by Retraction Watch 
A retracted study linking the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) to behavioral problems in mice has been republished by a different journal.
In February, the journal Vaccine temporarily removed the study  without explanation, and told the authors the editor had asked for further review. Later that month, Vaccine retracted the paper , citing “serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article,” and “seriously flawed” methodology.
In July, another journal — Immunologic Research — republished the paper.
As we previously reported , the previous version of the paper, “Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil ,” (which has been removed entirely by Vaccine), said:
It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes.
The new paper in Immunologic Research, “Behavioral abnormalities in female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil ,” contains the same sentence in its abstract.
Furthermore, in the new version of the study, the authors conclude:
…both Al and Gardasil vaccine injections resulted in behavioral abnormalities in mice…
As we previously reported, Shaw and another co-author of the paper, Lucija Tomljenovic  (also at UBC), have previously published a study that suggested that aluminium in vaccines is linked to autism ; subsequently, a World Health Organization advisory body concluded that this study (and another by the pair ) were “seriously flawed .”
When we previously reported  on the case, Shaw noted that Shoenfeld is not anti-vaccine:
He will routinely start his talk with “vaccines are the greatest medical invention of all time [and] will save millions of lives.”
Shaw told us that the authors stand by their paper in Immunologic Research, and believe that it is scientifically sound.
Asked for comment, Julius Cruse , the editor-in-chief of Immunologic Research, referred us to the editor representing Springer Publishers, Basel, Dieter Klueber. We’ve contacted Klueber, and will update this post if we hear back.
Between 2006 and 2015, roughly 80 million doses of Gardasil were administered.
Read the full article at Retraction Watch .
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com. 
HPV Vaccine Injuries: “I Cannot Begin to Describe What it is Like to Watch your Daughter Live in Such Agony” 
“They’ve Been Robbed of Their Womanhood” – Local Milwaukee Media Covers Gardasil Vaccine Injuries 
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.