fast Merck lobbies to mandate it, how fast lawmakers are scrambling over it. And most of the participants in the trial tests as well as those actually administered Gardasil report adverse side effects. Pain, fever, swelling, lethargy, facial paralysis, prone to fainting, syncopal episodes(feeling faint or fainting due to temporary deficiency of blood to the brain), seizures, cases of Guillan-Barre Syndrome, cramps-associated with reactive aluminum. Gardasil and placebos. One case involves a woman's daughter who now suffers a chronic illness and persistent recurring bodily rash due to the effects. Why girls are advised not to walk or drive home after getting this shot? It is also thought that it can increase the risk of contracting juvenile arthritis. What more, not only is it not a proven safe vaccine, the manufacturing company Merck is highly questionable. It's not proven safe, it's KNOWN to have ingredients that causes cancer and brain defects. It could well entirely and possibly even gene-damaging and cause birth defects later in life, for little girls at the threshold of puberty. See #3. There have been at least 500 cases of short termed side effects. That 500 cases is about the same as 500 people getting food poisoning from the same food. If that were so, we'd do something about it. There have been a few cases of birth defects, from pregnant women receiving Gardasil at the time of their pregnancy. Yet already, lawmakers are scrambling over it trying to make it mandatory.

MERCK'S HISTORY OF UNTRUSTWORTHINESS

3."Where patients come first", is Merck's motto. I find that highly objectionable. Especially considering its checkered record of medicine products that were later found to have harmful side effects and pulled from the market. Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory drug was proven to increase risk of stroke and heart attacks. Merck gets slapped in the face with a big LAWSUIT(we'll get to that), and Vioxx was pulled from the market. 84,000-140,000 people suffered complications and/or died from Vioxx, if I heard correct. That astronomical figure is comparable to Hiroshima. And no one's dropping any A-Bombs but taking medicine they trust. Does the government step in and shut down Merck? No, it got off with a slap on the hand enough to sting. A vaccine called Rotavirus to prevent potentially fatal infant diarrhea was pulled from the market due to cases of infant intrassuception, which ties their intestines into knows practically. Later they came out with Rotateq, which is the same vaccine slapped with a new name. So when I see Merck, I see untrustworthiness whether they really care about patients or money(we'll get to that). There was one case as of March 2005; in 1999 the rising concern of mercury in vaccines prompted Merck to announce their infant vaccine line "free of all preservatives" But guess what? Merck continued to supply infant vaccines that contains mercury-based preservatives two years later after declaring it has elminated the chemical. Varivax, a vaccine designed to protect against chicken pox was recently addressed in a health news headline report that it may lose its effectiveness over time and is about 80% ineffective. Now do we have enough reason to question the longevity of Gardasil's effectiveness and most importantly its safety. When Merck was sued for Vioxx, the jurors voted unianimously and labeled Merck as reckless in pushing the drug. Barnett, the person who filed suit against Merck, hoped it would be an example for other rogue pharmaceuticals. It seems though Merck has not learned its lesson. Does this sound awefully familiar when we see how much Merck is trying to push Gardasil? "Reckless" is an appropriate word to describe them-I couldn't think of a better. Over the line of decency. There's your solid proof about the sheer dishonesty of this company. They claim to have a vaccine that prevents cancer, and I'm thinking whether this vaccine really is safe or would it eventually be found to be unsafe like Merck's other drugs, especially a drug that has not been truly proven safe. It is a company that is unsafe, unsafe, unsafe, unsafe, unsafe(if any one of you readers were sitting before me, I'd as soon throw neatly binded and stapled document after document at your face detailing Merck's failed products as many times I said "unsafe" and I can provide a big enough pile to stack over your desk). This company is a menace to public health give or take and sadly politicians are gullible to it. Because of the promising prospect it can 'prevent' cancer? Because of the overwhelming emotion coming from those terminally ill or has had cervical cancer? Just as recently, Merck intends to test a "HIV vaccine" in Africa. Now this is a subject most people don't want to even consider. Not too long ago, a handful of doctors researching cures for AIDs were arrested for injecting children with the HIV virus. Based on Merck's unreliability, how much would you trust them to make a HIV vaccine? The apocalyptic thought at this very moment is not in nuclear holocaust or the wrath of Mother Nature, but the idea if such a thing as a made mandatory and popular marketed HIV vaccine would lead to everyone actually infected with the virus due to unproven long-term safety.

$360 FOR GARDASIL IS MERCK'S CASH COW

4.It's $360 for three doses. Sure, that's not a big problem, at least not for a cancer preventive vaccine huh? It's only one of the most expensive vaccines on the market. Are insurance companies willing to cover it? Cost, is NOT a valid reason to be against the HPV vaccine. It's a reason that doesn't hold water when we're talking the logic behind it. Most of us can afford $360, especially for a cancer medicine, hopefully with no ill temperament against our daughters for burning yet another hole in our wallets just because they're girls. Why? Because a company anticipating profits "care" about your daughter? They talk and act in a "fatherly" way about how great their vaccine is and how it'll save lives(sure, that's true half the way). As parents, we care about our daughters. Well this, like reasons stated in #3, is highly questionable as well. $360 for several squirts of liquid in a needle. Gardasil is Merck's cash cow How else are they going to pay off that hefty suit they got from Vioxx and make a generous profit for themselves at the same time? Not only that, developed countries have relatively low cases of fatal cervical cancer. How are people from poor undeveloped/third world countries(as they have the highest statistics) going to afford and get access this expensive vaccine or even some people in the United States? Why are we even pushing the vaccine towards mass innoculation here, as we should export it to those who need it most. Of course Merck wants nationwide mass vaccinations like an end-of-the-world PANDEMIC(see #5, false exaggeration) is about to happen at any minute. $360 a person times millions of little girls (potentially to be harmed)=BILLIONS AND BILLIONS for Merck.. The cash flows in enough for them to swim in. Of course they like the idea of and thus are pushing to making it mandatory by law, now everyone's forced to buy it. Unfortunate be to them, their campaign on urging mandatory nationwide vaccinations have faltered and backfired. Cat's out of the bag. They haven't met their expected profit? We know they're cunning enough to lobby in secret; after that's been out, what next-they simply give up? Fair enough if that were so, everyone forgets about it and let the issue die. What next, they're desperate enough as they are already to make money they'll lower the price to $60 or $120? Don't forget other pharmaceuticals will jump in with their own version like GlaxoSmithKline with Ceravix. Well, this vaccine is not worth a single penny nor your consideration because of all the reasons stated in this document.

EXAGGERATIONS AND LIES

5.Merck blows the whole issue out of proportion with exaggeration and LIES. Truthfully, fatalities from cervical cancer in the US is low and has been declining over the years despite a recent federal analysis that some 20 million women live with the HPV virus unknowingly. Most of the time, the immune system of healthy women should be able to ward off the virus or keep it at bay. Pap smears are also a necessity in diagnosis as quick as possible. There have only been a few hundred or maybe in the low thousands of cases concerning deaths attributed by cervical cancer caused by HPV. Yearly, there are around 9,700 cases of cervical cancer and around 3,700 deaths. When you take that number, ask yourself this: Of what percentage is that of the nation's total population? 1% or perhaps even lower. Less than one percent? Is it an epidemic as cancer caused by smoking and lung cancer, AIDs, breast cancer? The point is to weigh whether it would serve the greater good. Hundreds/thousands of women who have cervical cancer, compared to putting the health of MILLIONS of little girls at stake for a preventable and rarely fatal disease. It's no rocket science... Just as it's not right to force these children to be used, to be injected with poison, who are at the beginning of their lives. Amidst the uproar and controversy, Merck's exaggeration is more or less insinuating those infected and eventually at risk with HPV have a death sentence unless they get their miracle godsend vaccine topped with angelic light and a halo. Liking it now? And sadly too, it's working. This is the element of fear they use to make people feel insecure.

ONLY 70% EFFECTIVE?

6.Gardasil is only believed to be 70% effective. Many others are convinced it protects entirely from the HPV. No. Sounds promising as it does, but no it doesn't. And the longevity of its effectiveness is unknown.. Your money, and the health of your daughter is at stake in vain for a vaccine that is only portionally effective.

Involvement in political scandals, connections, friends, and bribery

7.Political scandals. With state legislatures debating whether to make Gardasil mandatory, it is recently revealed Merck had been secretly campaigning through a third-party to try to persuade lawmakers to make it mandatory. Again, is it in our and our children's best interest(considering stated reasons that question the drug's safety/effectiveness and Merck's character) or theirs? After all, the cash flows in for them. Why are politics getting involved with this in the first place? It's privacy and increasingly we have "nanny governments" who think it's necessary to poke their noses into every aspect of how we live our lives. It's the parents' decision, it's the children's decision for their own best interest whether to get it or not. I strongly think it should be voluntary at the least. This is medicinal slavery, as one news article puts it to force perfectly healthy young girls to be drugged and expeirmented on. That's what Nazi concentration camps did. Texas has been the only state to mandate it(see #8), with states like Michigan, Virginia(recently mandated it, but allows parents to opt out-that's not good enough either, politics should not be involved, AT ALL), and Kentucky, New Mexico following suit along with about 20 other states trying to pass law mandating the vaccine. Fortunately, only several states have actually passed legislation currently. If you know what I think, I think it should be optional and voluntary and even ONE state requiring it is too much. No, suggesting it be mandatory is unacceptable. So is allowing parental exemption. It could be offered and promoted, but mandatory is unacceptable. Do people know about this? All this, listed here? If the whole America were to read this, would parents think twice? Politics should not be involved with these scenarios at all. As I said before, it's not as much a health issue as it is a ethical issue and politicians and the FDA are already caving in to lobbying efforts combined with a half -promising objective in complete disregard of ethical, moral, and regulatory importance.

8.Rick Perry. More political scandals If you don't know who he is, he's the Republican governor of Texas who issued an executive order mandating girls be vaccinated that sparked an uproar both from Texas lawmakers who sought to overturn his order, along with parents and medical groups. Perry himself has ties to Merck, and Merck funded $5000 towards his election campaign. That may or may not affect his decision(no bearing on his decision as he said), but a swift executive order? I doubt he is acting on his beter judgment and good will. How about Merck and Co.'s poster boy(I cannot directly say he is or isn't, because that could be considered libel). Thank god the Texas House is aware of this and plan to overthrow his order and veto with more than enough votes to override him. I've also recently heard a member of Congress is preparing to draft a resolution blocking states from mandating it and bar any funding towards the mandatory vaccination program.
Merck also has ties to an organixation called "Women in Government", comprised of female legislators across the country. Merck too, have been campaigning through the WiG. This is a pretty nice set up they have here, using BRIBERY under the cover of lobbying. Why would Merck take enough interest in Rick Perry to send him a $5000 gift? Because they like him? They do random acts of kindness from their heart? Because they're philanthropists towards a certain Republican governor? Why not give the popular Arnold Schwarzenegger $5000-he's a funny guy. He's a movie star and we love our celebrities and stars to death or even towards nonprofit organizations seeking to improve health in impoverished nations? How come we don't hear that?... NO, when you give someone money in return for a expected favorable outcome on their behalf, it's called BRIBERY. A scandal, is what it is. Lo and behold, Perry kept up his end of the deal and delivers a knockout blow with his Executive Order. Unsurprisingly, Perry denies it affects his decision. People fail to realize this.

Recently in the Sacramento Bee, California Assemblyman Ed Hernandez has introduced a bill (AB 16) proposing to mandate the vaccine for California's schoolgirls which got a less than welcome reception and much debate. Hernandez announces he will revise the bill by April. Coincidentally, Hernandez received around a $3500 endorsement by Merck. Like Perry, Hernandez says it has no bearing on the bill proposal. Now...let's think logically. If someone stuffed your pocket with a few thousand dollars of no debt and says you're handsome, wouldn't you be more likely in the least bit to favor that someone and agree with something that someone says? Are you willing to face people who say you're kissing up to them by admitting you agree because they gave you several thousand dollars? It's psychological and bribery. People would kill for money, and you're telling me that a random philanthropistic act has absolutely zero bit of influence? That's hard to believe. If anything, all these endorsements is probable that Merck is trying to gain a political foothold and advantage for their products when legislators practically kow-tow to them. Many are still suspicious about Merck still after stopping their secret lobbying efforts to mandate the vaccine. And I quote Mr. Hernandez: "If it was any other disease I don't think we'd have any controversy; but because it's a sexually transmitted disease that's why it's so emotiional" Emotional? Is that the word? I used to get emotional when a hero dies at the end of a movie. I used to get emotional when there's a disaster somewhere in the world. I used to get emotional when a story has a sad ending. If that's what "emotional" means, then how do I feel about my daughter's safety and self worth? If you know the word, tell me. Because I don't.

To add to it, the government of America today is being increasingly run by industries and big businesses. Merck is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. Because of that fact, it's no wonder they hold such influential power in policymaking. Yes, government run by businesses and industries. Could it be why we're not doing something about pollution and global warming? Because the government is so pro-industry and for economic progress? Now let's consider those who invest stock shares in Merck. Of course they too are likely support Merck(I'm not saying they are because of insufficient evidence, or aren't-just a thought to consider). Merck's stocks would skyrocket and that means more profits and value to go around.

OUR CHILDREN ARE PINCUSIONS AND POLITICAL SUBJECTS?

9.Vaccines and children. The list of vaccines required for children threatening their academic school attendance admittance only grows longer and longer. Our children are not pincusions. And our daughters are not guinea pigs at the whim of others stripped of dignity(as a group of parents and medical groups state in their suit against Texas to overturn Perry's executive order), for a vaccine that has not even been proven safe nor completely effective. Would you be offended if someone insults you of your parenting? I'm sure you will, and corrupt political figures and ordinary people who simply has influential ability and money are no different than anyone else. What's even more heartbreaking, is knowing that beautiful little brown-haired girl with dreamish eyes, petite build, a slight smile, and a tomboyish complexion is being used for someone else's profit(this girl was in a Time article about Gardasil, I know on the front cover it showed an red X over Al-Zarqawi's face, the infamous Al-Qaeda in Iraq insurgent leader killed recently). It is an undeniable evil of society, a crime against humanity itself. Say in the near future we have a medicine revolution-vaccines for Chlymidia, vaccines for AIDs, and vaccines for a flurry of cancer types and diseases. You don't te build, a slight smile, and a tomboyish complexion is being used for someone else's profit(this girl was in a Newsweek article about Gardasil, I know on the front cover it showed an red X over Al-Zarqawi's face, the infamous Al-Qaechildren themselves should make the decision whether to get Gardasil. It's their own privacy, their own body, their own eventual choice whether they will have sex or not. Whether they will have sex or not is not a thing even parents can control. With the way things are going now, consider your children's bodies as property of government and big businesses. Don't kids even have rights or the slightest bit of say in society today? No, we're all stuck believing teenagers and little kids are uninformed, incapable of making their own decisions about themselves, that all little kids are just another mouth and a hazard to society. Bottom line is, politics and medine do not mix. Politics is to medicine like alcohol downed with it. If these damned politicians want to improve people's lives, they should start by making more safety regulatory laws on medicine quality and manufacturers, especially considering our health care system is on the verge of being in shambles. Expensive, unaffordable for low-income groups, counterfeit drugs, inadequate care for veterans/those who can't speak English/ the elderly, slipping federal regulations, neglect from Executive administration, drugging our food with antibiotics, risky administering of drugs, dangerous ingredients and effects in drugs, the whole nine yards blaring across newspaper headlines on a regular basis. But no, everyone's still puppets to laissez-faire, that people and not big businesses should be forced to comply.

MORE DIRTY LIES, PLAYING ON THE MOST VULNERABLE

10.What even more outrageous, is the thought of Merck and others who suggest boys be given Gardasil as well, as they can transmit the virus. This is a cervical cancer vaccine? Boys, don't have cervixes. Pure and simple.. No one needs to be an Einstein to figure out basic anatomy.They'd say anything. So whatever happened to the thought? It doesn't hold. But for now, Merck targets the most vulnerable group, i.e. little girls as nothing more than subjects to make them money. Oh, no. Not our precious little daughters, anything but that. Of course they can't directly prey on teenage girls who are at the peak of asserting their own decisions with newfound independence, who can think independently for themselves under the guise of their reasoning that they must reach out to young girls before they become sexually active. Even then the pressure and misguidance can be overwhelming from doctors, parents, whatever.They definately can't do so with men.. So therefore the most vulnerable and delicate must suffer. And, why is it, that they say the vaccine would not be effective for women over 26?. Since when did medicine come with age limits? Hospitals use medication on children designed for adults... Some women can still be virgins at 26, and millions who do not have HPV. Actually, nearly half of teenage girls graduate high school as virgins. People are more aware of safe sex, teen pregnancy rates are down, and abstinence is on the gradual rise. Combine that with what is said before about cancer rates declining. Then compare that to what Merck says. Of course we all wish for a cure for cancer, AIDs, Alzheimers, STDs, and all that. But many people, including politicians, are completely oblivious to the opportunity costs(in economic terms, and it's not about money)-they see only advantages and wag their tails like spoiled doggies without weighing properly the disadvantages and possible consequences. Believe me, a anti-cancer medicine is good to hear to anyone's ears but people need to think outside the box.

WHAT VACCINES ARE FOR/MANDATORY IS IMMORAL

11.And an extra note-Gardasil is the only vaccine that prevents a STD, other than Hepatitis. Not just a commonly known lifethreatening STD such as AIDs everyone'd be worked up over by pushing nationwide vaccination. Even then it would face a flurry of controversy over safety and necessity.This breaks the norm that vaccines are mainly for diseases contagious through casual contact. Not just vaccines for schoolchildren to attend school, but the purpose of vaccines. You have your cold shots, flu shots, shots for bird flu, shots for chicken pox... Perhaps the ONLY and absolute reason a child is not permition. Even then it would face a flurry of controversy over safety and necessity.This breaks the norm that vaccines are meant for diseases contracted through contagious social casual contact.. You have your cold shots, flu shots, shots for bird flu, shots for chicken pox... Perhaps the ON. You have your cold shots, flu shots, shots for bird flu, shots for chicken pox... Perhaps the ONLY and absolute reason a child islabel every young girl a potential tramp so they must be given protection. How would you as a parent take it from people who imply your daughter as a tramp that must be given protection from herself? If your little daughter could comprehend all of this to this point(and I hope you share it with her), how would this make her feel? And how would it make her feel, given her age, that she's being used at someone else's own end? And while promiscuity does exist and is admittedly not that uncommon, how many girls would be willing to risk their reputation to how their peers see them. No girl, would like their peers to label them as a "whore", a "slut". The fear of social rejection. The fear of STDs. What about the slew of other STDs? I suppose eventually there'll be vaccines for those too that would be made mandatory? When will people say no more, that children are not pincusions on their knees to politicians? Until irreversable harm is done to millions?. Is it human nature to find solutions when its own problems are at the point of no return?

DON'T FORGET THESE ONES TOO...

And cherry on top, whatever reasons others who oppose it have to say :(prepare for a flurry)

-Encourages premarital sex

-Encourages promiscuity in assurance they are immune to one more STD with the talisman of the vaccination

-Interferes with parental rights and decisions

-Violated moral, ethical, religious beliefs

-Too early to determine whether it should be ready for widespread mandatory vaccination
-It is a invasion of privacy. (don't people have rights to their bodies, or does the government regulate them and decide what chemicals to put into them now?)

-It shows complete disregard of abstinence-only education


THE BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is and let's face it, we all like money, we care about money and how to get it. Otherwise we wouldn't go to work, burn our paychecks in vain at casinos hoping to win a jackpot, hope we win the lottery to no avail, fabricate frauds that land us forty years in prison, and rob. We could care less what happens to our friends and family even. It's not easy to say, not easy to hear-but it's the stone cold truth as dead as those dead presidents on the bills. I will tell any disbelievers right now-there has not been a human being on the face of the planet who has not lied, desired, and dreamed of glory. Based on the character of Merck's competence(or should I say INcompetence), along with their questionable content, politics, and the already deteriotating quality of our health care system, ask yourselves WHO REALLY BENEFITS?. Mandatory vaccination is a triumph for Merck with each state like divide-and-conquer, and a tremendous loss on our daughters' health and image. It's over. They crossed the line.
I wish you would go write me as long and detailed a analysis summary as I did, for those who are adamantly pro-Gardasil regarding why Gardasil would serve the greater good OTHER than it may prevent a already preventable and rare cancer.
So please, make your decisions accordingly, for the sake of our daughters and children. Carry out your inalienable right as a parent to protect your children from harm. Consider whether Gardasil would do your child more good than harm, or more harm than good for that matter. Most importantly, considerwho really benefits in the long run.

USING LITTLE GIRLS TO MAKE MONEY

There are alot of things wrong in this world, and USING LITTLE GIRLS TO MAKE MONEY is one of them(sound COMPARABLY FAMILIAR to another HEINOUS act(s)???). There are just some things you just don't do and if it were to be listed and lined up, it could go on forever. Using little girls to make money is one of them. And yet, it's a pretty nice set up they've got, admittedly. They set everyone up real well. Bribing politicians, able to convince many, at the same time making a profit out of the EXPLOITATION of LITTLE GIRLS RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES OF PARENTS and THREATEN their HEALTH and image of self-worth with a prodigal 'reason' to do so. They've done it all right. Well, I for one, am NOT as gullible and outraged-the rest of you should be too and I don't care if you are the President, the Pope, or the spawn of Satan himself. Hell will have to freeze over first before I let someone use my daughters as worthless test subjects to make money. People should stand up for this, for the sake of their children. Stand up, as in take action against the corruption of Merck and Merck's poster boys(and poster women, hence the WiG)in the corrupted political system. . Our young daughters' voices aren't strong enough yet. But we are.
And, in my early defense of any accusers: NO ONE is saying(as I said countless times before) we shouldn't have medicine that can stop cancer. If an HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY company came out with a SAFE AND PROVEN SAFE cancer-preventive medicine and doesn't deliberately stage POLITICAL SCANDALS to market their product towards VULNERABLE CHILDREN as a guise to gain SELF PROFIT but instead encourages FREEDOM OF CHOICE-I would certainly welcome them and give them my full blessings for their contribution to a better society. But a rogue and reckless at all level company such as Merck deserves the harshest of scrutiny. Don't accuse me of being in denial. Just don't. I know where I and my priorities stand. Do you? I could've kept my mouth shut and not write this-it doesn't affect me. But I care every bit for every little girl in the country and world who would have to be subjected to unjust medicinal slavery as if they were my own daughters. Before you pass me off as "meddlesome"; know this-this isn't Alice in Wonderland where everything works out by law of magic. This is the real world, and there are some things you don't do without thinking twice or you're fucked. While you can say I'm biased, or basing my conclusions on personal opinion-get this, my personal judment is based off known FACTS. You might say, "why write this now?", Gardasil was approved last June. The truth must be brought to light, and it is not yet too late with states slowly mandating it one by one like doomsday dominoes. And for unsure and skeptical parents, this is your GRAND PROOF. If eventually harm does come to the nation's young and vulnerable due to this company, you can bet 100% the overwhelming evidence against Merck in this document alone is enough to go to trial, bankrupt the company with lawsuits from affected parents nationwide and even perhaps have justified reason to arrest.

Look. Look at every bolded and highlighted excerpt out of this document. Does it scream utmost corruption? Does it scream a heinous criminal act complete with ulterior motives easily overlooked just because of a promising purpose that must be brought to light and before Justice? Things are not what they seem to be, and exterior appearances are deceiving. Don't these red flags all add up this time? And what do they point to? Is Merck and politicians really out for your daughter's best interest, or their own, or their blind ambitions they so lust after? For the greater good??? To most people, a cancer prevention vaccine is a breakthrough in medicine, to some a miracle from God. But the evidence against Gardasil and Merck is overwhelming. I know it, a few others know it, others more suspect it, but many people don't. Most would consider vaccinating their daughters.

For those vehemently for the HPV, they see only what's said on the outside, and THAT IS SIMPLY THIS: A company has reached a breakthrough in developing a medicine that can safeguard our children against a cancer before it starts later in their lives.. Now, I want you to take a moment to visualize this. Ask yourselves, "why?"

Final question:

Is Gardasil really worth it? Before you come to resolve, look your beautiful little girl directly and seriously in her innocent and perplexed eye and think what you would be putting her through. Is she a human being, your child who gives you unconditional love whose very life and safety is in your hands, or merely a subject for someone else's profit just because of something/lies someone tells you and someone else makes you do it? And the sad part is, you're PAYING a small fortune for that someone else to use and exploit your daughter's health. On behalf of the working families of our country, and the millions of little girls who so deserve all the love in the world, I pray you would make the best decision. Don't buy the lie, that's what they want you to believe.

Say NO to GARDASIL.

There's More(updated 3/25/07)

No need to read on, the point is already established. If you're interested, go right on ahead.

While the following scenario sounds a bit redundant, maybe overexaggerated or farfetched even on my behalf. This might even be biased, for some of you. And I'll admit that, I'm not going to try to deny it. I know for some of you it's hard to accept a company that develops medicine that can prevent cancer wants to harm and use your daughter-but there is beyond probable reason on Merck that points to that it's unlikely their sole motive and motivation is to look out for the interest of young girls. The expensive price, the exaggerating atmosphere of it all, their history of reckless disregard of ethics and people's health and lives, the secret lobbying and conflicts of financial interest with politicians... What does that point to? Greed. You might say, 'everyone's gotta make a living'. True, but we're talking one of the wealthiest companies in the world. These are people with big numbers on their paychecks. Everyone's gotta make a living, but it's NOT okay to gain profit out of other people's expense-especially young children. It's the wrong idea clear as left from right. Or perhaps you may think-'everyone deserves a second chance'. No, they've had plenty of second chances and now this. All they want is money. This is not a game. This is about the life and well being of your child. And I will tell you right off, if someone puts so much as a scratch on my daughter or hurts one lock of her hair there will be hell to pay.

I want you, as a parent of a daughter, to picture this with me if you can. You're walking down the street with your chatterbox of a little daughter in hand, who's talking your ear off cheerfully how her day went. You want her to stop talking, but you don't mind. You love her, right? Life is good. I'm glad we can agree. Suddenly, a Mercedes with tinted windows roars up, drives alongside you before pulling up and stopping ahead of you. Two men exit the Mercedes; both beaming and grinning esinisterly at you. The doctor is a frail, thin old man with creases so deep no amount of plastic surgery will correct(denoting inner scumminess and corruption) wearing a white lab coat. The politician is tall and burly(representing power and an imposing superior figure) in a business suit. They've stopped you in your tracks. They approach you a little too close and are eying your little girl with fake tender smiles. Your daughter looks at them frightened with her big innocent eyes and tries to hide behind you, trembling and looks as if about to cry. Her big and strong Daddy or ever protective Mommy will protect her, right? The two, grinning still, notes your daughter, and tells you how much they "care" about your daughter. What would you say, keeping in mind the fact these they are complete strangers who claim to care about your daughter? They are not your friends, your well known neighbors, your pastor, nor your relatives looking out for you. Random strangers simply with status and money. And even then some friends, neighbors, religious members, or relatives aren't to be trusted. Would you trust them beyond what they say?

Then the burly politician adds in "Beacause we care...", he nods to the doctor(using his power to give the go-ahead). The doctor nods back with a smile(an arrangement beforehand between pharmaceuticals and political figures). Then he takes out a syringe of a unknown substance from his pocket. Your daughter clutches onto you like a baby possum and buries her face into your body. Now what would you do?

Now consider the they got a hold of your little girl. The burlesque politician holds her as she cries and calls out to you, struggling helplessly(compulsion). The doctor approaches with an unfeeling expression(he cares about money, remember?), says "This won't hurt a bit" in some mockingly false assurance(you don't know what's in that needle and its effects) and sticks the needle into her, injecting the unknown substance three times completely into her regardless of her screams of agony and tears. Afterwards, they help themselves to about $400 out of your wallet(you're left asking yourself, who's better off?) before rolling off in their Mercedes. Later, the politician is suddenly several thousand dollars richer and the doctor is away on his round-the-world cruise with another new Mercedes sitting happy in his garage for his plump wife. Everyone's happy, right? Isn't that what they assured you? Sure enough. Except something is amiss.

What would you do then? How would you feel? You had either of two choices that day. Either you could've protected your daughter, or didn't. There is no 'couldn't' or in between. Your daughter didn't know what was going on. You did. Someone else wanted to use her (and eventually get a profit out of you). Someone else lied. Which would've been your choice if two strangers approached your little girl? Would you have did everything you could to protect her, or betray her love and trust by handing her over? And that's willingly, if you buy into what they say. If you buy into them willingly and hand over your daughter, then that would be a grave error, on you. Just because of something someone says and/or someone else more powerful forces you to obey? It's no different than any one else on the street. They are complete strangers, again for even adults are sometimes lulled into a false sense of security beside this fact. Even if, say, you opted out for your daughter's best interest. What would be your reaction if the government suddenly announced that all young girls are to be rounded up and be used for medical experiments (while someone gets money out of it)? Guinea pigs in a cage. Doesn't that bother you in the least bit? If not, I would dare to call you a sadist. Again, people are so used to believing what others say(and I'll admit this too, you can read this and not believe a word I say-that's your personal choice), especially if they say it with a smile.

The point is, legitimacy does NOT guarantee an authority in the name of good will. Only if we give it to them. Those two seem legitimate enough-a doctor and a political figure. we usually see as legitimate figures looking out for people's best interest. But when corruption seeps in...nobody plays by the rules. And people such as legitimate figures are in no exception. They're no longer legit, only a title that claims they are plus a whole bunch of sweet cajoling. It would seem that way... Now look at it in a different context like the scenario above.

4/2/07 Update


Yes, it's true that the HPV virus and genital warts are one of the most prevalent STDs out there, with about 20 million women infected with a type of HPV. So they say Gardasil protects against cervical cancer. Aside from that, know this:

There is only close to about 10,000 cases of cervical cancer per year and almost 4000 deaths from its complication. 4000, or even 10000 compared to the total population. The total population is around 300 million. Let's say women and girls account for 150 million(not an exact number). Do either 4000 or 10000 divide by 100/150 million on a calculator and what's your answer? FAR LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. Less than one percent, but that doesn't mean there still aren't women with cervical cancer, mind you. Putting the vaccine aside, how many cases would there be in the near future if cervical cancer rates are already continuously declining today?

Offering the vaccine, raising awareness is fine and dandy, but a nationwide push for mandates is unacceptable. Over the line. It is jeopardizing the health and image of every little girl in the nation. It is a crime against humanity. Remember Nuremburg Trials, trials for Nazi war criminals-it is a violation in the name of humanity to force any individual to risk injury or death. So the government regulates what to put in your child's body now? By allowing or agreeing, you are letting the government use your child as a guinea pig. Guinea pig to big businesses. If you choose to get this vaccine, go right on ahead. The government should stay out of it. With everything they force upon kids, it's like 'kids are not considered as people and people with rights in our country until they are 18. They are like puppets, furniture, and lab test animals'. That's what they're pretty much saying. What would George Washington and all of our forefathers who founded this country, fought and died for our freedom think of this when they wanted a fairer, more equal, and just government? That the country's young are nothing and subjects to be used? What would they say? Do not stare blankly, give me an honest answer. What would they say?

Now why is this? Because someone for the first time suddenly says "We have a cure for cancer!"? But also realize this, no vaccination lasts a lifetime(that we can also question, what's the point? People still get the flu, the cold, chicken pox after getting their shots). Gardasil is expected to last about 5 years. What's to say girls as they become women can't still contract a malevolent form of the HPV virus later on in their lives? Are all of them going to have one partner for the rest of their lives, or a partner who doesn't carry a transmittable HPV virus? Some will, yes. The answer is still NO. Say a 9 year old girl gets the vaccine. 5 years later, she would be 14. Still a long way to go through her prime, don't you think? 10 years later, and she would be 24. Back to the first question. If someone in a big seated crowd says for the first time "We have a cure for cancer!", everyone would turn their heads to listen to what he has to say. Well, I for one tell him to sit his ass down, knowing the inner no-good of a reckless company.
Yes, we all wish for a cure for every cancer. But I find it troubling the extent Merck is willing to go through to target one group of our nation's young. Why only little girls? Boys can carry the virus, and an infection can lead to penile or anal cancer. Boys and men are more than carriers. And this is rarely. Just as rare as cervical cancer rates today. But no one says anything about boys having to be tested or be 'protected'. I would dare to call this move as nothing but sexism, the last condemnation of females by forcing them to be expeirmental subjects in the advance of medicinal science(or should I say medicinal slavery?).

Am I anti-vaccination? Yes. You bet I am. Until they take out every bit of the mercury, metals, neurotoxins, carcinogens, mutagens, cells that don't even belong in it, any toxic substances, and whatever other shit in it OUT of them will I trust them. And even then I do not approve of mandating that children be pincusions as more and more vaccines get developed. Would eventually kids would have to get shots on a monthly basis? A system based upon hypocrisy. The first rule of the doctor's oath is "Do no harm". Even the shedding of one drop of blood is considered willful and coerced harm I tell you, much less injecting that kind of stuff into children of which they are in constant denial as many. So you say vaccination has saved hundreds of thousands of lives from diseases. True, at what cost? Leaving more and more half-retarded children to suffer through life? To put children in chains? Some cure. Whenever I see TV ads about finding the cause to autism and donating to it, I want to put an ax through the screen that people are blind to the trend and the obscurity of statistical findings when it's right in their backyard. Society and their parents can't support their autistic kids forever, what next? Why is it that autism rates in children are 1 in every 150 compared to 1 in 500 back then coincidently as more and more vaccines are required plus increasing rates of ADHD? Why is it that the Amish of all people have the lowest rates of these disorders? Why is it that the only polio there is, is caused by the polio vaccine? Of course many are not aware of these findings, yet everyone's knows about Britney Spears shaving her head and going underwear-free like the back of their own hand. Then society rejects the fallen, pushes them aside and into special-ed classes or special need entitlements. Comparatively, boys have the highest rates of ADHD and Autism. Now it seems we're not even going to let our daughters have a chance if they come out with lines of "girls-only" vaccines. This is not about a chance as in sweepstakes, lotteries, or raffles. It's about a chance at life and happiness. Fate would have its way, yes; but this is a serious matter and that is this: POISONING CHILDREN EN MASSE. And these "experts" warn against increasing numbers of parents opting their children out of vaccinations? Well, excuse them for protecting their children.

For Christ's sake, don't you get it? Merck wants money, red flags are all over. If you make your child get this vaccine, you are willingly helping someone else make money off your daughter, even if they have their godsend Gardasil. They'll not get a penny from me, I will tell them straight to their face. They can shove their precious Gardasil up their asses. This is not about a contribution to a better society or making a living. It is bribery, extortion, and oppression of innocence and the underdog. And that, is a crime against humanity, except there's no Holocaust nor any Nazi camps.

5/11 Update-Doutbts and Victory


Victory. The Texas House legislature recently overturned Governor Rick Perry's order for mandatory shots and good riddance. There have also been increasing doubts on the vaccine's efficacy. It is suggested that while the targeted HPV strains would be blocked, it may create a open ecological gap for other minor virus strains to flourish and possibly become cancerous. In addition, a new study suggests that the rate of cancer precursors is reduced only by 17%. Furthermore, there is no solid proof that the vaccine prevents the cancer entirely of the cervix, only that the virus presence seems to be significantly reduced(Sacramento Bee). And know that with many viruses, they can naturally mutate and evolve to be more dangerous resistant to treatment(Gonnerhrea is now one of them super viruses, mind the spelling)

Preventing HPV without the vaccine, Mercola. This is interesting, knowing that (oral) contraceptives and preventing various sorts of vaginal trauma can reduce the risk from 20-50%. So Merck feels their Gardasil is necesary. A few months ago a biotech company developed a vaccine(I think it was a vaccine)that can prevent prostate cancer called Provenge. Do you know how many die from prostate cancer, opposed to those dying from cervical cancer? Exponentially more, I can tell you that at the least. How come no one's pushing for mandates that all men 45 and older must get it? Oh, I know. Maybe they fear the men will put their heads on pikes for making them do so. Again on the preying on the most vulnerable.

Legalized Drug Pushers-No one can be trusted...

It is a disturbing fact to know that 95% of America's doctors receive endorsements and benefits(free food, ball game tickets, etc)from pharmaceutical companies. And get this, the pharmaceutical companies keep tabs on doctors' prescribing habits. They know plenty lot about their personal and medical patient detail. They ferret out the most favorable, and then send their representatives to try to persuade them to prescribe their products. They would go as far as paying money to doctors and federal safety regulatory administrations(such as FDA)as an incentive for them to prescribe their medicine. Conflicts of interest. Your doctor may say "Gardasil is good for you" but who's side is he really on in pressuring you or parents? Is he deciding on his professional judgement, or is he a pawn for industry? That's the real danger. You don't know, nor do you know about the medicine he's giving you. A number of states and the Senate have passed bills to ban conflicts of interest but that may not be enough-too late. Just because the pharmaceutical company have loads of money does not give them the right to toy with people's health, the patient's decisions and privacy, politics, and government. They are nothing more than drug dealers with a license to do so. And, what IS up with those incessant televised ads on medicine products from the pharmaceutical industries? You may have heard the familiar phrase "Ask your doctor about [name of drug] today". The doctors probably know about the drug and by his professional unaffected judgment(though this may not entirely be the case) knows what's best, now they're trying to convince people to buy the drug just because...
Back to what I was saying before about the dangers of vaccination. Personally, I consider it as nothing but an assault on children's bodies. Even if there was reasons to suspect vaccination is harmful and contribute to the masses of people with brain disorders, the pharmaceutical companies and even the government may indeed go as far as to cover it up. Why? They don't want to be liable. It would lead to the crumbling of the industries and a kidney blow to the government.