You know Lizzie I do sometimes wonder if you actually read what you write and if what you do on these threads consists of googling for a headline that you think supports your case and posting a link to it.

Did you actually read that article on the rise in cervical cancer that you posted to?

Here is what you wrote:

This week school started injecting it's 14 year old girls with the Cervical Cancer jab...en masse...and my heart died a little bit more, not only because they have no real idea what this jab will do, its side-effects on children so young, but because cervial cancer is so on the increase in youngsters, because they are having sex when their bodies aren't ready for it, let alone their minds...

Here is what the article you linked to actually said:

They noticed that between 1979 and 2003, the incidence of cervical cancer had increased by 1.6% per year. When they examined the data more closely, they found that people aged 15 to 19 were driving that increase, with the rate going up 6.8%, Birch told the Teenage Cancer Trust's fifth international conference in London today.

exactly why that is the case is unclear, she says. Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by the human papilloma virus. [My emphasis, not in the original]

So let's get it clear. The increase is in 15-19 year olds and they don't know the reason why.

The vaccine is being given (by choice - not compulsory) to 12 -13 year olds and it is a preventative, so that if (by 15-19 years of age) they do become sexually active there is preventative in place.

In other words the article you posted a link to supports the case for vaccination. Exactly the opposite of what you intended.

Like I said Lizzie, apart from the facts, every word you wrote was true.