Personally, I get angry every time I see the "One Less" ads. Why? They didn't include any women over 25 in their initial vaccine testing, and thus the FDA did not approve it for women outside that age range. Regardless of what our sexual history may (or may not) be, we don't get to be "One Less," because we're just too damn old. Thanks a hell of a lot, Merck.

Why is it that everyone is trusting that Merck is telling the complete, unvarnished truth about this vaccine, when its financial success is the company's best hope to recover from the Vioxx disaster?

The studies the FDA's approval were based on are fatally flawed in that they didn't look at the safety rates against a true placebo but instead compared vaccinated groups with "control" groups that were given the same aluminum adjuvant that is in the vaccine itself. Aluminum has never been independently tested for safety, and it has a increasingly well-known reactivity profile. The studies that have been done looking at aluminum's safety have shown it causes all sorts of negative effects in the body, starting with neuron death.

Thus, comparing the groups that were given the vaccine against those who received an aluminum "placebo" only serves to falsely prop up the safety profile of the vaccine, because there is no true control group.

This is not science. And it's not "evidence-based" medicine.

Do we believe tobacco companies when they tell us their product isn't harmful? Why would we automatically believe pharmaceutical companies' marketing campaigns when they have so much to gain by telling half-truths and outright lies? Do your own research and don't assume that your doctor has done his or her own independent investigation, either. Read the studies. Look for what they don't say. Ask your own questions, and don't assume that the media is asking adequate ones for you, even Salon, which used to engage in gutsier journalism but now has decided to play with the big boys.

Suzanne Nelson