Gulli, Cathy, et al. “The Cervical Cancer Vaccine Has Not Been Proven Safe or Effective.

Maclean’s, 2009, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/viewpointsdetailspage. Accessed 2018.

This article on the vaccine, Gardasil, explains that getting a shot may do more harm than

good. One of their main arguments is the misleading advertisement of Gardasil being a

preventative of cervical cancer, when really it is a vaccine against a sexually transmitted

disease that has many different strains. Gardasil protects against four out of roughly two

hundred different human papilloma virus (HPV) strains. The main point this article

makes is that scientists do not know with certainty how much Gardasil helps to prevent

cervical cancer in the long run. The longest trial for Gardasil lasted five years, and the

longest trial for young girls taking Gardasil lasted only eighteen months.

This source is very useful, because it gives statistics, interviews, and background

information needed to understand what the issue is. This source also gives many quotes

from people of different backgrounds including parents, epidemiologists, medical

doctors, and someone from the Canadian Women’s Health Network, making the article

well-rounded and reliable. The article is biased, but that does not make what they are

saying inaccurate. Their goal is to make people aware that there are many side affects to

Gardasil, and the potential benefit does not seem to outweigh those risks.
This source was helpful to me, because my stance on the issue is that Gardasil is not

studied enough to be administered. That point is exactly what the article was trying to

make. Gardasil only protects against four out of roughly two hundred HPV strains, so that

still leaves people vulnerable to contracting the other strains that can still cause cervical

cancer. Granted, two of the strains it protects against are the most common, but what is

stopping the other HPV strains from attacking more now that the top strains are out of

their way. There is not enough research and there has not been a long term study to prove

that Gardasil works, or to prove that the risks of Gardasil are worth its’ supposed benefit.

Heuvel, Katrina vanden. "The Anti-Vaccine Movement Is Given False Equivalence by

the Media." Vaccines, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010938209/. Accessed 24 July 2018.

Originally published as "Jenny McCarthy's Vaccination Fear-Mongering and the

Cult of False Equivalence," Nation, 22 July 2013.

This point of this article is to express that vaccines and autism are not correlated

with one another. The author talks about Wakefield and his redacted study about

how the MMR vaccine has mercury and causes autism. The author also brings up

Jenny McCarthy and how she is a symbol for those who are anti-vaccines.

Because of these people who light a fire for those who don’t vaccinate, London
 had a break out of Measles. This is just an example of why vaccines are so

important. The author also briefly states that parents who are listening to

McCarthy are the reason why the world is having such a hard time excepting the

ground breaking HPV vaccine.

This source is going to be useful to me in bringing up the topic of vaccines to my

readers. It is quite different from my other sources in that it talks about more than

just HPV vaccines, it talk about just vaccines and its controversy. This

information is reliable because Jenny McCarthy and Wakefield are two known

people that started the anti-vaccine movement. This source is very biased in favor

of all vaccines being administered, but it is going to help me get my point across

with the facts.

This source is going to help me by getting the generalized vaccine controversy

addressed. I absolutely believe in vaccines and I absolutely do not believe the

MMR vaccine causes autism. I am well aware that vaccines keep people alive and

healthy, however, I don’t believe in getting the HPV vaccine. I think that it is

important to get across to my audience that I understand vaccines are necessary,

so that they can respect my decision to be against HPV vaccines a little more.

"IUD use may protect women against Cervical Cancer." International Perspectives on

Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 37, no. 4, 2011, p. 168. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A278761581.

Accessed 24 July 2018.

The main point of this article is to show the correlation between intra-uterine

devices (IUD) and cervical cancer. IUDs are a successful contraceptive that many

women use. The author of this articles’ main argument is that the correlation

between IUDs and cervical cancer is proving that there is a reduction in risk of

having cervical cancer if a women has or has ever had an IUD. A study found that

the reduction of risk for developing cervical cancer was 45 percent. That is a very

high amount.

This article is useful and useable in my research paper because it’s showing IUDs

as a preventative of cervical cancer. This article is similar to another source of

mine where I talked about condoms being a preventative, however, condoms are a

preventative of HPV and IUDs are a preventative of cervical cancer. This

information is reliable because it is based off of studies conducted in many

different countries covering over a decade of time. This source is biased in favor

of the fact, that IUDs reduce the risk of cervical cancer.

As I said in the previous paragraph, condoms are a preventative of HPV strains

and IUDs reduce the risk of cervical cancer, therefore preventing it. My point in

this source is to show that the stigma on cervical cancer’s only cause is HPV is

entirely false. There is no known association between IUDs preventing HPV

strains. Women who did not have any HPV strains saw reduction in risk of
 contracting cervical cancer. Just as your body can form any other cancer, it can

form cervical cancer. Instead of HPV vaccine companies marketing their vaccines

as preventing cancer, maybe they should say IUDs prevent cervical cancer and

HPV vaccines prevent HPV strains.

London, S. “Bivalent HPV vaccine is efficacious among women older than 25.” International

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 41, 1, 2015, p. 52+. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A419412791. Accessed 9 July

2018.

This article is about a new vaccine called Bivalent, or more commonly known as

Cervarix. This particular vaccine only protects against two out of two hundred HPV

strains. The main point of the article was to show that a case study resulted in favor of

women 25 and older benefiting from the Bivalent vaccine. Their argument was women

should be administered the Bivalent HPV vaccine, because 81% of those who

participated in the study had a reduction in risk of infection or precancerous cervical

lesions associated with HPV strains 16 and 18.

This is a useful source to women 25 and up considering getting the Bivalent HPV

vaccine. This particular source is very fact based, so it contained a lot of procedures and

statistics on a study that was done. This is very different than my last source, because this

article talked more in numbers. This source is reliable because it was a study done on
 over five thousand women in 12 different countries. The source was biased in favor of the

vaccine, but they did give a lot of facts to back that up.

This source was only somewhat helpful to me, because they gave a lot of statistics

showing that this particular vaccine works, which is not my stance on the issue. However,

the study was done for only women who were 25 years old and up. Not on young and

teenage girls, which are the ages the vaccine is marketed for. The study also only lasted

four years, which is not helpful in understanding the vaccines long term affect. Lastly,

10% of those in the study who were given the Bivalent vaccine had adverse reactions, so

why risk it when there is no guarantee it will work. This study is just another example of

why the vaccine should not be administered. There is not enough information on it, and it

is not a hundred percent guarantee it will prevent cervical cancer.

London, S. "HPV vaccine programs are failing to reach young female populations of low-income

countries." International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 42, 2,

2016, p. 103. Opposing Viewpoints In Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A495396823. Accessed 22 July 2018.

This article is about how accessible Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are. The

author starts by saying how beneficial the HPV immunization programs have been so far.

They have successfully vaccinated many women and young girls, but several women and

young girls that are at the highest risk of contracting the HPV strains that can cause
cervical cancer are being left out. For those aged 10-20, coverage is ten times higher in

more developed countries than in those countries that are poorer and less developed;

coverage is 34% in wealthier countries versus 3% in shoddier countries to be exact. The

main argument is that HPV immunization programs have done a good job in distributing

to wealthier countries, but the countries in the most need are not getting enough help.

This source is not super useful in arguing my point that HPV vaccines are not worth their

risk, but they did have a helpful statistic that only 70% of those vaccinated did not

contract HPV strains that cause cervical cancer. That means 30% of people still got it,

and that’s a large percentage of people. My other sources have not talked about the global

effect, which is why I chose this article, so it’s nice to see a worldly perspective. This

source is biased in that they are for the distribution of HPV vaccines, but it is also biased

in that the immunization programs are not doing an effective job with those who need the

vaccine the most.

This source was helpful to me to gain perspective in why the vaccine is needed. In the

wealthier countries it is properly distributed, but it is not necessarily needed. In the

countries that are in poverty the HPV vaccine is actually needed, but it is not distributed

well enough. These poorer countries need it because of all the violence, including rape,

which makes women more vulnerable because they are not able to protect themselves

with the use of condoms. Women in America have access to condoms and are fully aware

that condoms protect against sexually transmitted infections. Those that do not have

adequate access and live in fear of being raped are not able to properly defend

themselves, and that puts them at a higher risk at contracting HPV strains that cause

cervical cancer.
McGinley, Laurie. "Analysis: Do the new Merck HPV ads guilt-trip parents or tell hard truths?

Both." Washington Post, 11 Aug. 2016. Opposing Viewpoints In Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A460480619. Accessed 22 July 2018.

This article is about analyzing the company “Merck” and its approach to advertising their

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine called Gardasil. The vaccine was made in 2006

and they of course had their original campaign, but since more parents aren’t vaccinating

their young girls and boys they are now re-campaigning. The author talks about how

parents feel as though their commercials are guilt-trips, because in their commercial it is

of a girl with cervical cancer and she has a flashback to when she was roughly twelve and

asks her parents why they couldn’t have given her the vaccine to prevent it. The author

also has some feedback of doctors supporting it, and a few saying the commercial is just

too much.

This source is useful to me, because one of the points I want to bring up is that parents

are guilt-tripped into giving their children the HPV vaccine. This is unlike any of my

other sources because it talks only about the marketing of the Gardasil vaccine. I believe

the information to be reliable because the author does not seem to be biased, she shows

both sides and lets the doctors and facts do the talking. The goal of the source was to

analyze the marketing approach of Merck and allow the reader to come to their own

conclusion.
 This source was helpful to me because it allowed me to gain perspective on the parent’s

side of the controversy of the HPV vaccines. The maker of Gardasil has recently been

remarketing itself in a way that will guilt parents into allowing their young children to be

administered the vaccine. In their marketing, they do not talk about how to prevent

contracting those HPV strains that will cause cervical, vaginal, throat, or penile cancer.

Because that’s such a difficult conversation they are suggesting that we administer a drug

that has a high rate of adverse reactions to avoid it. HPV is a sexually transmitted

infection, so why are they avoiding to say that in the commercial?

Pollitt, Katha. "Condoms Prevent HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Birth Control,

edited by Beth Rosenthal, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010568223. Accessed 24

July 2018. Originally published as "Is the Pope Crazy?" Nation, 16 Oct. 2003.

The main point of this article is to discuss the taboo topic of condoms. In America, there

is $117,000,000 funded by the Bush administration to focus on abstinence only protection

in sex education. The idea behind mentioning this is that even bringing up condoms in

conversation sends mixed messages about abstinence not being the only guaranteed way

to protect you. The author’s main argument is that this idea is bizarre, and condoms do

prevent unwanted pregnancies and HIV infections. Yes, sometimes they break, slip, and

require forethought, but overall they work very well.

This source is going to be useful to me in writing my paper when I get to the part that

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a sexually transmitted infection. This source in

comparison to my other sources is different, because it talks about in detail about another

type of prevention, instead of the HPV vaccines, in contracting HPV strains that can lead

to cervical, throat, vaginal, or penile cancer. This author is biased in favor of condoms,

but I don’t think it alters her credibility because her opinions are based on hard facts.

Condoms are made to prevent sperm, bodily fluids, and viruses and or bacteria to pass

through them, causing the other person to contract those said things. HPV is a sexually

transmitted infection and can be prevented. Using condoms means that people can

prevent contraction and the spreading of the disease by practicing safe sex. Abstinence is

an absolute way of preventing HPV contraction, but in reality it is very unlikely for

people to practice it. By teaching safe sex and promoting it, you are actually benefiting

society by teaching them how not to get the diseases that come along with the use of no

condom.

Sherris, Jacqueline, et al. "Evidence-based, alternative cervical cancer screening

approaches in low-resource settings." International Perspectives on Sexual and

Reproductive Health, vol. 35, no. 3, 2009, p. 147+. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A210607312. Accessed 24 July

2018.
This article talks about how low income and medium income people or countries

are having a really difficult time with screening women for cervical cancer. The

article then goes into more detail explaining the different types of screenings for

cervical cancer. Two methods talked about were the visual inspection with acetic

acid or Lugol’s iodine and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing. The

author then explains the different studies taken place for those two methods and

where they were beneficial. The HPV DNA test for cervical cancer cannot be

made available yet for low income countries because it is technologically

demanding. The other method, being the visual inspection is low income areas

best bet for detecting cervical cancer. It only requires midlevel health care

professionals, so that dramatically brings costs down.

This source is about the failing screening process for lower income areas in

detecting cervical cancer. This source is going to be useful to me in explaining

how cervical cancer comes about and how it is detected. This source is different

from my other sources in that it shows how different economic-socio areas are

affected by the screening process and it explains the different processes. This

information is not very biased, because it is based off of facts and studies

performed, but you can tell the author is in favor of screening processes

improving.

Most cervical cancers are caused by certain Human Papillomavirus (HPV) strains.

It is statistically proven that if you get your annual pap smear done, you are

considerably less likely to get cervical cancer. Unfortunately, those in areas that

are poorer do not receive their annual screenings due to cost, or other reasons
 pertaining to them not having enough money. Because of this dilemma doctors

and researchers have come up with two methods to increase the likelihood of

medium income and low income women coming into the health offices to get

screened. Visual inspection is helping low income areas and HPV DNA testing is

helping medium income areas get the screenings they need. My point in why this

helps me in my research paper is that if women are getting their regular checkup

that is helping them to prevent cervical cancer, therefore, they will not need HPV

vaccines.

"The high price of HPV vaccine delivery." International Perspectives on Sexual and

Reproductive Health, vol. 39, 3, 2013, p. 113. Opposing Viewpoints In Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A349905636. Accessed 23 July 2018.

The main argument of this article is that the cost per dose of the Human Papillomavirus

(HPV) vaccine varies amongst different countries with different socio-economics. Some

factors contributing to the varied cost of HPV vaccines are if they are being distributed in

the traditional Expanded Program on Immunization, unproductive program delivery

strategies, or if they are a medium-income versus low income country. Medium-income

countries like Peru have a much higher fee than low income countries like Uganda and
Viet Nam. The author points out that the cost of delivering HPV vaccines to young girls

may decline as delivery methods improve and get integrated into standard immunizations

and school health services.

The author’s point and arguments in this article are not going to be very useful to me in

writing a research paper on why people should not get vaccinated. The whole purpose of

her article is to improve distribution of the HPV vaccine, but my take on reading this

article is that it already is a high-cost vaccine for countries and that’s not an easy fix. This

source is very different from my other sources, because it talks about the cost and socio-

economics other countries are dealing with by paying and obtaining the vaccine for

distribution. This information seems reliable because it is made up of mostly facts about

distribution and costs, however the author is biased in being in favor of improving the

distribution methods and to lowering the cost.

This source fits into my research, because money is what makes politics and sciences

world go around. The distribution methods to other countries that are not considered

wealthy are failing because they are too expensive. Peru is considered a medium-income

country and their cost per dose is $14. Might I add that HPV vaccines are only effective if

administered three times with three separate doses, making it $42 per person who is

properly vaccinated. That is an outrageous amount, especially for a medium-income

country. Also, it seems that governments are trying to make it the “norm” for young
 children to get vaccinated in school-based HPV vaccination programs, which are more

expensive than health centers or other facilities associated with integrated outreach

programs. It almost makes me intrigued to know why a vaccine would cost so much,

particularly for those who seem to need it the most.

"Why Do Doctors Hate This Vaccine?" Daily Beast, 26 Oct. 2015. Opposing Viewpoints In

Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A434705740/OVIC. Accessed 22 July 2018.

The purpose of this article was to talk about why doctors do not recommend at all, or just

not strongly recommend the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The HPV vaccine

was made to prevent people from contracting HPV strains that cause cervical, vaginal,

throat, or penile cancer. The author of this article was very cynical when questioning why

doctors do not push parents to make the decision on if they should vaccinate their child.

70% of those who receive the vaccine do not get cervical, vaginal, throat, or penile

cancer. So the author questions, why aren’t more doctors recommending the HPV

vaccine to their pediatric patients?

This source was extremely biased in favor of the HPV vaccine, but it’s questioning of

doctors decisions on not recommending the vaccine leaves room for it to be a helpful

source for me. This source is very different from my other sources because it is about the

doctor’s view on the controversy. I’m not sure how reliable this source is, because it was
about the authors biased opinions. The goal of this source was to bash doctors who do not

recommend the HPV vaccine, and man they really succeeded in doing that.

This source was not very helpful if I was reading only the author’s opinions, but reading

between the lines was very supportive. The fact that a quarter of all doctors, mostly being

pediatricians, do not strongly, or just do not recommend the HPV vaccine at all is an

enormous reason to question receiving, or having your child receive the HPV vaccine.

30% of those who receive the vaccine still end up with cervical, vaginal, throat, or penile

cancer. That’s another enormous reason to question receiving the HPV vaccine.