EZ PopUps Review

What is EZ Popups?

EZ Popups works on every type of website: wordpress, joomla, shopify, drupal, tumblr, blogger, and many more including html sites. Integrates with every major auto-responder, crm, and webinar system (aweber, getresponse, gotowebinar, icontact, and more)

What is included:
Multiple methods of engaging your audience – popups, slideins, and overlays are just the beginning

drag and drop desigener to allow you the ultimate control in creating the popup or slide-in perfect for you.  If your stuck for ideas, you’ll find over 50 templates ready and waiting

you can target your popups to your audience based on where they are on your site.  if you have multiple catgeories and you want certain popups for specific users, you have that control

popups don’t have to be instant when the page loads,  with ezpopups, you control when your visitor will see your popup so you can maintain a good experience for your visitors

a/b split testing? included.

detailed analytics going over impressions, conversions and more?  imcluded.

Depending on your needs, there are multiple options for purchase.  Depending on your needs, you are going to have to decide which option works for you.  As you can see, there are several key differences between the options, most notably the number of sites and the campaign types available.  Please also note that these are the charter prices.  If you are viewing this video weeks or months after the launch of this product, the pricing may have increased.

Now on to my favorite part – the upsells

OTO1
EZ POPUPS PLUS
This is one upsell that isn’t necessarilly required, but if you really want to enhance your marketing campaigns on your websites, this is the upsell to get.  It includes simple integration of Facebook, shopify, paypal (for buy and donate buttons – or whatever you need it for) right on the popup.  Now, you’re not only providing a popup to your audience, but you can now sell directly to them on your popup.  Not only that, but you can use your users geolocation for running popups that call out their locations.  Or better still, you can engage your visitors by name and have prefilled forms ready for them to just click submit.  This is an awesome tool and definite advantage if it fits your sites.

OTO2
EZ SNIP
This is another amazing piece of software.  What EZSnip allows you to do is send your audience to any website imaginable – but you will place your popup on top of it.  How does that work?  Simply put, you choose a campaign, you choose a website, EZSNIP gives you a link, and that link takes care of the rest.  If you post to facebook, it still grabs all of the original artcile information including images and description text.  How awesome is that.

As always, the upsells, the otos aren’t necessary, but this is one instance where I will say flat out that the upsells can greatly benefit you and help you convert more visitors to buyers, subscribers, or whatever you are looking for them to do.

http://bit.ly/OwnEZPopups

Push Leads Review – What You Should Know

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection
“[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses
[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins” that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory
[9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States
[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity
ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,[10] a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God
[n 3] Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes
Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design
[10][n 4] Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy
Though the phrase “intelligent design” had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument,[13] the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[14][15] a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes
The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court’s Edwards v
Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds
[16] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[17] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula
[4] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v
Dover Area School District trial in which U
District Judge John E
Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,[18] often described as the “wall of separation between church and state”
By 1910 evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy in theology resulted in Fundamentalist Christian opposition to teaching evolution, and the origins of modern creationism
[19] Teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U
public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes
Young Earth creationists (YEC) promoted creation science as “an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live
” This frequently invoked the argument from design to explain complexity in nature as demonstrating the existence of God
The argument from design, the teleological argument or “argument from intelligent design,” has been advanced in theology for centuries
[20] It can be summarised briefly as “Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer
“[n 3] Thomas Aquinas presented it in his fifth proof of God’s existence as a syllogism
In 1802, William Paley’s Natural Theology presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms
His version of the watchmaker analogy argued that, in the same way that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman, complexity and adaptation seen in nature must have been designed, and the perfection and diversity of these designs shows the designer to be omnipotent, the Christian God
[21] Like creation science, intelligent design centers on Paley’s religious argument from design,[10] but while Paley’s natural theology was open to deistic design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life
[19] Creation science prefigured the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the bacterial flagellum
In the United States, attempts to introduce creation science in schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature, and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms
Intelligent design is also presented as science, and shares other arguments with creation science but avoids literal Biblical references to such things as the Flood story from the Book of Genesis or using Bible verses to age the Earth
Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the book The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, co-written by creationist Charles B
Thaxton, a chemist, with two other authors, and published by Jon A
Buell’s Foundation for Thought and Ethics
Thaxton held a conference in 1988, “Sources of Information Content in DNA,” which attracted creationists such as Stephen C
In March 1986, a review by Meyer used information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show “specified complexity” specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent
[23] In November of that year, Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley’s argument from design
[24] At the “Sources of Information Content in DNA” conference in 1988, he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism
Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God
[26][n 5][n 6] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer’s identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design
The Kitzmiller v
Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case
Since the Middle Ages, discussion of the religious “argument from design” or “teleological argument” in theology, with its concept of “intelligent design,” has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God
Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is natural theology, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God
While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase intelligent design which they said were not creationist and faith-based, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement
[27][28][29]
Variations on the phrase appeared in YEC publications: a 1967 book co-written by Percival Davis referred to “design according to which basic organisms were created
” In 1970, A
Wilder-Smith published The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution which defended Paley’s design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required “the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature,” and that “the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man
” In a 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to Edwards v
Aguillard, Dean H
Kenyon defended creation science by stating that “biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how,” citing Wilder-Smith
Creationist Richard B
Bliss used the phrase “creative design” in Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation (1976), and in Origins: Creation or Evolution (1988) wrote that “while evolutionists are trying to find non-intelligent ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place
“[30][31] The first systematic use of the term, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism, was in Of Pandas and People, co-authored by Davis and Kenyon
The most common modern use of the words “intelligent design” as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v
Aguillard that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B
Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought “That’s just what I need, it’s a good engineering term
“[32] In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word “creation,” such as “creationism” and “Creation Science,” were changed, almost without exception, to “intelligent design,”[15] while “creationists” was changed to “design proponents” or, in one instance, “cdesign proponentsists” [sic]
[14] In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled “Sources of Information Content in DNA” in Tacoma, Washington,[25] and in December decided to use the label “intelligent design” for his new creationist movement
[22] Stephen C
Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that “The term intelligent design came up
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms “intelligent design” and “design proponents” as well as the phrase “design theory,” defining the term intelligent design in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism
It thus represents the start of the modern intelligent design movement
[14][28][34] “Intelligent design” was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language
[35] It was the first place where the phrase “intelligent design” appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A
Buell,[10][36] and by William A
Dembski in his expert witness report for Kitzmiller v
Dover Area School District
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments
[34] Although presented as a scientific textbook, philosopher of science Michael Ruse considers the contents “worthless and dishonest
“[38] An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not “know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism
” One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools, Kevin Padian, condemned it for its “sub-text,” “intolerance for honest science” and “incompetence
The term “irreducible complexity” was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People
[34] Behe defines it as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept
A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work
Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap
Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled
Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E
coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially
[12] They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change
Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them
This is sometimes called the “scaffolding objection” by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an “irreducibly complex” building until it is complete and able to stand on its own
[n 7] Behe has acknowledged using “sloppy prose,” and that his “argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof
“[n 8] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large
In 1986, Charles B
Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term “specified complexity” from information theory when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent
[23] The intelligent design concept of “specified complexity” was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William A
[43] Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i
, is both complex and “specified,” simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i
, that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes
He provides the following examples: “A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex
A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified
A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified
“[44] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the “patterns” of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA
Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance
Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature
[46][n 9][47]
The conceptual soundness of Dembski’s specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities
[48][49] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts
John Wilkins and Wesley R
Elsberry characterize Dembski’s “explanatory filter” as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design
They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions
Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex
[51] Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human “intelligent designers
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance
These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles
Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form
[53] Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome
Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence
[54][55] Victor J
Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life
[56][57][58] The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible
Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place
A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable
The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit
Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene
Dembski, in The Design Inference (1998), speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements
Of Pandas and People proposes that SETI illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science
In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T
Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that “make[s] many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists”
[60] The authoritative description of intelligent design,[n 10] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed
Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that “no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life
“[61] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science
For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would “give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes” (see pseudogene) and why a designer would not “stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species”
Coyne also points to the fact that “the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different” as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer
[62] Previously, in Darwin’s Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer’s motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively
Odd designs could, for example, ”
have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not
“[63] Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, “either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved
Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design
Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley’s expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can
Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering
He says that “Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer
Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are
“[63] This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable
Retired UC Berkeley law professor, author and intelligent design advocate Phillip E
Johnson puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view AIDS was created to punish immorality and is not caused by HIV, but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question “What designed the designer?”[65] Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design
[n 11] Richard Wein counters that ”
scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions
But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant
They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides
Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging
The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer
“[47] Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a thought-terminating cliché
[66][67] In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question “What designed the designer?” leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s
[4] The scientific and academic communities, along with a U
federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[70][71][72][73][74][75] and several authors explicitly refer to it as “intelligent design creationism
“[4][76][n 12][77][78]
The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture, established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[n 13] calling for broad social, academic and political changes
The Discovery Institute’s intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design
Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism
Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a supernatural cause
The overall goal of the movement is to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview” represented by the theory of evolution in favor of “a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions
Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept
[n 5][n 14] All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture
[79] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its “Teach the Controversy” campaign and their other related programs
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design
In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible
[n 14] Recognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation:
Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians
We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars
We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture
Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute’s obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy
She has written that the movement’s “activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[n 15] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God
Stuart Burgess, Phillip E
Johnson, William A
Dembski, and Stephen C
Meyer are evangelical Protestants; Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic; and Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church
Non-Christian proponents include David Klinghoffer, who is Jewish,[81] Michael Denton and David Berlinski, who are agnostic,[82][83][84] and Muzaffar Iqbal, a Pakistani-Canadian Muslim
[85][86] Phillip E
Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer
Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message
“[n 16] Johnson emphasizes that ”
the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion
This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact
The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William A
Dembski in The Design Inference
[88] In this work, Dembski lists a god or an “alien life force” as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999), Dembski states:
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him
The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ
But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ
Dembski also stated, “ID is part of God’s general revelation [
] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology [ materialism ], which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ
“[90] Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible’s Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design
Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide
[n 17] She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement
She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip E
Johnson, Charles B
Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells and Francis J
Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by Howard Ahmanson, Jr
, a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement
According to Thomas Dixon, “Religious leaders have come out against ID too
An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America
In 2006, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne, condemned ID as a kind of ‘crude creationism’ which reduced God to a mere engineer
“[91] Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague
In 2002, he wrote: “Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model
Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars
the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray
Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap
Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement
Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today
The reason it won’t work is because it is not the Biblical method
” According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting
“[93] In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, “‘left the Bible out of it'” and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible
Wieland explained that “AiG’s major ‘strategy’ is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum
National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science
“[95] The U
National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience
[71] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it
[96] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States
In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged
The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 the Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doubts about evolution among scientists
[100] The statement formed a key component of Discovery Institute campaigns to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support,[101][102] with Institute members continued to cite the list through at least 2011
[103] As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised Project Steve which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute’s petition, and a counter-petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism, which quickly gained similar numbers of signatories
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v
Dover School District, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups
According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as “so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them
“[104] Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions
[105][106][107]
A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design” found support for “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process” of between 31% and 40%, support for “God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” varied from 40% to 47%, and support for “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process” varied from 9% to 19%
The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions
There have been allegations that ID proponents have met discrimination, such as being refused tenure or being harshly criticized on the Internet
In the documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, released in 2008, host Ben Stein presents five such cases
The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a “scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms,” suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution
[109][110] Investigation into these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecution
The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level
Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue
[111][112] The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics
Expelled has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills
[114] Review screenings were restricted to churches and Christian groups, and at a special pre-release showing, one of the interviewees, PZ Myers, was refused admission
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,[115] and the Anti-Defamation League has denounced the film’s allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust
[116][117] The film includes interviews with scientists and academics who were misled into taking part by misrepresentation of the topic and title of the film
Skeptic Michael Shermer describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same question without context as “surreal
Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis
[n 15][87] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 19][119][n 20] it is expected to be:
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria
The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word
Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[120] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 21] is not scientifically useful,[n 22] is not falsifiable,[n 23] is not empirically testable,[n 24] and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional
[n 25][n 26][n 27]
Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science[121] by eliminating “methodological naturalism” from science[122] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E
Johnson, calls “theistic realism
“[n 28] Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe
[n 29] Many intelligent design followers believe that “scientism” is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science
[123] The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data
[123] The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal’s peer-review standards
[124] The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[125] but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor,[n 30] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters
Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition
The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science
Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer’s abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature
Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools
[43] The Discovery Institute’s “Teach the Controversy” campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses
[4][126][127][128][129][130] The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics
Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance
In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view
Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause
They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that “we don’t know yet” is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science
Particularly, Michael Behe’s demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design
Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E
Jones III wrote that “ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed
” This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v
Arkansas (1982) trial which found it was “contrived dualism,” the false premise of a “two model approach
” Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design
It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component
[135] However, various philosophical and theological issues are naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design
Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God)
They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset,[19] in contrast to theistic evolution (to which even Charles Darwin was open[137])
Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculous interventions in addition to designed laws
This contrasts with other major religious traditions of a created world in which God’s interactions and influences do not work in the same way as physical causes
The Roman Catholic tradition makes a careful distinction between ultimate metaphysical explanations and secondary, natural causes
The concept of direct miraculous intervention raises other potential theological implications
If such a Designer does not intervene to alleviate suffering even though capable of intervening for other reasons, some imply the designer is not omnibenevolent (see problem of evil and related theodicy)
Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator’s work had been both perfect and final
[19] Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that vestigial organs have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their actions
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument,[139] which has the following form:
A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance
A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions
[140] Historians of science observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the heavenly bodies across the sky
[141] It was the Greek civilization that first practiced science, although not yet a mathematically oriented experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention
[142] In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on the scientific progress
Kitzmiller v
Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution
The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught
The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP
The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs
The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center
[144] The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E
Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert T
Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John F
Haught served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs
Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense
On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania’s Middle District public school science classrooms
The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005, election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling
In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the “Teach the Controversy” strategy:
Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class
This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard
The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge
If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy
The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial
The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources
As Jones had predicted, John G
West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work
He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it
Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is “a Republican and a churchgoer
“[149][150][151]
Subsequently, the decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court
In the Winter of 2007, the Montana Law Review published three articles
[152] In the first, David K
DeWolf, John G
West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory
[153] In the second Peter H
Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,[154] while in the third, DeWolf, et al
, answer the points made by Irons
[155] However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design “teach the controversy” proposals
In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States, which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as “Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
” However, these worldviews as well as others “that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses
Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others
In June 2007, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states “Creationism in any of its forms, such as ‘intelligent design’, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes
“[157] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as “anti-science” and involving “blatant scientific fraud” and “intellectual deception” that “blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science” and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism
On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion,” including “intelligent design,” which it described as “the latest, more refined version of creationism,” “presented in a more subtle way
” The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to “warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science
In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education as a compulsory subject, and there are many faith schools that teach the ethos of particular denominations
When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media[n 33] featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,[159] and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,[160] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum” (part of the National Curriculum, which does not apply to independent schools or to education in Scotland)
[161][162] The DfES subsequently stated that “Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum,” but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education
[163] In 2006, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a “Religious Education” model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection
On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils’ questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories
[166] Detailed government “Creationism teaching guidance” for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007
It states that “Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science,” has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole
Though it should not be taught as science, “Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory
” However, “Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons
The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of “countering creationism within the UK” and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard
[157] Northern Ireland’s Department for Education says that the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)—which has links to fundamentalist Christianity—has been campaigning to have intelligent design taught in science classes
A DUP former Member of Parliament, David Simpson, has sought assurances from the education minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions
[167][168] In 2007, Lisburn city council voted in favor of a DUP recommendation to write to post-primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to “creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin
Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to “stimulate an academic debate” on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash
[170] After the 2006 elections, she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a “molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design
“[171] As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Secretariat of Catholic Education (VSKO) in Belgium, Mieke Van Hecke, declared that: “Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn’t belong in Flemish Catholic schools
It’s not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that’s task and goal of science
Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Pakistani-Canadian Muslim, signed the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition of the Discovery Institute
[173] Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated
In Istanbul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government,[174] and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007
In 2011, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Bhaktivedanta Book Trust published an intelligent design book titled Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design
The book included contributions from intelligent design advocates William A
Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe as well as from Hindu creationists Leif A
Jensen and Michael Cremo
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see Education in Australia)
In 2005, the Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes
The public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religion or philosophy classes
[177][178] The Australian chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ distributed a DVD of the Discovery Institute’s documentary Unlocking the Mystery of Life (2002) to Australian secondary schools
[179] The head of one of Australia’s leading private schools supported use of the DVD in the classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07NC7RZ6Fc

PushLeads Review

Gardasil, also known as Gardisil or Silgard or recombinant human papillomavirus vaccine [types 6, 11, 16, 18],[1][2] is a vaccine for use in the prevention of certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV),[3] specifically HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18
[4][5] HPV types 16 and 18 cause an estimated 70% of cervical cancers,[6][7] and are responsible for most HPV-induced anal,[8] vulvar, vaginal,[9] and penile cancer cases
HPV types 6 and 11 cause an estimated 90% of genital warts cases
Though it does not treat existing infection, vaccination is still recommended for HPV positive individuals, as it may protect against one or more different strains of the disease
[10] The HPV strains that Gardasil protects against are sexually transmitted
It was approved in the US on June 8, 2006 by the U
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
In 2008, Gardasil was approved in 41 of U
[11] The Gardasil vaccine has also been approved in 120 other countries
[12] The FDA recommends vaccination before adolescence and potential sexual activity
[4][13][14]
In December 2014, the FDA approved a nine-valent Gardasil-based vaccine, Gardasil 9, to protect against infection with the strains covered by the first generation of Gardasil as well as five other HPV strains responsible for 20% of cervical cancers (HPV-31, HPV-33, HPV-45, HPV-52, and HPV-58)
Gardasil is a prophylactic HPV vaccine, meaning that it is designed to prevent HPV infections
For maximum effect, it is recommended that girls receive the vaccine prior to becoming sexually active
However, women who were already infected with one or more of the four HPV types targeted by the vaccine (6, 11, 16, or 18) were protected from clinical disease caused by the remaining HPV types in the vaccine
Since Gardasil will not block infection with all of the HPV types that can cause cervical cancer, the vaccine should not be considered a substitute for routine pap smears
Fewer HPV infections mean fewer complications from the virus and less time and money spent on the detection, work-up, and treatment of cervical cancer and its precursor, cervical dysplasia
It prevents infertility caused by cervical biopsies and reduces the severe respiratory problems of children who are infected by HPV from their mothers
In addition, protection against HPV 6 and HPV 11 is expected to eliminate 90% of the cases of genital warts
Gardasil also protects against vulvar and vaginal cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18
In December 2010, Gardasil was approved by the FDA for prevention of anal cancer and associated precancerous lesions due to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16, and 18 in people ages 9 through 26 years
HPV infections, especially HPV 16, contribute to some head and neck cancer (HPV is found in an estimated 26-35% of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma)
[18][19] In principle, HPV vaccines may help reduce incidence of such cancers caused by HPV, but this has not been demonstrated
Merck was denied FDA approval to market Gardasil to women aged 27 to 45
Although it was found to be safe and effective in the prevention of genital warts, it was not effective in the prevention of cervical cancer in that age group
[21] This is because HPV rates rise quickly during teenage years and early twenties, but the chances decrease as people reach ages past their early twenties
An alternative vaccine known as Cervarix is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline
[23] It protects against two oncogenic strains of HPV, 16 and 18
The National Cancer Institute says, “Gardasil and Cervarix have been shown to provide protection against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections for up to 8 years, which is the maximum time of research follow-up thus far
HPV vaccination has also been found to prevent nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes that would have been caused by HPV 16/18
The data so far show duration of protection for up to 6
4 years with Cervarix and for up to 5 years for Gardasil—in women who were not infected with HPV at the time of vaccination
Gardasil has been shown to be partially effective (approximately 38%) in preventing cervical cancer caused by ten other high-risk HPV types
Antibody levels at month 3 (1 month postdose 2) are substantially higher than at month 24 (18 months postdose 3), suggesting that protection is achieved by month 3 and perhaps earlier
[13][26] This does not imply that the third dose can be skipped
[citation needed] One study has shown that Cervarix may be effective with fewer than three doses
[27] Following further studies, in April 2014, the World Health Organization recommended that countries offer the vaccine in a two dose schedule to girls aged under 15, with each dose at least six months apart
[28] The United Kingdom, Switzerland, Mexico and Quebec are among the few countries or territories to have implemented this as at June 2015
Gardasil is also effective in males, providing protection against genital warts, anal cancer, and some potentially precancerous lesions caused by some HPV types
[5][17][29][30] An ongoing study of 4,065 males demonstrated the efficacy of Gardasil in males who did not have HPV infection prior to vaccination
The vaccination is expected to protect against penile cancer and anal cancer caused by included HPV types, and research in this area is ongoing
[8] Gardasil vaccine has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of young men contracting genital warts
[31] In the United States the U
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved administration of the vaccine to males between ages 9 and 26 in October 2009
[32][33][34] In the UK, HPV vaccines are licensed for males aged 9 to 15 and for females aged 9 to 26
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are particularly at risk for conditions associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18; diseases and cancers that have a higher incidence among MSM include anal intraepithelial neoplasias, anal cancers, and genital warts
Type 16 is also associated with oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of throat cancer
[36] A 2005 study in San Francisco found that 95% of HIV-infected gay men also had anal HPV infection, of which 50% had precancerous HPV-caused lesions
Gardasil is given in three injections over six months
The second injection is two months after the first, and the third injection is six months after the first shot was administered
[4][13] Alternatively, in some countries it is given as two injections with at least six months between them, for individuals aged 9 years up to and including 13 years
As of April 2014[update], more than 170 million doses of Gardasil had been distributed worldwide
[39] The vaccine was tested in thousands of females (ages 9 to 26)
[40] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) consider the vaccine to be safe
It does not contain mercury, thiomersal, live viruses or dead viruses, but virus-like particles, which cannot reproduce in the human body
Publications of FDA and the CDC state that the vaccine has mostly minor side effects, such as soreness around the injection area
[40] Fainting is more common among adolescents receiving the Gardasil vaccine than in other kinds of vaccinations
Patients should remain seated for 15 minutes after they receive the HPV vaccine
[41] There have been reports that the shot is more painful than other common vaccines, and the manufacturer Merck partly attributes this to the virus-like particles within the vaccine
[42] General side effects of the shot may include joint and muscle pain, fatigue, physical weakness and general malaise
An update on adverse events was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association and looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), covering 12,424 reported adverse events after about 23 million doses of vaccine between June 2006 and December 2008
[44][45] Most adverse effects were minor and not greater than background rates compared with other vaccines, the exception being higher rates for syncope and thromboembolic events
[45] Venous thromboembolic events were noted in 56 reports at a rate of 0
2 cases per 100,000 doses distributed and included 19 cases of pulmonary embolism, four of which were fatal
[45] Overall, 772 events (6
2% of the total number of adverse events but only 0
003% of the total number of doses) were described as serious and included 32 reported deaths (1 per 1,000,000 doses)
Other adverse events include local site reactions (7
5 cases per 100,000 doses distributed), headaches (4
1 cases per 100,000 doses distributed), hypersensitivity reactions (3
1 cases per 100,000 doses distributed), and urticaria (hives) (2
6 cases per 100,000 doses distributed)
[45] A Kaiser Permanente study tracking 190,000 girls and women post-vaccination for two years found that rates of the autoimmune disorders lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), hemolytic anemia, multiple sclerosis, thyroiditis and type 1 diabetes mellitus in vaccinated populations were the same as in unvaccinated populations
The FDA and the CDC said that with millions of vaccinations “by chance alone some serious adverse effects and deaths” will occur in the time period following vaccination, but they have nothing to do with the vaccine
[48] More than twenty women who received the Gardasil vaccine have died, but these deaths have not been causally connected to the shot
[48] Where information has been available, the cause of death was explained by other factors
[49][50] Likewise, a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) have been reported following vaccination with Gardasil, though there is no evidence linking GBS to the vaccine
[14][44][51] It is unknown why a person develops GBS, or what initiates the disease
The FDA and the CDC monitor events to see if there are patterns, or more serious events than would be expected from chance alone
[49] The majority (68%) of side effects data were reported by the manufacturer, but in about 90% of the manufacturer reported events, no follow-up information was given that would be useful to investigate the event further
[45] In February 2009, the Spanish ministry of health suspended use of one batch of Gardasil after health authorities in the Valencia region reported that two girls had become ill after receiving the injection
Merck has stated that there was no evidence Gardasil was responsible for the two illnesses
The HPV major capsid protein, L1, can spontaneously self-assemble into virus-like particles (VLPs) that resemble authentic HPV virions
Gardasil contains recombinant VLPs assembled from the L1 proteins of HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18
Since VLPs lack the viral DNA, they cannot induce cancer
They do, however, trigger an antibody response that protects vaccine recipients from becoming infected with the HPV types represented in the vaccine
The L1 proteins are produced by separate fermentations in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae and self-assembled into VLPs
The National Cancer Institute writes:
Whether the effects are temporary or lifelong, widespread vaccination could have a substantial public health impact
270,000 women died of cervical cancer worldwide in 2002
[55] Acting FDA Administrator Andrew von Eschenbach said the vaccine will have “a dramatic effect” on the health of women around the world
[56] Even in the United States, where screening programs are routine, the National Cancer Institute estimated that 9,700 women would develop cervical cancer in 2006, and 3,700 would die
Merck and CSL Limited are expected to market Gardasil as a cancer vaccine, rather than an STD vaccine
It remains unclear how widespread the use of the three-shot series will be, in part because of its $525 list price ($175 each for three shots)
Studies using different pharmacoeconomic models predict that vaccinating young women with Gardasil in combination with screening programs may be more cost effective than screening alone
[59] These results have been important in decisions by many countries to start vaccination programs
[60] For example, the Canadian government approved $300 million to buy the HPV vaccine in 2008 after deciding from studies that the vaccine would be cost-effective especially by immunizing young women
[61] Marc Steben, an investigator for the vaccine, wrote that the financial burden of HPV related cancers on the Canadian people was already $300 million per year in 2005, so the vaccine could reduce this burden and be cost-effective
Since penile and anal cancers are much less common than cervical cancer, HPV vaccination of young men is likely to be much less cost-effective than for young women
The August 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article reiterating the safety of Gardasil[44] and another questioning the way it was presented to doctors and parents
The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives
However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism
By making the vaccine’s target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored
The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women’s health and oncology
The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers’ bureaus to promote vaccine use
However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits
As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use
According to the CDC, as of 2012, use of the HPV vaccine had cut rates of infection with HPV-6, -11, -16 and -18 in half in American teenagers (from 11
3%) and by one third in American women in their early twenties (from 18
Research findings that pioneered the development of the vaccine began in 1991 by investigators Jian Zhou and Ian Frazer in The University of Queensland, Australia
Researchers at UQ found a way to form non-infectious virus-like particles (VLP), which could also strongly activate the immune system
Subsequently, the final form of the vaccine was developed in parallel, by researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center, the University of Rochester, the University of Queensland in Australia, and the U
National Cancer Institute
Merck & Co
conducted a Phase III study named Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE II)
This clinical trial was a randomized double-blind study with one controlled placebo group and one vaccination group
Over 12,000 women aged 16–26 from thirteen countries participated in the study
Each woman was injected with either Gardasil or a placebo on day 1, month 2, and month 6
In total, 6,082 women were given Gardasil and 6,075 received the placebo
[66] Subjects in the vaccine group had a significantly lower occurrence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia related to HPV-16 or HPV-18 than did those in the placebo group
[66] On February 27, 2007, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended the clinical trials be terminated on ethical grounds, so that young women on placebo could receive Gardasil
[67] The safety and efficacy of the vaccine was also demonstrated in a clinical trial including over one thousand 9- to 15-year-old girls
The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, issued an executive order adding Gardasil to the state’s required vaccination list, which was later overturned by the Texas legislature
Perry has also allowed parents to opt out of the program more easily
Through lobbying efforts, Merck has suggested that governments make vaccination with Gardasil mandatory for school attendance, which has upset some conservative groups and libertarian groups
[56][69][70] Conservative groups, including the Family Research Council (FRC), have expressed fear that vaccination with Gardasil might give girls a false sense of security regarding sex and lead to promiscuity,[56][70][71][72] but no evidence exists to suggest that girls who were vaccinated went on to engage in more sexual activity than unvaccinated girls
[73] Perry’s decision was later criticized on September 12, 2011 by fellow presidential candidates Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann during the Republican Party presidential debate as being an overreach of state power in a decision properly left to parents
In June 2013, the Japanese government issued a notice that “cervical cancer vaccinations should no longer be recommended for girls aged 12 to 16” while an investigation is conducted into certain adverse events including pain and numbness in 38 girls
[75] The vaccines sold in Japan are Cervarix, made by GlaxoSmithKlein PLC of Britain, and Gardasil, made by Merck Sharp & Dohme
An estimated 3
28 million people have received the vaccination; 1,968 cases of possible side effects have been reported
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Lvkb0lQMM

Push Leads Review

“Orientation” is the first episode of the fourth season of the NBC science fiction drama series Heroes and the 60th episode overall
The episode aired in the US on September 21, 2009
[1] Produced and filmed as two separate episodes, the episode’s title for the second hour was initially announced as “Jump, Push, Fall”; however, it aired as a single double-length episode
Samuel Sullivan presides over his brother Joseph’s funeral with the Sullivan Bros
Carnival members in attendance
Talking of redemption, he mentions other people like them, accompanied on-screen by clips of the Heroes cast, predicting they will soon join their “family” at the carnival
He finishes by dropping a compass into the grave and telling Joseph to find his way home
He then uses his terrakinetic abilities to close the grave
Later, Samuel uses his powers in conjunction with carnival member Lydia to reveal an image of Emile Danko as a tattoo on her back
Edgar, another carnival member, is sent to retrieve something from Danko
Edgar initially refuses, but is threatened using Samuel’s power and relents
Samuel then uncovers a picture of Hiro Nakamura, who visited the carnival fourteen years previously
Using the powers of ailing carnival member Arnold, Samuel travels back in time to meet Hiro
Upon starting college, Claire Bennet meets her overbearing roommate Annie, and is remembered by a girl called Gretchen as part of the events of the episode “Homecoming”
Soon after arriving, Annie is suddenly found dead by Claire
Gretchen agrees that Annie’s death was a murder and that they should investigate, suggesting using a dummy to see if she jumped, was pushed or fell
Claire tests this theory herself, healing with her ability, and Gretchen sees what she can do
Noah Bennet, despite Angela Petrelli’s encouragement, is reluctant to restart the Company and return to his old life
In his car, he is attacked by Tracy Strauss’ abilities, but is saved by his Building 26 accomplice Danko
Danko explains that he needs Noah’s help to stop Strauss
Noah refuses, and Tracy later appears to him in a bar
Noah promises he can give her her life back, but she is skeptical
Noah later uses the Haitian to remove Danko’s memories of Tracy
When Danko goes back home, Tracy is waiting for him but he can’t remember her
Seeing that Noah has kept his promise she lets Danko live, but before she can leave, Edgar has arrived and uses his super-speed to kill Danko
Tracy calls Noah, who realizes that the cuts are on the stomach and reaches in to remove a key
He goes to visit Peter Petrelli, who has returned to his life as a paramedic, and asks him to help find where the key leads
Following the trail to a safe deposit box, they find a broken compass
Edgar attacks, but upon realizing Peter has mimicked his power he flees
Noah shows Peter the compass, which starts working in Peter’s hand
Peter, however, refuses to keep the mysterious item, only interested in saving the lives of others
Edgar later attacks Noah and reclaims the compass
Recovering in hospital, Noah is encouraged by Tracy to help those with abilities
Meanwhile, Angela is troubled by her son Nathan Petrelli’s self-doubt, knowing that he is really Sylar
She contacts Matt Parkman to help, but he refuses to use his ability again
Nathan begins to demonstrate some of Sylar’s powers, and attempts to contact Peter about his situation
Sylar’s consciousness later manifests inside Matt’s mind, attempting to drive him mad and force him to undo his actions
Under Sylar’s constant encouragement, Matt eventually uses his power again
In Tokyo, Hiro and Ando Masahashi have started a “Dial-a-hero” business
However, following their first mission Hiro remains frozen in time
He later wakes up, but confesses to Ando that he is dying
Ando suggests that he travels fourteen years back in time to a carnival, where he was first inspired to be a hero
Hiro refuses to change time, but losing control of his powers he is transported back anyway
Unable to return, he meets past versions of himself, Ando and his sister Kimiko
Samuel approaches him and reveals that he has a power too
Samuel encourages Hiro to change the past, allowing Ando and Kimiko to start a relationship
Returning to the present and seeing the change that has occurred, Hiro resolves to spend his remaining days righting the wrongs he has made
Samuel also returns to the present day and predicts Hiro will come to the carnival soon
Using the same method as before, he reveals pictures of Sylar, Claire and Peter
Steve Heisler of The A
Club rated this episode a C
Robert Canning of IGN gave the episode 6
8 out of 10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkR1eIsycQ

Landscaping Basics

Essentials of Landscaping

For a gardener who is taking on some landscaping it is essential for them to comprehend the essentials of landscaping. There are particular aspects of good landscape design. Understanding these elements belongs of developing landscaping that works. Landscaping essentials are fairly easy to comprehend and most will come naturally. The following list describes these standard elements.

Unity – The idea of unity suggests that everything interacts. It used to colors, shapes, heights and every other aspect of the design. Utilizing consistency and repeating is a fantastic way to make sure unity.

Simplicity – Simpleness does not have to indicate the design is restricted. It indicates the design ought to be restricted in different color tones, kinds of plants and also keeping the design looking clean. An overwhelming design is confusing to the eye. This is especially real if working with a huge location. Having a lot of things going on wreaks havoc.

Balance – Balance is merely keeping the design percentages equal throughout. One side ought to not be complete and the other scarce. Balance consists of colors and heights, in addition to the general look of the landscaping.

Focalization – This simply implies the design should have some central element that catches the eye. Some landscapers utilize an unique tree or bush, while others use things like fountains and statues. In a large scale landscaping design the focal point might be a garden.

These four elements are the fundamental secrets to landscaping design. It doesn’t matter if it is a small garden or huge yard, these components apply in every landscaping scenario. Ultimately, however, the appeal of a landscaping design remains in the eye of its creator. What is beautiful to one may not be to another. Nevertheless, the having a knowledge of the standard elements of landscaping can assist a newbie establish a landscaping plan easier and give them a beginning indicate use.