Comparison of HPV Vaccine Texas Tyranny with The HPV Debate Needs an Injection of Reality

Introduction

In addition to discussing the views of Mike Adams and Arthur Allen on HPV vaccine, this paper will perform the comparison of the two articles, by using Mike Adams', “HPV Vaccine Texas Tyranny”, and Arthur Allen's “The HPV Debate Needs an Injection of Reality”. Both authors debated on the issue of mandatory HPV vaccinations; however both the authors while addressing this issue have utilized very distinct approach. Adams has termed the HPV vaccination of Texas as “medical tyranny” and uses his whole piece of writing raving and ranting against the medical sector of the Texas. However, it is visible in the article of Adams that he has failed to produce any evidence in support of his arguments. On the contrary to produce any evidence; Adams, in his article, merely relied on the propositions, based on his personal observation and opinion. On the other hand, the article written by Allen utilized a very sophisticated and polished approach to cater to this issue. Allen did not directly open word fire on the government and medical industry, but indeed he expressed his discomfort over the vaccination of HPV which have been made mandatory in Texas.

Thesis Statement

The comparison between the articles written by Adams and Allen yields an interesting commonality, whereby both tend to agree that the vaccine may not be effective, in addition to being costly and with a suspect credibility (being linked to Merck).

Comparative Analysis

Mike Adams failed to furnish any credible evidence for his arguments. Adams adopted a very aggressive approach and assaulted many prestigious government agencies and medical companies opposing the HPV vaccinations that were made mandatory in Texas. However, the tone he utilized in his article does support his arguments. He has used strong and harsh words against the government agencies and medical institutions which are also reflected in the title of this study, which is “HPV Vaccine Texas Tyranny”. Adams' approach is direct and opinionated; he has a way with words which he uses to convince the readers towards inclining on his side of the debate.

He uses political caricatures as foundations or supports for his arguments and compliments them rhetorical queries, creating a successfully engaging combo. His passion for the opposition of the vaccine is what he tries to communicate to the audience. He further talks about the corruption of the media, government and ...