I am not saying that HPV is not correlated with cervical cancer. 
Correlation and "cause" are two different things, though I appreciate 
the acceptance of epidemiological findings as legitimate science, 
here. (Please remember this for other discussions on HIV/AIDS, etc.)

The main questions on Gardasil are:

1) Is there sufficient evidence in the research studies Meerck 
performed to conclude, as Meerck does, that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer?

2) Have there been sufficient (or ANY) studies done on the longterm 
effects of the vaccine, particularly when given to young girls?

3) Are there environmental/toxic-exposure causes for HPV? For cervical cancer?

4) Can HPV be addressed by other, more natural and less toxic ways, 
including removal of any causes due to exposure to pollutants/toxins 
and supplementation with L-Lysine?

Mitchel Cohen

At 02:44 AM 2/26/2007, you wrote:
>This has to be our starting point for any discussion of the vaccine, 
>because it is one of the most solid epidemiological findings for any 
>type of cancer. I have no intention of debating the issue here, 
>because anyone can easily find the original sources on this which 
>are compelling and have been for a long time. It is obviously 
>legitimate, however, to raise other issues about the HPV vaccine, 
>although I would caution against jumping to conclusions about 
>adverse effects from anecdotal reports of effects that may have no 
>relationship to the vaccine at all (like dizzy spells.) Serious 
>researchers monitor such reports carefully to see if they fit a 
>larger pattern or not.
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]