- New Study Claiming Vaccines Are Safe Has Suspicious Origins
- Tetanus Shot: How Do We Know That It Works? ~ By Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
- Fast Food Fever: The Impact Of Western Diet On Immunity – BioMed Central
- Prescription painkillers kill more people than heroin and cocaine combined – Journal of Public Health
- San Diego pertussis epidemic in the fully vaccinated (85%)
- Jamie on The Pertussis Vaccine Lists Autism and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as Serious Adverse Events on the Package Insert
- Jamie on The Pertussis Vaccine Lists Autism and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as Serious Adverse Events on the Package Insert
- j. Espo on New Study Claiming Vaccines Are Safe Has Suspicious Origins
- Stacey B on New Study Claiming Vaccines Are Safe Has Suspicious Origins
- Stef on New Study Claiming Vaccines Are Safe Has Suspicious Origins
Search Results for: cervarix
by Charlotte Gilruth, CCH October 16, 2013
Learn the Risks; Protect Your Rights.
“Vaccines in the U.S. represent a government-industry alliance…the likes of which are unknown in any other place or time in recorded history.” –Attorney Alan Phillips[ii]
Vaccine Mandates Today
Pharma envisions a grim future for all of us. Merck’s infographic, “A Lifetime of Vaccines,” depicts seven life stages, from newborn through elderly.[iii] Sanofi Pasteur presents, “New and next generation vaccines for every stage of life.”[iv] The slogans, “You never outgrow the need for vaccines”[v] and “Vaccines are not just for kids,”[vi] probably originating at the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), have spread across the country to places like health departments and pharmacies touting vaccination for adults.[vii] With nearly 300 vaccines under development,[viii] pressure mounts for cradle-to-grave vaccination, including, disturbingly, flu and Tdap (Tetanus/Diphtheria/acellular Pertussis) shots for pregnant women.[ix] The vaccine industry,[x] governmental policymakers,[xi] and medical associations[xii] are working in concert to shift the long-standing public assumption that vaccination mostly ends with childhood.[xiii]
At the same time, the schedule of vaccines required for children–which has tripled since the 1980s[xiv]–continues to expand alarmingly. Childhood vaccination programs, promoted on the federal level and enacted through state health departments, generally resemble that of Vermont, where Department of Health Immunization Regulations specify that once a new vaccine is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, (ACIP, which consists of 15 experts appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), “there will be a two-year phase-in period before children will be required to have the vaccine in order to enroll in a child-care facility or school.”[xv] Four new vaccines, including an annual flu shot, have recently been added to the CDC-recommended childhood schedule,[xvi] which, when approved, will bring the total to 52 shots (of 68 separate antigens) by age 18; the dangerous and controversial HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccine has been on that list for over two years now.
The recommended schedule for adults shows the same steady increase.[xvii] In 2010 the annual flu vaccine was recommended mostly for adults over 50. That changed to all adults in 2011. In 2012, the recommendation for HPV for males was added. In 2013, a Tdap shot is recommended for pregnant women, one per pregnancy.[xviii]
Regulations Impinge on Parents’ Best Judgment
Immunization regulations as they now stand already restrict parental choices, and pending measures would be even more limiting. A few real-life scenarios underline the pressing need to preserve vaccine exemption rights:
Children are presently counted as “not fully immunized” or “under-immunized”–even if they are missing just one shot from the growing required schedule–and are prohibited from enrolling in any public or private school or day care center. (Home-based day care is the only exception.) Now and in the future, unless parents are prepared to educate their children at home from infancy through the teens, exemptions are the only accepted way to selectively vaccinate their children.
Abolishing the Right to Refuse
Pharmaceutical companies assess restrictive state legislation as an effective means to build a reliable revenue stream[xix] well into the future. Their strategy of enforced compliance will best succeed if exemptions are eliminated.
A sea change seemed to occur in 2011: though the CDC had for many years been tracking and publishing[xx] vaccination rates for schoolchildren and toddlers, a sudden switch of focus happened in 2011. The CDC’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” started reporting state-by-state vaccine exemption rates[xxi]–as if exemptions were disease outbreaks!–though the June 3, 2011 report stated that “overall exemption rates were low”[xxii] for children entering kindergarten who had an exemption for any reason. (The current rate as of August 2013 is only 1.8%).[xxiii] Also in 2011, the National Public Health Information Coalition[xxiv] was founded, its stated goals to “… help enhance current media activities to reinforce public trust in vaccines, increase awareness that vaccine-preventable diseases are still a danger and emphasize that the benefits of vaccines vastly outweigh any risks.” NPHIC’s voting members[xxv] are comprised of one representative from each state health department. That same year, legislative attacks began in Washington State to restrict “personal belief” (philosophical and religious) exemptions there; continued highlighting of these exemptions in 2012 and 2013 paralleled other assaults on exemptions in Vermont, Washington, Arizona, and Oregon. Is all of this purely coincidence or were these actions connected with the February 22, 2011 U.S.Supreme Court decision that found vaccines “unavoidably unsafe”–thereby shielding those who make and administer them against lawsuits for deaths and injuries caused by vaccines ?[xxvi]
Currently, about half the population (in 17 states), has philosophical exemptions,[xxvii] which allow parents to opt out of any or all vaccines for their children. (Just two states–Mississippi and West Virginia–have no non-medical exemptions.)[xxviii] Proposed legislation in several states allowing minors to agree to vaccines, without parents’ consent or even knowledge, is a new avenue of attack on parental rights.
Until recently the focus has been predominantly on mandated childhood vaccine programs, adding to the number of required vaccines and restricting and eliminating exemptions. Targeting adults is the latest game plan, through intensifying pressure for health care workers, teachers and others to be vaccinated as well. The National Strategy of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, in cooperation with medical employers and other non-government organizations (NGOs), calls for a mandated immunization program for adults similar to that for children.[xxix] Since 2010, the CDC has been monitoring trends for health care workers receiving the flu vaccine,[xxx] and tracks mandates for healthcare workers and patients by state.[xxxi] In August, 2013, state officials in North Carolina announced a new policy that mandates flu vaccines for 10,000 employees and volunteers in state health care facilities throughout North Carolina.[xxxii]
2013 Proposed Vaccine Legislation Nationwide
Lobbying continually steps up across the nation for vaccine-related regulations. In 2013 there were 47 vaccine-related bills in 17 states–CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, ME, MN, MO, MT, ND, NC, NE, NJ, and NY– that the National Vaccine Information Center recommended be opposed, six of them in Texas, four in Idaho.[xxxiii] Some trends in the bills become apparent upon perusing the list:[xxxiv]
- Proposed mandates for:
Flu vaccines (NJ, MT, IL, MO, CT, PA)
Meningitis vaccine (IL, KS, NE, MO, NY, TX, TN)
HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccine (NY, KY, SC, GA, FL)
Hep B vaccine (MN)
Hep A vaccine (MN)
Tdap vaccine (NE, VT)
- Allows additional practitioners (e.g. optometrists or pharmacists) to administer vaccines (CA, NC, GA, OH, OR, NJ)
- Elimination of parental consent requirement for some vaccines (NY, TX)
- Restriction or removal of exemptions (OR, NJ, VT)
- Restrictive changes in vaccination tracking system (ID, ND, MT, TX)
Unless citizens are alert to pending legislation, rights to vaccine choice can simply evaporate. Many restrictive new bills are likely be introduced all over the U.S. in the 2014 session.
“Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.”[xxxv]
The Journey from S.199 to Act 157
During the 2012 Vermont legislative session, S.199, a bill to eliminate the philosophical exemption,[xxxvi] was defeated after months of resistance spearheaded by a group of citizen advocates, the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice,[xxxvii] composed mostly of parents. (Over 1,500 citizens signed the Coalition’s petition to preserve vaccine choice.) The bill was introduced by Senator Kevin Mullin on January 3rd, with “mirror bill” H.527[xxxviii] sponsored in the House by Representative George Till. These initiatives were fully backed by Vermont’s health department. Health Commissioner Dr. Harry Chen presented a map with measles-like red dots[xxxix] which were supposed to indicate towns at risk for outbreaks, and made inaccurate[xl] claims in the media about declining vaccination rates,[xli] inflaming fear of imminent epidemics in legislators and the public.
Though the media was buzzing with alarm about the manufactured crisis, with a barrage of newspaper, radio, television, and online messages and arguments,[xlii] S.199 was passed by the Senate Health Care Committee with very little discussion or opportunity for citizens to speak out. After that, a core group of Coalition members decided to be present at the State House almost every day of the session, talking to legislators, attending committee hearings, in general witnessing and participating in the legislative process. Described by a newspaper reporter as, “fixtures” at the State House,[xliii] citizen advocates for vaccine choice were as ever-present as the drug and medical industry lobbyists, employed by Pfizer, VAHHS (Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems), AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), Fletcher Allen (a large Vermont medical center), the Vermont Medical Society, and the Vermont Ethics Network.[xliv]
We noticed that two or more of those lobbyists were present at each and every related committee hearing, typing meticulous notes of proceedings, rapidly texting and messaging, and whispering to one another. Coalition members also observed the camaraderie between the lobbyists and some legislators, including the vaccine bill sponsors, as they frequently conferred together, handing papers back and forth, at the long table the medical and pharmaceutical lobbyists shared in the the State House cafeteria; Health Commissioner Chen was sometimes present at these informal conclaves.
Another eye-opener was the testimony of the popular mayor of Montpelier, Vermont’s capital city, before the House Health Care Committee[xlv] on March 29th. Though he spoke “as a parent and school board member” and asserted that vaccination rates should be 100%, he claimed his being the Vermont lobbyist for Pfizer–which markets $3.72 billion Prevnar, best-selling vaccine worldwide[xlvi]–posed no conflict of interest.
By the time the Senate voted 25 to 4 on March 2nd to remove the philosophical exemption [xlvii] and S.199 was sent to the House of Representatives, exemption advocates were mobilizing and insisted on being heard. A well-attended public hearing[xlviii] was held, and testimony was accepted at numerous meetings of the House Health Care Committee. Throughout months of deliberation, lawmakers were flooded with thousands of email and voice mail messages, phone calls, and letters defending the philosophical exemption, and many realized they must reconsider their positions if they were to represent the rights and preferences of their constituents.
Though he had originally co-sponsored the almost identical House bill (H.527),[xlix], Representative Warren Kitzmiller was one who listened: “I just said, ‘Wait a minute, these are not ignorant folks doing the wrong thing.’ They weren’t against vaccinations, they were against the blasts of multiple vaccinations at one time,”[l] When S.199 came for a vote on the floor of the House on April 12th, a reversal occurred, and the House voted almost unanimously (130 to 3) to preserve the philosophical exemption.[li] As a parent and core member of the Coalition explained this success, “The most dangerous place in the woods is between a mother bear and her cubs.”[lii]
Though we had declared victory, nothing is simple or straightforward in the world of legislation. The bill had passed with a pernicious addition, by the House Health Care Committee, of parent-blaming language, stating that a parent wishing to exempt from vaccines would be required to sign a form stating s/he, “(B) has reviewed and understands evidence-based material provided by the department of health regarding immunizations…; and (C) understands that failure to complete the required vaccination schedule increases risk to the person and others of contracting or carrying a vaccine-preventable infectious disease…”[liii] (Italics added.) Our misgivings were exactly articulated by Representative Duncan Kilmartin, who said, “Parts (B) and (C) unconstitutionally coerce speech and affirm the truth of unverifiable facts, particularly in part (C). No disease is 100% preventable by vaccine. Part (C) represents a flat earth mentality. While well-intentioned, its wording is devilish when precisely applied.”[liv]
As political neophytes, we were surprised that the battle was not yet over. We learned that exemptions from the vaccines mandated in Vermont–an ever-increasing number– could still be severely restricted in the conference committee comprised of three members from each chamber, charged with finding a compromise between the House and Senate (begging the question of how a right can be compromised–either you have the right or you don’t).
More skirmishes ensued, with amended bills being proposed and rejected for several days; one change was attaching a 90% trigger point for MMR and DTaP/Tdap vaccines[lv] (meaning that if vaccination rates for those shots fell below 90% in any given school, the philosophical exemption would be suspended for three years in that school); another revision was adding the clause, “…(D) understands that there are persons with special health needs attending schools and child care facilities who are unable to be vaccinated or who are at heightened risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable communicable disease and for whom such a disease could be life-threatening.”[lvi] (Italics added.)
Senator Mullin went so far as to insist on even more specifically intimidating language being inserted into the bill, saying he could sign the report only “as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody who is suing somebody for killing their child [by not vaccinating their own], we might be able to agree with that.”[lviii] (Italics added.)
Finally, the last public meeting opened with an obviously staged moment when Senator John Campbell melodramatically refused to sign the bill, excoriating parents “…who support the philosophical exemption, afraid of potential harm vaccines may cause their child. I find it a little disturbing that we don’t care about the rest of the children,” then denouncing state representatives: “I really, really hate to see that this legislative body has pretty much succumbed to people who just are very efficient at writing letters and emails, and being vocal in their comments here….”[lix] Campbell then made his on-cue exit to meet with a reporter waiting outside the door to take his statement.
However, this proposed amended bill produced by the Committee of Conference, which contained the 90% trigger, failed to garner enough support in the House to be passed, even under duress from the Governor (we were informed), so the committee was forced to meet again in the evening and draw up yet another version, dropping the trigger though still retaining all the accusatory language. (Most legislators did not understand why the wording troubled us so.) The next morning, an elated representative told us, “A lot of people stood up to a lot of pressure last night.” This revised bill passed the House 133 to 6 on May 3rd included an amendment requiring the Department of Health to outline vaccine risks; it went on to pass the Senate 20 to 5 and was signed into law by the Governor on May 16th.[lx]
The final version of S.199, while allowing for philosophical exemptions, had been continually loaded with tricky, offensive conditions, including Mullin’s allowance for criminal lawsuit, “…(c)…the fact that such a form was signed shall not be: (1) construed to create or deny civil liability for any person; or (2) admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding.[lxi] (Italics added. Note the deliberate omission of the word “criminal,” supposedly to allow for criminal prosecution of parents who don’t vaccinate their children.)Since we knew that numerous parents would refuse to sign a form composed of such language, we were advised to become part of the tedious rulesmaking process, wherein the final details of bills are hammered out among the stakeholders (those who have a stake in the legislation passed).
While it would seem obvious that those whose rights have been curtailed are primary stakeholders, again we had to fight to be included. Remembering the exhortation of former Vermont Governor Madeline Kunin, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” we persisted in communicating with Health Department officials, and gathered signatures on yet another petition, until we were finally granted a hearing on October 19th,[lxii] where about 20 parents and health practitioners[lxiii] critiqued[lxiv] [lxv] the inadequate and misleading “Required Parent Education” material[lxvi] that parents had to read to qualify for religious and philosophical exemptions–really just an error-ridden, double-sided propaganda sheet referenced with official sources such as the CDC and AAP (American Academy of Pediatricians)–and the exemption form[lxvii] with self-incriminating “Bad Parent” language, both posted by the Department of Health on July 1st. The Coalition had hired an expert in constitutional law; his testimony at the October 19th hearing,[lxviii] and letter of October 15th,[lxix] stated his opinion that the objectionable language amounted to “compelled speech,” which is indeed unconstitutional. The last step of rulesmaking was the November 29th meeting of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR), where we again listed our complaints, and S.199 evolved to become Act 157. The outcome was minimally improved parent education information with token mention of vaccine risks[lxx] and an exemption form[lxxi] we could live with[lxxii]–after more than nine months of struggle against “fixing what ain’t broke,” as native Vermonters say.
In a baffling footnote to these Vermont theatrics, Kevin Mullin was declared “Citizen of the Year” by the Vermont Medical Society, commended “for his efforts to improve the state’s immunization rates, promote good health and save lives.”[lxxiii] In contrast, advocates of personal rights were dismayed by Mullin’s cavalier attitude toward stripping a right exercised by an informed and decisive minority of Vermonters since 1979,[lxxiv] simply by signing a form stating, “I request that the following immunization(s) be waived because they conflict with free exercise of religious and/or moral (philosophic) rights.”[lxxv]
We were incredulous that our elected lawmakers would even consider passing unconstitutional legislation or tampering with a fundamental right in the first place, let alone turn it into a political football as they did. Nevertheless, a House ally informed us, “It happens all the time.” Still, it was a bittersweet satisfaction to have thwarted the attack, and to read Senator Mullin’s complaint to the Burlington Free Press, disgruntled at his failure to wipe out the philosophical exemption: “I never thought this would turn into the mess it turned into.”[lxxvi]
“Road show”–By the beginning of 2013, the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice had decided to be proactive instead of waiting to see what the legislature would do in the new year. We created a “roadshow” of slide presentations[lxxvii] with open discussion that we hosted for the public throughout the winter and spring in various places around the state. The presentations gave an overview of the many facets of vaccination in hopes of raising awareness about vaccine safety, health freedom, and informed consent.
Five New Bills Introduced–Before the end of February, Senator Mullin and Representative Till, original sponsors of the messy legislation in 2012, introduced five more vaccine-related bills in the 2013 session. Two of the bills (H.138 and S.102) try again for the 90% “trigger point” that supporters of forced vaccination had unsuccessfully tried to tack onto the philosophical exemption last year with important differences: if these bills were to pass, non-medical (religious and philosophical) exemptions would be suspended for three years in any school where vaccination rates fall below 90% for any required vaccine. Then, if exemptions were to be suspended, adults (i.e., teachers and volunteers) working in that school would have to show proof that their “…immunization status for that required immunization is current in order to continue working or volunteering at that public school.”[lxxviii]
Two others bills (H.114 and S.103) would require pertussis vaccination for all adults and children in Vermont schools, suspending the philosophical exemption for that vaccine,[lxxix] A fifth bill (S.142)[lxxx] proposes to allow vaccination by pharmacists of any child age seven years of age or older. (This bill must be a particular slap in the face to the parents of Kaylynne Matten, who was seven years old when she died shortly after a “routine” flu shot here in Vermont in December of 2011.)[lxxxi] These bills are in health care committees but were not taken up during year one of the current two-year session. Health Commissioner Chen officially declined to support them, citing a waste of energy with the same probable result as last year’s fiasco over the philosophical exemption.[lxxxii] Only time will tell whether legislators are truly done with trying to force vaccination on all Vermonters.
Summer News and Actions–On August 17th, the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice sponsored another well-received slide presentation on why the philosophical exemption should be preserved. [lxxxiii]
An escalating campaign of biased media reports during the summer kept us on our toes. Vaccine promoters apparently view the beginning of the school year as the perfect time to create a stir about vaccination. By mid-August, 2013, the March of Dimes had sent a letter[lxxxiv] to all lawmakers, penned by the same Roger Clapp who been an instigator in the S.199 uproar last year.[lxxxv] “Seed stories”[lxxxvi] generated by the Gray Group,[lxxxvii] a Boston-based marketing communications company, were sent to Vermont media outlets, both Clapp and the Gray Group again raising alarm about “low” immunization rates. (The Gray Group’s clients include trade organization PhRMA and vaccine maker Pfizer; their letter directs reports to Roger Clapp at the March of Dimes or to certain doctors affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Both organizations receive financial support from pharmaceutical companies.)
VCVC put up a sample letter[lxxxviii] on our website for vaccine rights advocates to send to lawmakers, explaining the Pharma connections of the Gray Group and the March of Dimes, and pointing out the data the Department of Health had released in June, 2013, showing that vaccination rates of schoolchildren in Vermont have never been higher,[lxxxix]and have been increasing for years even while Health Department officials said that rates were falling.[xc]
In an August 12th newscast on Vermont Public Radio,[xci] Health Commissioner Chen announced his intention to spotlight vaccination throughout our school system. Mentioning his concern about exemption rates, he went so far as to incite discrimination against exempting parents: “It gives the communities an opportunity to look at their schools and even the parents, to make that decision about is that ok with them or do they want to try and do something about that?” The report goes on, “It’s very unlikely that lawmakers will consider this issue again during the 2014 session. Instead, Chen says his department will continue to work with individual schools. ‘I certainly think it’s reasonable to see how this information and our efforts can make a difference,’ said Chen, ‘understanding that the Legislature did not support removing the exemption the last time around.’”
Health department and school authorities do not make it easy for parents to exercise or even know about their exemption rights. A page about exemptions on the Department’s website specifies, “The school nurse should supply exemption forms only if requested by the parent or guardian.”[xcii] In addition, VCVC had started to receive complaints that parents had been pressured by schools to defend their decisions to forego any or all vaccines. In response, we sent letters[xciii] to newspapers alerting parents of their right to use the philosophical exemption simply by submitting the required form;[xciv] mention was also made of Chen’s prejudicial intentions toward parents who exempt from vaccines.
Measles appears to have been chosen as “Fright Disease of the Year”: throughout September the media carried reports of “big outbreaks”–involving 159 cases around the country[xcv]–most again blaming unvaccinated individuals. It is puzzling that such a small number of cases would be cause for this degree of alarm in a country with a population of 316 million.[xcvi] Could there be any connection with the enormous financial stakes in the global push to eradicate measles from the face of there earth? The World Health Organization’s plan to accomplish that goal, in partnership with government health agencies, multi-national drug companies and medical trade groups, calls for two doses of MMR vaccine for each of the world’s two billion children, which would amount to a prodigious cost. Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center examines these and other aspects of this disturbing situation in her essay, “Measles Reports in America: What Does It Mean?”.[xcvii]
Throughout, the wise and experienced guidance from the National Vaccine Information Center (www.NVIC.org) has been invaluable in navigating the labyrinthine hazards of the legislative process and related vaccine and medical industry vaccine propaganda campaigns.
The Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice encourages everyone to investigate for themselves and learn all sides of the vaccine story before deciding. Your health and your rights could depend on it.
(For those confronting restrictive vaccine legislation in their own states, more information is available on the Coalition website–www.vaxchoicevt.com–including resources we have used.)
Good Reasons to Guard Our Health Freedoms
“Ending compulsory vaccination is its own human rights struggle.”[xcviii]
—Mary Holland, JD
How Fear Sells Vaccines (“Manufactured Consent”[c] versus Informed Consent)
(“We want to identify the emotions we can tap into to get that customer to take the desired course of action. If you can’t find that basic insight, you might as well forget everything else.”[ci]
–Ernestine McCarren, general manager of ad agency specializing indirect-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads)Since drug companies spend twice as much on promotion as they do on research and development, the bang from their advertising and marketing buck must be enormous: the top pharmaceutical companies as a group earn three times the median profit margin of other companies in the Fortune 500, the list of the world’s largest corporations.[cii]More insidious than direct-to-consumer advertising is marketing disguised as public service announcements, which, says Pharma critic Dr. John Abramson, “just seem to emerge spontaneously, usually with no obvious connection to a commercial source. Public relations firms earn their keep by skillfully blurring the line between independent news and commercially planted ‘information.’”[ciii]The Centers for Disease Control, the nation’s most powerful promoter of vaccination, employs behaviorists and “communications specialists”[civ] to find ways to tap into subliminal fears of their target audience in campaigns to increase vaccination compliance. A CDC spokesman, Glen Nowak, stated at a conference of the American Medical Association that the “recipe” that drives demand for flu shots is “framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g. ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe than last or past years,’ ‘deadly’).”[cv] (Nowak is a former associate professor of advertising and communication; he earned his PhD in the field of mass communications.)[cvi] A 2010 survey sponsored by the CDC found that the most important stimuli that led participants to get the flu vaccine were three fears: “news that flu is spreading in their community; news that flu is causing serious illness/death; and evidence that by getting vaccinated they can help protect others from flu.”[cvii]The CDC carefully camouflages connections between vaccines and Pharma dollars beneath layers of links and blurred tiny print. Early in June of 2011 an email sent to subscribers from Daily Candy (“a free daily email newsletter and website, the ultimate insider’s guide to what’s hot, new, and undiscovered”)[cviii] raised alarm about the current epidemic of whooping cough, considered by the CDC to be “…the worst … in 60 years.”The trail of links:
- Clicking on the CDC link leads to a click-through link to Daily Candy,
- which leads to a logo on the website of “Vaccinate LA” of a face that is sad and red-spotted on left side, happy and healthy on the right, with a slogan beneath it urging, “Don’t wait, vaccinate.”
- Close inspection reveals a disclaimer under the slogan, announcing that the ad (“publication”) was paid for (“supported”) by the CDC, but “Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC.”
- Moreover, the “About Us” section of “Vaccinate LA” directs media to a representative of Edelman, the “world’s largest independently owned public relations firm”[cix], whose clients include Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and other vaccine manufacturers.[cx]
- Further digging into “Vaccinate LA” shows another disclaimer, this time from the County of Los Angeles, which also declined accountability for the pro-vaccination message: “… the County of Los Angeles nor any of its employees, make any warranty… or assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such information.”
Apparently, vaccine promoters will pay to motivate consumers to get their shots, yet they refuse to stand behind the messages’ content.
The career of Dr. Julie Gerberding, first woman to direct the CDC, illustrates the tangled ties between the vaccine industry and policymakers. While leading the agency from 2002 through 2009, she made annual predictions that the current flu season might resemble the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic, using terms like “very ominous” to describe the threat,[cxi] though each season’s epidemic turned out to be milder than expected. As early as May 2009 through that fall, the advertised possibility of shortages of swine flu shots led to a frenzied demand, with many people waiting in line for hours.[cxii] Dr. Mark Bell, in charge of 18 emergency departments in Southern California, remarked, That’s a scary, frightening place to be in.”[cxiii] However, by April 2010, as people saw that the dreaded pandemic never developed,[cxiv] there was an enormous surplus of swine flu vaccine–out of 162 million doses produced for the American public, 43% was unused, a $260 million waste of taxpayer money.[cxv]
Gerberding resigned from the CDC in early 2009 and is now president of Merck’s vaccine division, which earns the company $5 billion annually.[cxvi] (Merck produces 14 of the 17 vaccines on the schedule the CDC recommends for children, and nine out of ten of those on the adult schedule.) She worked at giant public relations firm Edelman[cxvii] during the mandatory one-year waiting period between leaving a federal agency and entering an industry regulated by that agency. Edelman represents a number of drug companies–including Merck–and was behind all stages of Merck HPV vaccine Gardasil’s “multifaceted and meticulously planned” “marketing juggernaut,” starting with the 2005 campaign to cultivate fear of HPV among women in the U.S.[cxviii] (The CDC added a three-dose series of HPV vaccines to its recommended schedule in 2007.)[cxix]
Gerberding’s duties at Merck:
“As president of the vaccines business, she will be responsible for the sale of the company’s current portfolio of vaccines, the introduction of vaccines from the company’s pipeline and the acceleration of Merck’s efforts to broaden vaccinations in developing countries. Gerberding will also collaborate with Merck’s manufacturing division and Merck Research Laboratories to manage links between basic research, late-stage development and manufacturing.”[cxx]
The CDC joins with numerous other groups to get out their message. For the flu vaccine alone, a CDC report on its “communication campaign” for 2010-2011 boasts that it is “Engaged with OVER 250 organizations.”[cxxi] (Italics added.) (One of these partners is the public relations business Social Marketing and Communications Center[cxxii], which the CDC works with in an annual campaign that “employs a full suite of advertising, marketing, public relations, and grassroots strategies to reduce disparities in [influenza] vaccination and motivate individuals…to get vaccinated.”) A section of the CDC’s report entitled “The Importance of a Systems Approach” describes a “marketing mix” encompassing both mass media and community level activities, including “traditional materials (posters, flyers, brochures available in print and free web download, in multiple languages for multiple audiences); earned media (donated ad space, radio and satellite media tours); paid media (purchased placement of CDC radio, television, print, on-line ads); social media (managing channels–twitter and facebook updates, videos posted on YouTube, text message project); social media tools (graphic web buttons, widgets, audience-specific e-cards); [and] partnerships and collaborations strategy….”
Some seemingly independent grassroots groups in reality are created and funded by the CDC, its partner groups, and the vaccine industry, “helping vaccine developers quash potential criticism from behind a thin veneer of citizen concern,”[cxxiii] according to one investigator. One group, “Voices for Vaccines”[cxxiv] purports to be a “ parent-driven” group providing to parents “…clear, science-based information about vaccines and vaccine-preventable disease, as well as…the importance of on-time vaccination.” Though claiming no conflicts of interest, “Voices for Vaccines” originated as a branch of The Task Force for Global Health, The Task Force for Vaccine Equity, funded by drug companies Merck and Novartis, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,[cxxv] which operates a a global vaccination agenda. A CDC veteran serves as director.[cxxvi] Such ersatz citizen advocacy has been termed “astroturfing,” (as in “fake grass[roots]”), and has become increasingly common in this digital age.[cxxvii]
A darker tactic, resembling McCarthyism, is to poison public opinion against those who question vaccination, creating a climate of suspicion and hatred. The group Voices for Vaccines disseminates a poster that reads, “The like-minded stick together. Don’t allow clusters of vaccine refusal in your community–vaccine refusal threatens us all.”[cxxviii]
The poster shows a photo of a herd of horses with a small dog sitting in front of them at a distance.
A picture being worth a thousand words, does this suggest that those with differing opinions about vaccination be shunned? Treated like dogs? Driven out of the neighborhood? Voices for Vaccines has joined the vicious media attack[cxxix] orchestrated against celebrity Jenny McCarthy, chosen to co-host the popular talk show “The View”. (McCarthy is vocal in assigning her son’s autism to vaccine injury.)
Ramping up the menace even more, Voices for Vaccines hosted a mid-September teleconference call with Dorit Rubenstein Reiss, a law professor who outlines how parents who decline vaccination might theoretically be sued for their children allegedly infecting others.[cxxx]
Aside from its various industry-driven public relations efforts to hype vaccines, the CDC has created the CDC Foundation in order to be able to accept direct gifts from drug corporations and others,[cxxxi]further calling into question whether it is possible for it to be impartial in spending tax dollars as the United States’ foremost champion of immunization.
Under such a bombardment of biased messages, the chances are vanishingly small for the average person to arrive at a balanced decision about vaccination. Physician Marcia Angell, former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, who has extensively researched and exposed the abuses of drug companies,[cxxxii] asserts that their “…PR is extremely slick, so education is the first thing consumers can do to protect themselves,”[cxxxiii] Possibly the violent onslaught against vaccine questioners is nothing more than a desperate diversionary tactic to block such investigation.
Faulty Rationale for Taking Away Rights
(“Scapegoating usually is an oversimplification of a more complex issue.”[cxxxiv])
The fast-growing movement to demonize unvaccinated people has no sound basis, as contagious diseases are not as “vaccine-preventable” as we are led to believe.
Because vaccines have never been 100% effective, even vaccinated individuals can be asymptomatic carriers of infection.[cxxxv] Measles outbreaks can occur even when everyone in the group has been vaccinated;[cxxxvi] West Virginia and Mississippi, along with 47 other states, had outbreaks of pertussis from 2012 to 2013,[cxxxvii] though neither state allows philosophical or religious exemptions;[cxxxviii] 50% of the states with outbreaks do not have a philosophical exemption.[cxxxix] Since it is impossible to know who is and who is not immune without blood tests to check antibody levels, those who are vaccinated may be more of a risk for spreading disease than unvaccinated children, who are already required to stay home during an epidemic.
People vaccinated with live-virus vaccines can actively transmit infection for weeks afterward, through “shedding” of attenuated live vaccine viruses.[cxl] The Flu-Mist spray vaccine, which, according to Immunization Program Chief Chris Finley will be targeted for Vermont children, contains this warning in its FDA-Approved Highlights of Prescribing Information:[cxli] “Warning to the unvaccinated: Clinical Trials Demonstrated That FluMist® Quadrivalent Nasal Flu Vaccine is Infectious.”
Those who are not vaccinated are told they are putting at risk those too fragile to be vaccinated; what safeguards are in place to protect such immunocompromised children in schools or day care centers from the shedding of live viruses by their vaccinated peers? The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) estimates that the “…probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV (live attenuated influenza virus) recipient was 0.58%–2.4%.”[cxlii] Therefore, mass vaccination with a LAIV increases the risk of infection with flu virus much more than does exposure to the scattered few unvaccinated individuals, who in Vermont total less than 2% of school children–and it can’t be assumed in any case that they are infected with or carrying flu virus.[cxliii]
Paradoxically, vaccination may exacerbate disease manifestations. A study published in Great Britain’s “Proceedings of the Royal Society”[cxliv] found that measles vaccination “can have a range of unexpected consequences as it reduces the natural boosting of immunity” and that “the interaction between vaccination and waning immunity can lead to pronounced epidemic cycles in which the peak levels of infection can be…orders of magnitude greater than the mean.” The authors “expect similar conclusions to hold for a range of acute infections,” besides measles.
Finally, microbes constantly mutate, so vaccines may become less and less successful at protecting against new circulating strains, similar to the manner in which antibiotic use promotes growth of resistant bacteria. This phenomenon is well-known with influenza viruses: every year vaccine developers attempt to predict the next season’s flu strains, with varying degrees of success.[cxlv] Whooping cough pathogens mutate as well, leading to diminishing effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine;[cxlvi] comparable concerns are associated with the Hepatitis B,[cxlvii] Streptococcus pneumoniae (Pneumococcus)[cxlviii] and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccines. An international conference is scheduled in November of this year to address this important phenomenon of “vaccine-driven pathogen evolution.”[cxlix]
The current director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, states, “Antimicrobial resistance is one of our most serious health threats.”[cl] More than two million Americans annually get infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and of those at least 23,000 die.[cli]
In stark contrast, 159 cases of measles in the whole country so far this year–with no fatalities–are designated as “big measles outbreaks.”[clii]
Like the autism epidemic, “superbugs” are a far bigger problem than a few hundred cases of so-called “vaccine-preventable diseases”–but the corporate media and the U.S. government’s public and private partnerships do nothing more than perpetuate the man-made cycle.
With all the factors involved in contagious illness and susceptibility, blaming the unvaccinated must be either simple-minded or malicious.
Decent Americans deplore discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality, language, mental or physical disability, body type, or sexual orientation. Those whose medical orientation diverges from the mainstream deserve the same respect as any other minority. Discrimination is simply a form of bullying, which we don’t tolerate in our schools and should wholly reject in our society.
Besides, medical decisions used to be private!
All illness and affliction, whatever the cause, calls for compassion and kindness, not superstitious bigotry. The calculated polarization of our communities is arguably the most grievous side effect of mass vaccination campaigns.
A Brief History of Health Freedom
(“Patient autonomy is the overarching ethical consideration that forms the core of informed consent.”[cliii]
–American Medical Association Code of Ethics)
Medical freedom was a concern as far back as the founding of America. Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, contended over 200 years ago that the Constitution should provide for free choice in medical care. Otherwise he predicted that eventually the main medical system would come to dominate all others:
The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic…Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution; the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people, who wish doctors and treatments of their own choice, to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.The Constitution of the Republic should make a Special provision for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.[cliv]
Rush was able to foresee our present predicament with impressive acuity.
Informed consent–full disclosure of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure before voluntary consent or refusal—is a well-established basic human right. The American Medical Association defines it[clv] as “both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states.” The AMA further states, “The full disclosure of relevant information to patients is intended to protect each patient’s right to self-determination, bodily integrity, and to protect his or her voluntariness in the healthcare decision-making process.” (Italics added.)
The principle of informed consent was first clearly articulated in the Nuremburg Code of 1947,[clvi] created in response to the experimental medical atrocities perpetrated by Nazi doctors. The Code formed the basis for later agreements such as the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki[clvii] (passed by the World Medical Association) and the 2005 United Nations Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.[clviii]
“The Greater Good”—Who Decides?
Citizens required to sacrifice their health and well-being to the larger interests of society would do well to question the source of the demand.
The U.S. was a major participant in the Nuremberg tribunal to prosecute Nazi doctors for war crimes, and has outspokenly supported the resulting Code. Yet our government before and since then has sponsored hundreds of unethical medical treatments and experiments[clix]–some secret, some spanning decades–raising the critical question, “Does the state have the moral authority to dictate “the Greater Good” of society or to overrule parents’ decisions about their children’s health?” How can such a regime rightfully declare vaccines an exception to the informed consent requirement?
Parents are most trustworthy to protect their children, as they are more attuned to them than anyone else could possibly be, and bear full responsibility for their upbringing and care. Parents should trust their nurturing instinct, a powerful force to ensure children’s greatest well-being. Beloved pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn says, “All of [the typical pediatrician’s] technology–his tests and shots and x-rays and drugs and theory–in most instances are no substitute for the commonsense care that you, as an informed parent, can provide.”[clx]
And certainly adults are best qualified to decide what goes into their own bodies.
Informed consent is meaningless without the implicit right to freely refuse treatment; thus it cannot coexist with compulsory vaccination. The right to informed consent should be sacrosanct, certainly never abridged by legislation inspired by the fear-mongering propaganda of those who stand to gain financially.
Undeniable Vaccine Risks
If vaccines were an unmixed blessing, the push for universal vaccination would be benign, and no one would argue with promoters who say, “Vaccines are the most effective public health tool ever created.”[clxi]
In fact, vaccine risks are downplayed, while their safety and effectiveness are exaggerated. In 1986, the U.S. Congress lifted liability for manufacture and administration of vaccines,[clxii] then in 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”[clxiii] There is no requirement for informed consent with vaccines; rather, federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS (Vaccine Information Statement) to a patient, parent, or legal representative before vaccines are given. VISs assert that, “A vaccine, like any medicine, could possibly cause serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.” Typical VISs go on to list mild, moderate, or severe problems associated with each particular vaccine.[clxiv] Numerous people becoming ill after dining at the same restaurant would cause alarm, yet the 30,000 adverse vaccine reactions (10-15 percent serious) reported annually to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System[clxv] are not routinely investigated, instead generally dismissed as “coincidence” or “temporal association.”[clxvi] [clxvii] Underreporting of adverse events is very likely: “…“…only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported,” says Dr. David Kessler, former director of the FDA.[clxviii]
The Merck Manual, the largest-selling medical textbook, says vaccines can cause encephalitis (brain damage, through swelling of the brain), when “A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction).”[clxix] (Italics added.)
An official has stated on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Resources that, “Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”[clxx] (Italics added.)
Encephalitis can be the precursor for a host of disorders of the nervous system, such as autism spectrum disorders, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke, intellectual disability, moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), and multiple sclerosis (MS), so it stands to reason that vaccination is at least a contributing cause of the epidemic of neurological disease. Current figures show Alzheimer’s is now the sixth leading cause of death,[clxxi] one out of six children is developmentally delayed,[clxxii] and autism strikes one in 50 children.[clxxiii]
By comparison, the mere mention of polio conjures visions of iron lungs, deformed limbs, and leg braces–yet at the height of the polio epidemic in 1952, fewer than one child in 7,181 was permanently disabled.[clxxiv]
A comprehensive ongoing survey of thousands of unvaccinated children shows significantly lower rates of allergies, asthma, hay fever, ear infections, sinusitis, neurodermatitis, and ADHD than among those who are vaccinated. As of 2011, only four children in the non-vaccinated group of 7,500 had severe autism; the mothers of all four tested positive for high levels of mercury.[clxxv] [clxxvi] A number of other researchers have also contrasted unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.[clxxvii]
Granted, a formal study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups would be the most conclusive way to settle the question of whether vaccination helps or harms overall health, but it’s a safe bet that such a study will never be undertaken. Studies like this are quite expensive, and who would pay?
The vaccine industry may fear what would be revealed by contrasting vaccinated groups with unvaccinated groups, as all clinical trials differentiate between two groups vaccinated with separate vaccines, rather than following the basic scientific method of contrasting a group given a true placebo with a vaccinated group. For example, Aventis Pasteur SA’s ActHib vaccine was combined with DTP vaccine and compared with a Hepatis B/DTP combination given to the control group. The ActHib package inserts states, “In this large study, deaths due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other causes were observed but were not different in the two groups.” (Italics added.) Such a practice masks reactions to individual vaccines.[clxxviii]
To justify this deviation from accepted research protocol, The Helsinki Declaration is cited: that agreement prohibits the use of placebo control groups if there is already a “proven” treatment. (It is considered withholding treatment to use a placebo instead of the “approved” treatment.[clxxix]
Many believe that vaccines are comprised solely of antigens—substances that induce the production of antibodies. Those who carefully read food ingredient labels will be repelled when they examine vaccine package inserts, and learn that vaccines also contain:[clxxx]
- human and animal cells and their residual DNA (including human diploid cells from aborted human fetuses)
GMOs (contained in all vaccines)
- carcinogens (including carcinogenic viral contamination from infected monkey kidneys)
Amounts may be small, but the risk of serious adverse reactions increases with the number of vaccines received.[clxxxi] Indeed, a “synergistic toxicity” may well be created among toxins in vaccines, making them vastly more potent in combination than the sum of their individual virulence.[clxxxii] For instance, Dr. Donald Miller of the University of Washington says the combination of mercury and aluminum has a striking effect on rats: “Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there.”[clxxxiii]
Moreover, there appears to be a significant difference in the impact of injected substances compared to those ingested. As an example, people can consume large quantities of gelatin as food without any sign of allergy, yet can develop life-threatening allergies to gelatin after receiving micro-doses injected in vaccines.[clxxxiv]
Vaccines are presumed to be safe, so are usually not tested for toxicity. A CDC/FDA/vaccine company workshop on toxicology and vaccines reported in 2002, “Historically, the non-clinical safety assessment for preventive vaccines has often not included toxicity studies in animal models. This is because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.”[clxxxv] (Italics added.) This seems an enormous assumption, based more on blind faith than on evidence, especially remembering the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 2011 that labeled vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”[clxxxvi]
Some of the ingredients in vaccines–aluminum hydroxide, squalene, silicone, mineral oil, guaiacol and iodine gadital–are employed as “adjuvants,” substances which help boost immune response. Sometimes the immune system is thereby over-stimulated, resulting in Shoenfeld’s Syndrome (or ASIA: Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants[clxxxvii]), encompassing auto-immune disorders such as postvaccination phenomena, macrophagic myofasciitis, Gulf War Syndrome and siliconosis,[clxxxviii] (some crossing over into neurological damage).
Considering the risk of serious long-term effects of vaccination, thoughtful consumers are forced to wonder whether vaccination is worth the trade-off for the temporary, artificial immunity it may confer. In the face of compelling information to the contrary from trusted mainstream sources, the official position–loudly and monotonously proclaimed–remains that vaccination is predominantly safe and effective. It is hard to accept that purveyors of the most costly medical system in the world[clxxxix] can offer no credible explanation for Americans’ health ranking lowest among similar countries.[cxc]
Clearly vaccination has not improved our overall health, as the U.S. is among the most highly-vaccinated populations.[cxci]
Is Proof of Product Safety the Consumer’s Responsibility?
The Vioxx Disaster–The Food and Drug Administration quotes deaths from adverse drug reactions as the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.,[cxcii] about 106,000 deaths per year from non-error adverse effects of medications;[cxciii] serious reactions increase exponentially among those taking four or more drugs simultaneously.[cxciv]
Though many of these deaths are caused by inherent dangers in the drugs themselves, their recall is a difficult and lengthy procedure, due to flaws in the regulatory system and to drug companies blocking the process every step of the way, from distortion of study data through tenaciously fighting against lawsuits for damages.[cxcv]
The Vioxx scandal is emblematic of Pharma’s callous disregard of the vast suffering inflicted by some of its products. Vioxx, prescribed mostly for arthritis pain, was withdrawn from the market in 2004, after it was revealed that its manufacturer Merck &Co. had been withholding information about its risks for more than five years.[cxcvi] During the period after its approval in 1999 and before its recall in 2004, between 88,000 and 139,000 excess cases of serious heart disease and stroke were attributed to Vioxx use, about 30-40% of them deaths.[cxcvii] In his testimony before the Senate Finance Company in 2004,[cxcviii] Dr. David Graham, a reviewer in the Office of Safety Research at the FDA, compared this number to “…500 to 900 jetliners dropping from the sky. This translates to 2-4 aircraft every week, week in and week out, for the past 5 years.” He went on,
…The FDA, as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless. It is important that this Committee and the American people understand that what has happened with Vioxx is really a symptom of something far more dangerous to the safety of the American people. Simply put, FDA and its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are broken.
An observer notes, “The largest rise in American mortality rates occurred in 1999, the year Vioxx was introduced, while the largest drop occurred in 2004, the year it was withdrawn.”[cxcix]
The SV40 Catastrophe: Decades of Industry and Government Deception–A vaccine debacle that dwarfs the Vioxx disaster has already occurred, but has been well camouflaged. The book, The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect tells the convoluted tale of how a monkey virus, SV40, came to contaminate the entire supply of both the Sabin live virus and Salk “killed” virus polio vaccines between 1954 and 1963. (The vaccines were grown in a culture made from monkey kidneys; SV40 was the fortieth simian virus discovered in this substrate.) Though most of the hamsters injected with the virus developed virulent cancers, the problem was suppressed in order to avoid disruption of the national vaccination program, in a classic interplay of conflict of interest, hubris, obfuscation and denial, and bureaucratic inertia that continues to the present. (The entire impeccably referenced book is available online; facts not specifically referenced below can be found in the book.[cci])
Bernice Eddy was a researcher at the Division of Biologic Standards, in charge of vaccine regulation, when she discovered a connection between the monkey culture and tumor formation in hamsters injected with it. (DBS was then part of the NIH, National Institutes of Health; since 1972 it is a division of FDA, renamed the Bureau of Biologics.) Eddy was silenced in 1960 from speaking publicly about her work, because her findings had disturbing implications for the polio immunization program. By the next year, she was fired from vaccine control work, though she continued to research cancer-causing viruses until she retired in 1973; her repeated warnings about the polio vaccine were never heeded.
In 1961, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, then head of Merck’s vaccine division, was alarmed when viable SV40 from the cultured monkey kidneys was discovered in all polio vaccine samples, especially after 80% of the animals injected with the virus developed tumors. Hilleman’s colleague at Merck, Ben Sweet, remembered, “I’ll tell you, we were scared of SV40. If it produced tumors in hamsters, it could produce tumors in man.” Hilleman honorably tried to warn authorities at DBS and NIH, and recommended that all polio vaccine be withdrawn. The NIH director convened the standing committee that advised the federal government about vaccine oversight, six of whose eight members had close personal connections to the Salk vaccine. The committee was dismissive, assuming the virus to be harmless, and recommended that “the present poliomyelitis vaccination program continue to be pursued with vigor with the materials presently available.”
There was no recall, and no announcement about the potential danger. As a result, nearly half the U.S. population–approximately 100 million American adults and children– and maybe another 100 million people worldwide were exposed to SV40 during mass polio vaccination campaigns.[ccii]
For thirty years, the matter of whether SV40 causes cancer in humans was abandoned as a political hot potato–no one dared cast an unfavorable light on the polio vaccine or the vaccination program–until another scientist with the tenacity of Bernice Eddy, Dr. Michele Carbone, arrived at the NIH from Italy in 1986 and began work with senior scientists testing how various viruses, including SV40, cause cancer in lab animals.[cciii] When he was given the opportunity to design his own research project, out of curiosity he duplicated Eddy’s original experiments of injecting hamsters with the monkey virus, and was stunned by the tumors that were quickly produced, principally mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer. These findings inevitably led him to ask the taboo question, “Could there be a connection between SV40 and human mesothelioma?” Against the resistance of the NIH heirarchy, and with no funding, Carbone and an Italian colleague worked around the clock for six months doing sophisticated DNA testing of 48 human mesothelioma samples. 29 of them turned out positive for SV40 DNA, while only one out of 28 background samples of lung tissue tested positive, and none of the 23 non-mesothelioma lung tumors or other tumors tested was positive. When the account of their discoveries was accepted by a leading journal and Carbone and his associates asked for a media event to coincide with the publication date,[cciv] like Eddy before them they were ordered to refrain from speaking to the press; Carbone was told he would be “punished” if he did so.
Carbone left the NIH not long after this ultimatum; he and other scientists continued with SV40 research and found the virus in other human cancers, particularly bone,[ccv] lymph,[ccvi] and brain[ccvii] cancers, the types besides mesothelioma most commonly seen in the hamster experiments. Rates for all four cancers–which were rare before 1955–are multiplied in those exposed to polio vaccines contaminated with SV40.[ccviii] Carbone asserts, “There is no doubt SV40 is a human carcinogen. It is one of the most potent human carcinogens that we know.”[ccix]
Still more disconcerting, later studies showed that SV40 appears to pass from human to human and from mother to child, found in 23% of blood samples and 45% of semen from healthy subjects, and in brain tumors of children born after 1965 who presumably did not receive vaccines containing the virus.[ccx]
However, some of the oral polio vaccines manufactured after 1961, until the oral type was removed from the market in 2000, could have been another route of transmission for SV40 infection. Every year before 2000, eight to ten individuals contracted polio and were paralyzed from the oral vaccine itself when one of the virus strains reverted to virulence, though there has been no wild polio in the U.S. since 1979.[ccxi] Stanley Kops, a lawyer who represented some of these vaccine-injured people, discovered through internal documents of both the government and the manufacturing company, Lederle (which became Wyeth, then Pfizer), that SV40 infection had been a problem with the monkeys used to grow the vaccine, so that about half the harvests from a thirteen year period had to be discarded . (Lederle continued to use rhesus monkey kidneys during the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, although such tissue is almost always infected with SV40.)
Several batches of Lederle’s polio vaccine failed to pass screening tests for SV40, but the vaccines were released anyway; also, testing methods were outmoded and inaccurate compared to the available technology, so the magnitude of unknown SV40 contamination might have added considerably to that caused by known safety lapses. Kops says,
My feeling is that this is the biggest cover-up in the history of vaccine production in the United States. Regulations were made after years of debate. They were explicit. They were prepared to protect the American child who was receiving the vaccine. The safety regulations were not followed….This vaccine manufacturer [Lederle] broke the rules knowingly and decided that it was above the law. That is a travesty.
SV40 contamination may be one important factor in the prevailing cancer epidemic, with noteworthy increases in cancers of bone, lung, lymph, and brain–brain tumors alone increased 30% over a period of 25 years.[ccxii] If the virus is indeed transmitted sexually and can be passed from mothers to their children in utero, the cancers it causes will continue to spread horizontally throughout the population and snowball through generations to come.
In 2002, the conservative Institutes of Medicine concluded “that the evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming virus,” (can transform healthy cells into cancerous ones), and “the evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.”[ccxiii] The IOM also recommended that no further retrospective epidemiological studies be done, citing the difficulty of discerning who has been exposed to SV40 and who has not, since the monkey virus is possibly spreading among those not exposed to it in vaccines.
Most of the studies produced or sponsored by the VEB [Viral Epidemiology Branch--part of the National Cancer Institute, one of the institutes of NIH] were epidemiological and serological ones, attempting to dispel the belief that SV40 could cause cancer in humans.
By 2003, almost a hundred studies had linked SV40 to human cancers, and leading SV40 authorities had performed a meta-analysis[ccxiv] of thirteen of them that found a clear, statistically significant association between SV40 and all the kinds of tumors in which scientists have found the virus over the years. (Odds ratio for brain cancers was four, and five for lymphomas; for mesotheliomas it was 17, for bone cancers 22. The study’s author says, “To put things in perspective, it was an odds ratio of about ten that linked smoking with cancer.”)
A statement posted in 2004 on the website of the NIH’s National Cancer Institute made it clear that the agency’s official position remained basically unchanged for more than 40 years: “Studies Find No Evidence That SV40 Is Related to Human Cancer.”[ccxv] The article was buttressed by five studies of SV40 antibody levels, four by the same author, three of them “case report” studies (a type of epidemiological study, discounted earlier by the IOM as unreliable since SV40 may be spreading) comparing SV40 antibody levels between groups exposed to SV40 and those who were assumed not to have been exposed. One SV40 expert had earlier published an essay examining “…the limitations of conventional [epidemiological] studies that seek to disprove the aetiological link with human cancer.”[ccxvi] The same author commented that antibody tests for the virus are quite complicated, and that “…the absence of an…antibody response [in a given study] does not prove there was no [SV40] infection ever in the past–or even currently.”[ccxvii] (“Appendix A” of The Virus and the Vaccine contains an exhaustive list of articles concerning the association of SV40 with human health.[ccxviii])
Since 2004, the silence from the NIH has been deafening, possibly because those who deny that SV40 causes human cancers finally realized that evidence had mounted irrefutably against their position, and they hoped to save face and minimize damage to the vaccine program by taking SV40 out of the limelight. This helps insure that the public will not become outraged and demand safer vaccines or refuse them altogether.
In their conclusion, the authors of The Virus and the Vaccine point out that “…the story of SV40 calls into question whether protecting the reputation of vaccines at times has been more important to these health officials than actually ensuring they are safe.”
While tracing the destructive path of SV40 after at least 50% of Americans were exposed through contaminated polio vaccines, it’s important to bear in mind that SV40 is just the most conspicuous evil to escape from the Pandora’s Box of vaccine contaminants. There are others that may impact current and future health, including potent viruses and bacteria and their components, as well as genetically engineered organisms and cancer-related or foreign animal proteins and DNA, sourced from humans, cows, chickens and monkeys.[ccxix]A 1984 report found 35% of all cell lines corrupted, and that most lines originated as human cells.[ccxx] Labs all over the world have fought pestilential contamination with HeLa cells, an “immortal cell line” commonly used in biomedical research, derived in 1951 from the unique cervical tumor of Henrietta Lacks.[ccxxi] Even if cells grown from tumors are not necessarily tumorigenic themselves, it is an accepted phenomenon that they can convert to being cancerous after they have been cultured a number of times.[ccxxii]
In 1954, it was not permitted to use cell lines for making vaccines. 1986 WHO guidelines allowed up to 100 pg of cell-source DNA allowed per dose of vaccine (not including viral contaminants). The 1996 recommended limit multiplied that of ’86 a hundredfold, to 10,000 pg (or 10 ng).[ccxxiii] Maurice Hilleman, obviously chastened by his harrowing experience with SV40-tainted polio vaccine, stated in a 1990 article on the use of cell cultures for making vaccines, “Total safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the product.”[ccxxiv]
Because no other type of medicine is mandated for the masses, safety is a more urgent concern for vaccines than for any other pharmaceutical product. (No one was forced to take Vioxx.) At least for the time being, vaccine producers and promoters have succeeded in enveloping them in a mystique of sanctity, almost impervious to question. Dr. Mark Geier, geneticist and former NIH researcher says, “…if you operate on the premise that you can’t tell the public about problems with vaccines because you’ll scare them away, then unfortunately, the problems don’t get fixed.”[ccxxv]
Vaccines have been categorized in a way that allows Pharma to have it both ways: vaccines are “…not viewed as inherently toxic”[ccxxvi] –therefore not requiring the same safety testing as other drugs–and at the same time have been judged “unavoidably unsafe,”[ccxxvii] precluding lawsuits. This logical disconnect has allowed vaccine promoters to sometimes succeed in shifting the burden of proving vaccine safety to the consumer, whereas safety is truly the responsibility of the manufacturers and the FDA. (Products should be proven truly safe before release; this is not done.)
Although toy manufacturers are subject to severe liability penalties,[ccxxviii] Congress has shielded vaccine companies from liability.[ccxxix] The only accountability vaccine manufacturers have is the consumer’s option to say no to their products. If we take that away, they really have no accountability at all.[ccxxx] Use of other drugs is subject to informed consent, whereas a burgeoning number of vaccines are mandated, excluded from the informed consent requirement.
The same interests who have managed to evade responsibility for exposing more than half the populace to a noxious and contagious viral carcinogen are relentlessly threatening unvaccinated people with lawsuits[ccxxxi] for allegedly spreading acute infections. Pharma’s unprincipled business conduct, in combination with governmental corruption, may be the worst recommendation for the safety of vaccines. It’s hard to trust an industry in which all the major companies have been prosecuted for outright fraud.[ccxxxii]
Squalene: Looming Threat
(“Oil adjuvants are the most insidious chemical weapon ever devised.”–Dr. Pamela Asa[ccxxxiii])
Though so far not deemed safe to license for human vaccines in the U.S. because of its toxicity when injected, the oil adjuvant squalene (MF59 and AS03) was used to boost immune response in a secret experimental anthrax vaccine administered to military personnel, and is implicated as the main cause of Gulf War Illness[ccxxxiv] afflicting approximately a quarter of the 697,000 veterans[ccxxxv] who who served in that war.
Squalene has been proven to induce autoimmune disease with severe neurological damage in several species of animals in 26 studies done around the world since the 1970s.[ccxxxvi] Injection with squalene stimulates production of anti-squalene antibodies,[ccxxxvii] causing a “cross-reaction” in which the antibodies attack similar tissue in the body itself, notably the myelin coating of nerve tissue.
In 2009, a swine flu vaccine with squalene adjuvant (AS03) was administered in a number of European countries. Subsequently, use of the vaccine was linked to a higher risk of narcolepsy in children in England, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland, and to children and adults in France.[ccxxxviii]
New squalene-containing vaccines for flu, HPV, malaria, HIV and herpes have been formulated by scientists funded through the National Institutes of Health; some–such as the prototype vaccines for influenza, HIV, and malaria–are planned for mass vaccination worldwide. The federal government has stockpiled millions of doses of vaccines with squalene adjuvants.[ccxxxix] A recently-released document[ccxl] reveals that 600 doses of squalene-containing H7N9 influenza vaccines have been stockpiled–enough for two doses for every U.S. citizen in the event of a pandemic. Companies may pressure the FDA to bypass normal safety testing of other squalene-containing vaccines, and “fast-track” licensure[ccxli]–which is “intended to facilitate and get an approved product to market expeditiously.”[ccxlii] Even more worrisome is that in a declared emergency, no exemptions would be honored and citizens could be forcibly vaccinated[ccxliii] [ccxliv] whether the vaccines are licensed or not.
The Mercury Debate–Still Unresolved (…and Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal?)
Public health authorities usually assert that the mercury preservative Thimerosal was eliminated from vaccines years ago. However, a number of vaccines still contain Thimerosal:
- DTaP (Diphtheria/Tetanus/acellular Pertussis[Whooping Cough])– (Tripedia brand)
- DT (Diphtheria/Tetanus)
- Td (Tetanus/Diphtheria)
- TT (Tetanus Toxoid)
- Influenza (Afluria, multi-dose Fluzone, Fluvirin, FluLaval)
- Meningicoccal (Menomune)
- (Also, Tripedia may be reconstituted with ActHib to form TriHIBit.)[ccxlv]
According to the FDA, “Thimerosal is approximately 50% [ethyl]mercury (Hg) by weight…Lacking definitive data on the comparative toxicities of ethyl- versus methyl-mercury, FDA considered ethyl- and methyl-mercury as equivalent in its risk evaluation.”[ccxlvi]
The EPA sets the safety limit for mercury in drinking water at only two ppb (parts per billion).[ccxlvii] [ccxlviii] [ccxlix] Destruction of brain neurons occurs at concentrations of .5[ccl] to 20 ppb. (A compelling five-minute video created by researchers at the University of Calgary shows the obliteration of live brain tissue after brief exposure to a 20 ppb solution of mercury.)[ccli] Yet even the so-called “trace” amounts in some vaccines is 1, 000 ppb per dose, while others contain 25,000 ppb per dose![cclii] [ccliii]
While Thimerosal has been greatly reduced in vaccines utilized in this country, more vaccines containing this dangerous substance are still marketed in other countries,[ccliv] demonstrating a cynicism similar to that shown in our exporting pesticides that are banned in the U.S.[cclv]
Aluminum, another potent neurotoxin, has increased in vaccines as mercury has been reduced.[cclvi] A new study has discovered the pathway that aluminum takes from vaccine injection sites to the brain, “where it persists indefinitely.” This research “adds a major link in the association of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines with neurological disorders.”[cclvii] In addition, aluminum is one of the vaccine adjuvants (substances that stimulate immune response to antigens) associated with autoimmune disorders (“Autoimmune/Inflammatory Response Induced by Adjuvants,” or “ASIA.”)[cclviii]
Renowned pediatrician Robert Sears (“Dr. Bob”) worries that “aluminum may end up being another Thimerosal.”[cclix] Additionally, mercury and aluminum in combination is extremely more toxic than either one separately.[cclx]
Specific Vaccines–A Few Facts to Consider
Since there are risks associated with every vaccine, it is the responsibility of consumers to investigate thoroughly before submitting themselves or their children to vaccination. Whether or not to vaccinate, and if so how much, is perhaps the most important health decision parents can make.
Closely analyzing package inserts, Vaccine Information Statements, and VAERS reports is a good start. The Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller is an excellent resource, based on over 1,000 well-documented studies. Miller’s report “Vaccine Safety Tricks and Tips,” is available as a free download.[cclxi] A vaccine research compilation of 307 articles with “medically researched knowledge, relevant information and pertinent data” may be obtained from GreenMedInfo.[cclxii] Sherri Tenpenny, D.O. maintains on her website an extensive, continually updated “Vaccine Research Library,” which includes over five thousand abstracts and full text articles–only from scientific and conventional medical peer-reviewed journals.[cclxiii] The Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice website (www.vaxchoicevt.com) has gathered a wealth of medical references and links as well, along with a list of recommended books.
The vaccines addressed here–with the exception of the pertussis vaccine–are those most recently mandated and those that would be required by proposed legislation. All vaccinations on both the childhood and adult schedules should be similarly scrutinized.
IOM Report–Anaphylaxis and Six Vaccines–
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) studied adverse events claims to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and came up with findings for the causal relationship between specific adverse events and certain vaccines. The committee is quite conservative in their approach, concluding in 85% of the adverse events/vaccine pairs that, “…the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship….”. However, under the category, “Evidence Convincingly Supports a Causal Relationship,” the report states that, “Six types of vaccines—MMR, varicella zoster, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus containing vaccines—are linked to anaphylaxis.”[cclxiv] (Emphasis added.) (“Anaphylaxis” is severe allergic reaction that can be life-threatening.)
Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Vaccine–Pertussis is by far the most dangerous of all the vaccines on the required childhood schedule: Children injured and killed by pertussis-containing vaccines have received close to half (44 percent) of the more than $2.6 billion awarded by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine injuries and deaths since 1988.[cclxv] Package inserts of four commonly used pertussis vaccines[cclxvi]—two DTaP vaccines for children (Daptacel, Infanrix) and two TDaP vaccines (Adacel, Boostrix) for adolescents and adults—contain nearly identical language:
“The following adverse events were included based on one or more of the following factors: severity, frequency of reporting, or strength of evidence for a causal relationship to [Daptacel, Adacel].” All four list anaphylaxis (life-threatening allergic reaction), encephalopathy/encephalitis (brain damage), and various types of convulsions and seizures, while Infanrix includes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) at the very end of its list; a fifth pertussis vaccine,Tripedia, lists autism, all reported in the section “Post-Marketing Experience.”
HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Vaccine–A public interest group warns, “The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine[cclxvii] read like a catalog of horrors. Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine [Gardasil] for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports.”[cclxviii] Since the approval of Gardasil in 2006 and Cervarix in 2009, there have already been 136 deaths reported in connection with HPV vaccines.[cclxix] Gardasil has had more adverse reactions since its introduction than any other vaccine, and “is associated with 61% of all serious adverse reactions (including 63.8% of all deaths and 81.2% cases of permanent disability) in females younger than 30 years of age.”[cclxx]
Japan’s Health, Labor, and Welfare Ministry recently revoked its recommendation for HPV vaccines, due to numerous reports of serious chronic adverse reactions, including severe headaches, convulsions and seizures, and partial paralysis.[cclxxi] Illegal clinical trials of HPV vaccine were suspended in India after their parliament issued an outraged report decrying the deaths and serious adverse reactions among girls participating in the trials; the report denounced the breach of rules and ethics protocols, including failure to obtain proper informed consent:
“The Committee observes that ICMR [Indian Council of Medical Research] representatives, instead of ensuring highest levels of ethical standards in research studies, apparently acted at the behest of the PATH [Program for Appropriate Technology in Health--partly funded by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation] in promoting the interests of manufacturers of the HPV Vaccine [Merck and GlaxoSmithKline].”[cclxxii]
India Times Now asks whether “Indian Tribal Girls [Were] Used As Guinea Pigs?”[cclxxiii]
Hepatitis B Vaccine–Statistician Michael Belkin studied “…24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998,” and contends that “any qualified, impartial quantitative analyst or statistician not affiliated with Merck, Smithkline, the CDC, the FDA or the AAP who examines these reports will find a clear and undeniable pattern of central nervous system (CNS) and liver disease striking thousands of people within 0-4 days after vaccination with hepatitis B vaccine.” Belkin also found that, “For ages 16-55, 77% of VAERS reports are women—more than three times as many women as men are reporting adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccine.” Many hundreds of people suffered serious arthritic reactions, “involving an ER visit, hospitalization, death or disablement. These are the type of adverse reactions reported by many adults who are forced to take the hepatitis B vaccine for their jobs. In the reports of such adverse reactions I’ve taken, the symptoms do not go away, most patients complain it gets worse over time.”[cclxxvi]
The two available Hepatitis B vaccines contain 500 mcg. of aluminum per dose; the Hepatitis A/Hepatitis B combination vaccine contains 450 mcg.[cclxxvii]
(Note on HPV and Hep B Vaccines–Outrageously, in the push by vaccine companies to mandate vaccines,[cclxxviii] diseases not spread by casual contact, such as HPV and Hepatitis B, are lumped with transmissible diseases like polio and pertussis. In other words, children can be kept out of day care or school even if they are missing only the Hep B shot, or–in states requiring it–the HPV vaccine.)
Hepatitis A Vaccine–One Hepatitis A vaccine contains 450 mcg. aluminum per dose, while the other contains 500 mcg. (There are 450 mcg. in the shot combined with Hepatitis B.)[cclxxix]
Influenza Vaccine–The flu vaccine is especially problematic in being recommended or required annually, and some brands still contain Thimerosal.
The founder of the CDC, Dr. Alexander Langmuir, later Emeritus Professor at Harvard, was adamant: And in fact, when I was head of the CDC, I wanted to make that as a public statement, and I refused to say that you should take the flu vaccine. That’s why I’m now a professor at Harvard.”[cclxxx] [cclxxxi]
Previously, the majority of vaccine injuries reported have been for children, but now most claims are filed by adults, “mainly associated with injuries alleged to have been caused by influenza vaccine,” according to Vito Caserta, Acting Director of Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation. He predicts a ten-year high for vaccine injury filings in 2013.[cclxxxii]
Newer flu vaccines may contain the adjuvant squalene, shown to cause autoimmune disorders.[cclxxxiii]
Danger! Vaccines During Pregnancy[cclxxxiv]
Current vaccine package inserts for Tdap and flu vaccines[cclxxxv] all state that the vaccines “should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed,” preceded in some of these inserts by the disclaimer, “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with [vaccine]. It is also not known whether [vaccine] can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.”
A tenfold increase in miscarriages and stillbirths was reported to VAERS after the H1N1 (Swine Flu) virus was added to the seasonal influenza virus in 2009.[cclxxxvi] (H1N1 is now included in the regular seasonal flu vaccine.)[cclxxxvii]
Moreover, manufacturer’s information for the mercury preservative Thimerosal (still used in some flu vaccines) states, “Exposure to mercury in utero and in children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment.”[cclxxxviii]
We must suffer collective amnesia about the terrible harm inflicted by past medical intrusions on pregnancy, such as various birth defects resulting from mothers taking Thalidomide during pregnancy[cclxxxix], or the “DES Daughters,” women who developed vaginal tumors due to in utero exposure to a synthetic estrogen prescribed to pregnant women for thirty years.[ccxc]
Combined Vaccines: More Is Less
Researcher Neil Z. Miller points out that vaccines are drugs, and that many infants receive “a cocktail of up to 13 vaccine/drugs” at the same doctor visit. He asks, “When did you last take 8 or more drugs at the same time? If you took 8 or more drugs simultaneously, would you be more surprised if you did or did not have a serious reaction?”[ccxci]
Miller and research partner Goldman found that hospitalization rates of infants as reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) clearly went up along with the number of vaccine doses administered concurrently.[ccxcii] This finding reflects the general principle that taking four or more drugs at one time causes adverse reaction reports to increase exponentially.[ccxciii]
Whether or not vaccines are officially designated as drugs, the peril of multiple doses remains the same.
Risk-free, common-sense ways to build immunity and stay healthy get lost in the heated debate about vaccination. We all know about yet easily forget to avail ourselves of “Nature’s doctors”: pure drinking water, fresh air, and daily exposure to sunshine. It’s also wise to eat lots of fruits and vegetables, and foods rich in Vitamin C as well as Vitamin D, while restricting intake of sugar and other refined foods. Stress, including negative emotions like fear and anger, directly suppresses the immune system,[ccxciv] so, in addition to getting ample rest, incorporating lifestyle changes such as regular meditation and exercise can help prevent illness.
When sick, it’s best to stay home to avoid infecting others and consult a health practitioner to learn which foods, herbs, and remedies will limit the duration of the illness. The international not-for-profit, Cochrane Collaboration, has found that, “Respiratory virus spread can be reduced by hygienic measures (such as hand washing)….”[ccxcv] and covering coughs and sneezes.
A Crisis of Confidence
A recent Gallup poll queried Americans about their confidence level in 16 key national institutions.[ccxcvi] Confidence in the medical system showed the most change, dropping 6% since 2012.
By its wholesale promotion of an ever-expanding vaccine schedule, glossing over the potential for serious harm, the medical profession betrays public trust in a manner reminiscent of its decades-long support of the tobacco industry. Numerous mid-20th-century cigarette brands boasted doctor recommendations in their ads, with slogans like, “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette”, “20,679 Physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating,’” and “Just What the Doctor Ordered!” (L&M).[ccxcvii]
As neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock contends, “Almost 30 years passed from the time some iconoclastic men of medicine tried to convince the medical establishment that smoking caused most cases of lung cancer until it was generally accepted.”[ccxcviii]
No doubt current hyper-vaccination will someday be regarded as similarly misguided and reckless.
“Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance.” (Lakota proverb)
The degree of coercion involved in vaccine promotion should arouse suspicion. Doesn’t an excellent product sell itself?
Vaccine mandates are backed up by “big guns,” though they are usually well-hidden. In 2007, those weapons were brandished openly, when 2,300 parents in Prince George’s County, Maryland, whose children had been barred from school because their vaccinations were not entirely up-to-date, were sent letters by the State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey threatening them, “…unexcused absences by your child may subject you to a criminal charge.” (Truancy in Maryland is punishable by fines of $50 a day and up to ten days in jail for parents.)[ccxcix] The parents were ordered to appear at the Circuit Courthouse on November 17, where armed police guards with dogs ensured compliance while children were vaccinated on the spot.[ccc] (Ironically, the State’s Attorney declined Hepatitis B vaccines for his own children.)[ccci]
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a rare physicians’ group that eschews funding from pharmaceutical companies, condemned the “vaccine roundup.” Labeling it a “…campaign of intimidation to brutally enforce blanket vaccine-mandates by government agencies and the school district…,” the AAPS policy director proclaimed, “This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights.”[cccii]
Those Maryland parents were informed of neither their exemption rights nor of the risks of vaccines.
Manipulative and aggressive boosting of vaccines can’t easily be stopped. The only hope is that individuals break the habit of blind compliance, keeping a tenacious hold on the right to choose their health options while becoming empowered consumers who “vote with their dollars and their feet.”
It is nothing less than tyranny to force individuals to undergo a medical procedure against their beliefs by threatening them with loss of employment or education.
Vaccine exemptions must be cherished by anyone who might wish to refuse even one mandated shot from the profit-based prescription of “a lifetime of vaccines.”
A full bibliography may be found below.
Charlotte Gilruth maintains a family homeopathy practice in Montpelier, Vermont. She has questioned vaccine safety since 1976, when she was pregnant with her first child. Charlotte advocates for health freedom and medical informed consent as a member of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice. (www.vaxchoicevt.com)
(Please circulate this essay freely to alert citizens that their vaccine exemption rights are in imminent danger. Kindly forward piece in its entirety, including references. To save paper for print version, print text only on double-sided paper and access references online at http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/gilruth-saynoforced/)
[v] “Immunization Schedules for Adults in Easy-to-read Formats” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/adult.html
[vi] “Attention Older Adults!” [brochure] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[ix] “Immunization Schedules” Vermont Department of Health.
[x] Press Release: “Adult and Adolescent Vaccines Market to 2018 – Promising Novel Candidates in Late-Stage Development and Prevnar Approval for Use in Adults to Drive Growth.” Wall Street Journal. 26 April 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130416-911939.html
[xiv] “49 Doses of 14 Vaccines Before Age 6?” National Vaccine Information Center (pdf poster). http://www.nvic.org/downloads/49-doses-posterb.aspx
[xix] Mello, M.M., Abiola, S., and Colgrove, J. “Pharmaceutical companies’ role in state vaccination policymaking: the case of human papillomavirus vaccination.” American Journal of Public Health. May 2012. (Epub 15 March, 2012) PubMed-US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
[xx] “Vaccination Coverage and Surveillance: Annual School Assessment Reports.” Vaccines and Immunizations/Centers for Disease Control. 26 December 2012. http://tinyurl.com/oo4sfyohttp://tinyurl.com/oo4sfyo
[xxi] Centers for Disease Control. Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2009–10 School Year. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 3 June 2011 / 60(21);700-704. http://tinyurl.com/qhlhhh5
[xxvi] LaGreca, Peter. “Supreme Court Gives Big Pharmaceuticals a Vaccine Against Lawsuits.” Pace International Law Review Blog, Pace Law School. 27 October 27, 2011.
[xxvii] “State Law and Vaccine Requirements.” National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
[xxxv] Saxe, John Godfrey (attributed to). University Chronicle. University of Michigan. 27 March 1869.
[xlvii] “Current Status of a Specific Bill or Resolution: 2011-2012 Legislative Session [H.527] .” The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/bills/Intro/H-527.pdf
[l] Hallenbeck, Terri. Ibid.
[lii] Hallenbeck, Terri. Ibid.
[lix] Ibid. 30 April 2012.
[lxi] “S.199-As Passed Both House and Senate: Official Version.” Sec. 1122, (3) (C)&(D); also (c) (1)&(2). May 2012. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/bills/Passed/S-199.pdf
[lxvii] “Annual Philosophical and Religious Immunization Exemptions.” Vermont Department of Health. 02 January 2013. http://healthvermont.gov/hc/imm/documents/Philexemption_2013.pdf
[lxxiii] “Senator Mullin honored for immunization advocacy.” American Academy of Pediatrics, Vermont Chapter. http://tinyurl.com/lsvcabf
[lxxvi] Hallenbeck, Terri. Ibid.
[lxxviii] “Current Status of a Specific Bill or Resolution–2013-2014 Legislative Session.” The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System. H. 138: http://tinyurl.com/lzo58h3 ; S. 102: http://tinyurl.com/mq8jtea
[lxxxi] Bullard, Gina. “Toxicology results in on 7-year-old’s death.” WCAX.com. 26 January 2012. http://tinyurl.com/lzvjzwd
[lxxxiii] “Health Choices, Vaccine Choices (Slides).” Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice. August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/op2tdk7
[lxxxvi] “Seed Stories Being Sent to Vermont Media Outlets.” Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice. 13 August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/maltazq
[xcvi] “Demographics of the United States.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
[xcviii] Habakus, Louise Kuo, MA, Ed. and Holland, Mary, JD, Ed. Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health and Our Children. New York: Skyhorse. 2011.
[ci] Abramson, John, MD. Overdo$ed in America. New York: Harper. 2004
[ciii] Abramson. Ibid.
[cvii] Sheedy, Kristine, PhD. “CDC August 2010 National Flu Survey: CDC’s Influenza Vaccination Communication Campaign: Plans for 2011-2012 Season.” National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control. 11 May 2011. http://tinyurl.com/krhcp7o
[cxiii] Karimi, Faith. “Hysteria over swine flue is the real danger, some say.” CNN. 4 May 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/03/swine.flu.react/
[cxx] Solsman, Joan E. Ibid.
[cxxi] Sheedy, Kristine, PhD. “CDC’s Influenza Vaccination Communication Campaign: Plans for 2011-2012 Season.” National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control. 11 May 2011. http://tinyurl.com/qukaax
[cxxiii] Schneider, Steve. “Big Pharma’s faking a ‘grass-roots’ campaign to keep Jenny McCarthy off ‘The View/Warning shots: Who’s behind the campaign to keep vaccine talk off ‘The View’?.’” News from Underground. 1 August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/khtr4h6
[cxxxii] Angell, Marcia, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House. 2005.
[cxxxiii] Gruenberg, Mark. Ibid.
[cxxxiv] Anonymous comment. “Herd Immunity.” Science-based Medicine. 5 June 2009. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/herd-immunity/
[cxxxv] Srugo, Isaac; Benilevi, Daniel; Madeb, Ralph; Shapiro, Sara; Shohat, Tamy; Somekh, Eli; Rimmar, Yossi; Gesrshtein, Vladimir; Gershtein, Rosa; Marva, Esther; Lahat, Nitza. “Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day Care Centers, Israel.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, Volume 6, Number 5. October 2000. http://tinyurl.com/lgxb6y9
[cxxxvii] “Changes in Pertussis Reporting by State from 2012 to 2013.” CDC. 12 September 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html
[cxxxviii] “State Law and Vaccine Requirements.” National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
[cxlii] Harper, Scott, MD, et al. “Using Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccine for Prevention and Control of Influenza: Supplemental Recommendations fo the ACIP–Person-to-Person Transmission of Vaccine Viruses.” CDC: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 26 September 2003. http://tinyurl.com/yfgcpep
[cxlv] “Selecting Viruses for the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine.” CDC. 26 September 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/vaccine-selection.htm
[cxlvi] Szabo, Liz. “US Whooping cough may be becoming resistant to vaccines.” USA Today. 18 February 2013. http://tinyurl.com/kv4gvwz “Whooping Cough (Pertussis): Recent Scientific Literature.” Vermont Coaltion for Vaccine Choice. 2 October 2012. http://tinyurl.com/peoo5cg
[cxlviii] Lipstitch, Mark. “Bacterial Vaccines and Serotype Replacement: Lessons from Haemophilus influenzae and Prospects for Streptococcus pneumoniae.” National Institutes of Health. May/June 1999. http://tinyurl.com/n8njol2
[cliii] “Informed Consent.” American Medical Association. 2013. http://tinyurl.com/mvmens4. (Note: The cited references to informed consent are no longer available on the AMA website. Does this reflect a policy decision to become less aligned with patients’ rights?)
[clv] “Informed Consent.” Ibid.
[clix] “Unethical human experimentation in the United States.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
[clx] Mendelsohn, Robert S., MD. How to Raise a Healthy Child…In Spite of Your Doctor. New York: Ballanine. 1984,
[clxi] Gellin, Bruce, MD, MPH. “Vaccines and Infectious Diseases: Putting Risk into Perspective”. (Remarks at AMA Briefing on Microbial Threats.) American Medical Association. 1 June 2000. http://tinyurl.com/n94q31a
[clxiii] LaGreca, Peter. “Supreme Court Gives Big Pharmaceuticals a Vaccine Against Lawsuits.” Pace International Law Review Blog, Pace Law School. 27 October 27, 2011.
[clxv] “Vaccine Safety: VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).” Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/vaers.html
[clxviii] Kessler, DA. “Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems.” Journal of the American Medical Association. (June 2, 1993):2765. http://tinyurl.com/ll88ztr
[clxxiii] Blumberg, Stephen J. Ph.D, and Bramlett, Matthew D. Ph.D. “Changes in Prevalence of Parent-reported Autism Spectrum Disorder in School-Aged U.S. Children: 2007 to 2011-2012.” CDC, National Center for Health Statistics: National Health Statistics Reports. 20 March 2013. http://tinyurl.com/mnqtsy7
[clxxx] Miller, Neil Z . Vaccine Safety Manual. Santa Fe: New Atlantean Press. 2012.
[clxxxi] Goldman, GS and Miller, NZ. “Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010” Human and Experimental Toxicology. Sage Publications. http://thinktwice.com HET_study2.pdf
[clxxxiv] Pool, Vitali, MD, et al. “Prevalence of Anti-Gelatin IgE Antibodies in People With Anaphylaxis After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine in the United States.” PEDIATRICS. Vol. 110 No. 6, 1 December 2002. http://tinyurl.com/mnv38dx
[clxxxvi] LaGreca, Peter. “Supreme Court Gives Big Pharmaceuticals a Vaccine Against Lawsuits.” Pace International Law Review Blog, Pace Law School. 27 October 27, 2011.
[clxxxvii] Vera-Lastra, Olga; Medina, Gabriela; Del Pilar Cruz-Domingues, Maria; Jara, Luis; and Shoenfeld, Yehuda. “Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome): clinical and immunological spectrum.” Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, Vol. 9. April 2013.ASIAASIA
[cxcii] “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions” FDA. 30 April 2009.
[cxciv] “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions” FDA. Ibid.
[cxcvii] “Vioxx Hearing: Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH.” Ibid.
[cc] “Rofecoxib.” Ibid.
[cci] Bookchin, Debbie, Schumacher, Jim. The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. 2004.
[cciii] Haddada H, Sogn JA, Coligan JE, Carbone M, Dixon K, Levine AS, Lewis AM Jr. Viral gene inhibition of class I major histocompatibility antigen expression: not a general mechanism governing the tumorigenicity of adenovirus type 2-, adenovirus type 12-, and simian virus 40-transformed Syrian hamster cells. J Virol. August 1988;62(8):2755-61. http://tinyurl.com/kelfl63
[cciv] Carbone M, Pass HI, Rizzo P, Marinetti M, Di Muzio M, Mew DJ, Levine AS, Procopio A. “Simian virus 40-like DNA sequences in human pleural mesothelioma.” Oncogene. 1994 Jun;9(6):1781-90. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8183577
[ccviii] Carlsen, W. “Rogue virus in the vaccine: Early polio vaccine harbored virus now feared to cause cancer in humans.” San Francisco Chronicle. 15 July 2001. Research by Susan Fisher, epidemiologist, Loyola Jinversity Medical Center. http://tinyurl.com/pxxu2lm
[ccix] Bookchin, Debbie, Schumacher, Jim. The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. 2004. (Entire book: http://tinyurl.com/k5hs3k7 )
[ccx] Martini, F., et al. “SV40 Early Region and Large T Antigen in Human Brain Tumors, Peripheral Blood Cells, and Sperm Fluids from Healthy Individuals.” Cancer Research 56:4820-4825. 1996. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841004
[ccxv] “Studies Find No Evidence That SV40 is Related to Human Cancer.” National Cancer Institute/NIH. 23 August 2004, http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2004/sv40
[ccxvii] Butel, Janet, interview 8 July 2003. The Virus and the Vaccine. Ibid.
[ccxviii] Bookchin, Debbie, Schumacher, Jim. “Appendix A.” The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. 2004. http://tinyurl.com/k5hs3k7
[ccxx] Hukku B, Halton DM, Mally M, Peterson WD Jr. “Cell characterization by use of multiple genetic markers.” Adv Exp Med Biol 1984;172:13-31. PMID 6328905.
[ccxxi] Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishers. 2010.
[ccxxii] Contreras G, Bather R, Furesz J, Becker BC. “Activation of metastatic potential in African green monkey kidney cell lines by prolonged in vitro culture.” In Vitro Cell Dev Biol. November 1985;21(11):649-52. PMID 4066602. http://tinyurl.com/l8y5mbx
[ccxxiii] “DNA Ongogenicity Infectivity.” FDA. 2005. http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/concerned-about-gmos/
[ccxxiv] Hilleman, MR. “History, precedent, and progress in the development of mammalian cell culture systems for preparing vaccines: safety considerations revisited.” J Med Virol. May 1990;31(1):5-12. http://tinyurl.com/nomudvl
[ccxxvii] LaGreca, Peter. “Supreme Court Gives Big Pharmaceuticals a Vaccine Against Lawsuits.” Pace International Law Review Blog, Pace Law School. 27 October 27, 2011.
[ccxxxiii] Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A. New York: Perseus Books. 2004.
[ccxxxv] Rovet, Richard, Capt. “Who Will Defend the Defenders?” Vaccine Epidemic. Ed. Louise Kuo Habakus, MA, Ed. Mary Holland, JD. New York: Skyhorse, 2011.
[ccxxxvii] Ibid. “Squalene References: Specificity of Anti-body Response to Squalene.”
[ccxxxix] Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A. Ibid.
[ccxlii] Tiernan, Rosemary, MD, MPH. “Regulatory Perspective on Development of Preventive Vaccines for Global Infectious Diseases (p.34).” Division of Vaccines and Rlated Products Applications/Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research/FDA. 30 October 2007. http://tinyurl.com/l5ffcpr
[ccxliv] Fisher, Barbara Loe. “Homeland Security: POWER GRAB BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SETS STAGE FOR FORCED VACCINATION IN AMERICA.” National Vaccine Information Center. 11 June 2012. http://tinyurl.com/p6gtl5z
[ccl] Parran, Damani K, Barker, Angela, Ehrich. “Effects of Thimerosal on NGF Signal Transduction and Cell Death in Neuroblastoma Cells.” Oxford Journals: Toxicological Sciences July 2006 86 (1) 132-140. http://tinyurl.com/lupgs35
[ccli] Lorscheider, F.L., Leong, C.C.-W., Syed, N.I. “How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration.” Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary. (Produced by Faculty of Medicine and Advanced Media for Learning.) Uploaded December 21, 2008. http://tinyurl.com/m36or24
[cclii] “Thimerosal in Vaccines.” Ibid.
[ccliii] “Vaccine Ingredients–Mercury Debate Is Far from Over.” Ibid.
[cclv] “EPA06: Stop the Export of Banned Pesticides.” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations and Actions. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/EPA6.html
[cclviii] Vera-Lastra, Olga; Medina, Gabriela; Del Pilar Cruz-Domingues, Maria; Jara, Luis; and Shoenfeld, Yehuda. “Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome): clinical and immunological spectrum.” Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, Vol. 9. April 2013.ASIAASIA
[cclix] Sears, Robert W., MD. “Aluminum in Vaccines.” Mothering magazine . Issue 146,
January/February 2008. http://www.mothering.com/community/a/aluminum-in-vaccines
[cclxv] “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program–Statistics Reports”. Health Resources and Services Administration; Department of Health and Human Services. 4 June, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/kgc6tcy
[cclxviii] Fitton, Tom. “Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine/Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil” Judicial Watch [public interest group] website. 20 March, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/m6wvsnz
[cclxxviii] Mello, M.M., Abiola, S., and Colgrove, J. “Pharmaceutical companies’ role in state vaccination policymaking: the case of human papillomavirus vaccination.” American Journal of Public Health. May 2012. (Epub 15 March, 2012) PubMed-US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
[cclxxxi] Turner, James S., JD. “Due Process and the American Constitution.” Vaccine Epidemic. Habakus, Louise Kuo, MA, Ed. and Holland, Mary, JD, Ed. New York: Skyhorse. 2011.
[cclxxxii] Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines. “Meeting Book-Section 7-1.”. Health Resources and Services Administration; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 7 March, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/mcxfa9s
[cclxxxv] “Package Inserts.” Ibid.
[cclxxxvi] Goldman, G.S. “Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?” Human and Experimental Toxicology. 27 September 2012. http://het.sagepub.com/content/32/5/464
[cclxxxvii] “Package Inserts.” Ibid.
[ccxci] Miller, Neil Z. “Overdosed Babies”. Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. 2009-2010.
[ccxcii] Goldman, GS and Miller, NZ. “Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010” Human and Experimental Toxicology. Sage Publications. http://thinktwice.com HET_study2.pdf
[ccxciii] “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions.” FDA. 30 April 2009.
[ccxciv] Pert, CB, Ruff, MR, Weber, RJ, Herkenham, M. “Neuropeptides and their receptors: a psychosomatic network.” Journal of Immunology. Aug 1985; 135 (2 Suppl_: 820s-826s. PubMed
[ccci] “Doctors Oppose Vaccine Roundup: Expect dangerous reactions when children are treated like cattle.” Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. 16 November 2007. http://tinyurl.com/lr3no68
“This new information from the government shows that the serious safety concerns about the use of Gardasil have been well-founded,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Public health officials should stop pushing Gardasil on children.”
Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Reveal 200 Claims Filed with HHS for HPV Vaccine Injuries and Deaths, 49 Compensated
Documents Reveal that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has Paid Out Nearly $6 million in Claims to Victims of Controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) Vaccine, including Families of Two Dead
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has received documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the highly controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines. To date 200 claims have been filed with VICP, with barely half adjudicated.
The documents came in response to a February 28, 2013, Judicial Watch lawsuit against HHS to force the department to comply with a November 1, 2012, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:13-cv-00197)). On March 12, 2013, The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of HHS, provided Judicial Watch with documents revealing the following information:
- Only 49 of the 200 claims filed have been compensated for injury or death caused from the (HPV) vaccine. Of the 49 compensated claims 47 were for injury caused from (HPV) vaccine the additional 2 claims were for death caused due to the vaccine.
- 92 (nearly half) of the total 200 claims filed are still pending. Of those pending claims 87 of the claims against (HPV) vaccine were filed for injury, the remaining 5 claims were filed for death.
- 59 claims have been dismissed outright by VICP. The alleged victims were not compensated for their claims against the HPV vaccine. Of the claims dismissed, 57 were for injuries, 2 were for deaths allegedly caused by the HPV vaccine.
- The amount awarded to the 49 claims compensated totaled 5,877,710.87 dollars. This amounts to approximately $120,000 per claim.
VICP is a Health and Human Services program that compensates patients who have been adversely affected by certain vaccines. The HHS web site describes the program as a “no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system,” and it covers 16 specific classes of vaccines, including HPV vaccines which were added in 2007.
From its inception, the use of HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases has been hotly disputed. According to the Annals of Medicine: “At present there are no significant data showing that either Gardasil or Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) can prevent any type of cervical cancer since the testing period employed was too short to evaluate long-term benefits of HPV vaccination.”
“This new information from the government shows that the serious safety concerns about the use of Gardasil have been well-founded,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Public health officials should stop pushing Gardasil on children.”
In addition to obtaining records from the FDA through the agency’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which has documented thousands of adverse reactions to Gardasil, Judicial Watch also published a special report in 2008 detailing Gardasil’s approval process, side effects, safety concerns and marketing practices.
Click PLAY to hear the Refusers song Unavoidably Unsafe
By Gary Null PhD and Nancy Ashley VMD – Progressive Radio Network
Do you find something seriously wrong with this scenario?
In late 2009, reports of faulty gas pedals, obstructive floor carpets, and failing breaks in Toyota and Lexus vehicles generated uproar across major media networks. During a 4-year period beginning in 2006, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had reported 5 deaths, 17 injuries and 13 crashes, and an additional 29 deaths between 2000 and 2005. There was no hesitation among the networks and federal officials to demonize Toyota for knowingly risking the lives of people solely to empty its dealership lots. Even Congress quickly called for a Congressional investigation, and Toyota took upon itself the responsibility to recall over 8 million vehicles.
As the NHTSA was collecting crash data on Toyota’s lemons, the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was gathering casualty data following vaccinations with Merck’s human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. And it was clear that Merck was far ahead and winning its race against Toyota for the Lemon of the Decade Award. Using data from the CDC, the vaccine watch organization Sanevax determined that, since Gardasil’s launch in 2006 until November 2012, the HPV vaccine was linked to 121 deaths and over 27,485 medical injuries of young girls, some as young as 11 years old.
Unfortunately, vaccine injuries are not documented nearly as quickly and thoroughly as automobile accidents and deaths. There are no vaccine police rushing to the scene of vaccine accidents to investigate the incidents and to record injuries and fatalities accurately. Consequently, only a fraction of vaccine adverse events reported by pediatricians, physicians, medical clinics and hospitals, make their way into the VAERS database. Few parents even know such a reporting system exists.
Gardasil, the human papillomavirus vaccine produced by Merck, was brought to market with great fanfare, widely proclaimed as the first ever anti-cancer vaccine. Merck created a market for Gardasil out of thin air with deceptive and dishonest advertising, and thereby planted fear in the mind of consumers: fear of an enormous, yet unknown health crisis, an invisible time bomb waiting to explode and harm women everywhere. Whereas most vaccines and drugs undergo several years of clinical testing, including human trials, prior to FDA approval, Gardasil was on FDA fast track approval and underwent a mere six months of trial research. When criticized for their aggressive marketing, Merck countered that they were performing a public service by raising awareness about the human papillomavirus and weren’t selling anything. Really?
This lie became public as Merck was caught lobbying the 50 states for mandatory Gardasil vaccination before it had even secured FDA approval! The fact is that there was never a need for Gardasil in the first place: regular Pap testing had already lowered the incidence of cervical cancer by 80% in the US to a few thousand cases a year and the vast majority of all HPV infections resolve of their own accord.
But by lining the coffers of such groups as Women in Government (WIG), and, of course, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Merck was able to influence legislation such that almost immediately after the vaccine was approved, it was part of the vaccine schedule recommended for all girls. If it hadn’t been for Governor Rick Perry’s blunder of trying to mandate Gardasil for school attendance in Texas in the face of a huge conflict of interest and a $50 million contribution to his presidential campaign, Gardasil might have gone even further.
There is something deeply wrong with a giant pharmaceutical company spending hundreds of millions of dollars to manipulate women and influence legislation in order to generate a revenue stream of billions of dollars a year for themselves at the expense of a gullible public. What is wrong with Gardasil isn’t just that it is unnecessary; Gardasil is possibly the most dangerous vaccine on the market, with the potential to injure, maim, or even kill the children who receive it.
The program of coercion to vaccinate every 11 to 26 year-old girl with Gardasil is relentless. This vaccine is given not just in doctor’s offices, where doctors have been known to “fire” non-compliant patients, but in schools and colleges, where the pressure on girls and their parents to conform can be extreme. These institutions all have quotas — sometimes including financial rewards — and they are anxious to prove high rates of compliance.
But there is no informed consent prior to vaccination, so most of these girls and their parents have no idea what they are risking by agreeing to vaccination with Gardasil. While Merck, the FDA, the CDC and the medical establishment all deny that there have been serious, life-altering adverse events associated with Gardasil, the fact is that compared with the mandated vaccines which are given with greater frequency, Gardasil still has the most adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of any vaccine. And since reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in the US (although outbreaks of so-called vaccine-preventable illness are), it is likely that only 10% even get reported!
But what of the victims of Merck’s war on cervical cancer? Alexis Wolf was a normal seventh grader in 2007. She had Type I diabetes, but had successfully learned how to give herself insulin shots and eventually graduated to an insulin pump, which she also mastered easily. Alexis made the honor roll for the first time that year, and was rewarded with a trip to Germany over the summer to visit her grandparents. Her endocrinologist believed that the diabetes was under control and felt that Alexis would be perfectly capable of making the trip on her own and managing her diabetes herself. To make sure everything was in order prior to travel, Alexis’ doctor recommended that she receive her first Gardasil vaccine.
The trip went well, but Alexis seemed different to her mother when she returned, perhaps a bit distant. Alexis received her second Gardasil vaccine after coming home, and shortly thereafter her personality changed entirely. For a relatively shy girl, Alexis immediately became very gregarious, hugging everyone all the time. But she also became agitated, troubled, and started having difficulty keeping food down. It reached the point where she threw up a number of times a day, which is especially dangerous for a diabetic. There began a series of appointments with many, many doctors: the GP, the endocrinologist, the cardiologist, the gastroenterologist, and numerous different diagnostic tests. But nothing they did or recommended seemed to help. Alexis was struggling to get through her days, usually carrying a bucket with her at all times just in case. She had terrible insomnia, was eating excessively, and was falling further and further behind in school.
In January 2008, Alexis received her third Gardasil shot – within 2 weeks she was in the hospital. Her behavior had worsened to the point where she was considered bipolar and she was put on a series of antipsychotic medications. Her mother didn’t believe that this was a psychological problem. She knew that something else had to be wrong, knew that there had to be some medical explanation for what was going on.
After weeks and months in and out of different hospitals with no improvement and her condition growing more desperate, Alexis at long last was seen by a doctor who recognized that she was having seizures – something all the previous doctors had overlooked. This led to more tests – EEGs, MRI imaging, and spinal taps — and finally a conclusion that seemed to make sense: encephalitis, traumatic brain injury, and seizure disorder. But why? Alexis’ mother had an additional conclusion which was so crystal clear in hindsight – her daughter was normal before she received the Gardasil vaccine and had worsened with each one. The Gardasil vaccine had left Alexis with brain damage.
We spoke with Tracy Wolf, Alexis’ mother, about their ordeal. While maintaining a cheerful optimism, Tracy admitted that she could never have foreseen how their lives would change completely. After Alexis’ seizure disorder was identified and she was put on anti-seizure medication, her physical symptoms improved to a certain extent, but she was completely altered. Alexis has deteriorated from being a normal child to one who is only functioning at a fourth grade level. Forced to enter Special Education instead of rejoining her previous class, Alexis became enormously frustrated and school became an ordeal for everyone.
Since Alexis turned 18, Tracy finally gave up and pulled her out of school, realizing that it really could not offer Alexis anything but misery. The stress on their family has been enormous. The pressure caused the Wolfs’ marriage to dissolve, and Tracy is now raising both their daughters by herself, with their father living in a different state. Alexis needs almost constant supervision, and Tracy can only leave her alone for short periods of time. They have applied for special services that could possibly be helpful, but the waiting list is long. Alexis doesn’t understand why things are so different, why her little sister is learning to drive but she can’t.
Unlike with other types of injuries, a vaccine victim cannot simply sue the company responsible for the problem. Since 1986, all cases of vaccine injury must be brought to the Office of Special Master at the US Court of Federal Claims, commonly called the vaccine court. This court was established to create a non-adversarial situation in which children injured by vaccines could receive compensation. But the Department of Health and Human Services has completely distorted the intent of this legislation, and turned it into a highly adversarial proceeding. Injuries listed on a table are supposed to be automatically compensated, but they have removed a lot of injuries from the table over the years, and have listed new vaccines, such as Gardasil, with no specific injuries attributable to the vaccine. So the burden is on the victim to prove causation because there is no presumption of any injury.
In conversation with William Ronan, a lawyer retained by Alexis’ family, he shared that his law firm currently is handling 12 – 15 Gardasil cases that are being evaluated and another 6 cases already filed in the vaccine court. Interestingly, out of all the types of Gardasil-related injuries, the cases Ronan represents all fall into two main categories: autoimmune and neurological. When the injuries are neurological, doctors frequently can’t put their finger on what is wrong, and end up sending the girls to a psychiatrist.
Ronan maintains that it is impossible for all of these girls suddenly to have developed mental problems or simply to be imagining that they have been harmed since receiving the Gardasil vaccine. While not anti-vaccine himself, he has seen too many girls have serious adverse reactions to Gardasil. He runs a two-person law firm in Kansas City, and without advertising, has received at least 20 to 30 calls regarding Gardasil injuries. Ronan believes his experience is just the tip of the iceberg — anyone actually advertising legal services for Gardasil victims would be inundated with a huge number of cases.
The work is slow-going. Evidence of harm caused by vaccines is crucial, but there aren’t a lot of published medical studies about safety to back up this claim. Those that exist are funded by the manufacturer and tend to be overly favorable. Possibly the strongest argument against Merck, according to Ronan, is their failure to warn girls of the risk involved when getting the Gardasil vaccine. Merck clearly knew that this drug could cause neurological dysfunction, yet did not adequately address this in the product insert. Also, it is well known that girls who already have an HPV infection are more likely to be harmed by the vaccine, but the manufacture does not make this clear and does not recommend testing. Ronan summed up his view of vaccinating young girls with Gardasil:
“The real issue is: what is the benefit of this vaccine? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? There is a risk of a seizure disorder or an autoimmune disorder versus the benefit that it might reduce cervical cancer. But Gardasil doesn’t eliminate the need for regular Pap testing, which is already safe, and there isn’t good evidence that it prevents cervical cancer. In evaluating risk and benefit, when all the facts are known it becomes a pretty easy decision – the vaccine is more dangerous than any benefit. Unfortunately, medical professionals tend to read and listen to information provided by the manufacturers, which doesn’t adequately present the risks involved, so they actually aren’t sufficiently informed to advise their patients.”
Ronan’s own daughter had to fight off an aggressive attempt by her doctor to get the Gardasil vaccine, so he understands the pressure that girls are under to just go along instead of asking questions.
We interviewed Dr. Meryl Nass, board certified internal medicine practitioner and vaccine specialist, who agrees that Gardasil was rushed to market without adequate safety testing. Three years after approval for girls, the company likewise received approval to vaccinate boys age 9 and above with no new studies and very little data to justify this action. Regarding Gardasil’s adverse effects, Dr. Nass said,
“Children don’t usually die suddenly when they are healthy but there are certainly lots of teenage girls who have died relatively suddenly after Gardasil or developed severe neurologic reactions. Therefore, if you are going to try to balance safety and efficacy when you prescribe something like a vaccine, you have to know how effective it’s going to be. Does this really prevent cervical cancer in young women? And does it prevent it in women who have already been exposed to these viruses? … So I don’t know how other doctors prescribe something like Gardasil … Basically, they make an assumption that since the FDA has licensed it … the manufacturer would only market something that’s safe, doctors go ahead and prescribe. And what they may not be aware of is that it is extremely hard to link a side effect to a vaccine, for many reasons. Getting a judgment against a manufacturer is very difficult and it has become more difficult due to some recent litigation that reduced manufacturer liability for vaccines in general.”
Gardasil’s doctrine is already so entrenched after only six years that it is a formidable task to challenge the official story that this vaccine is safe and effective, because the truth is too unsettling. The remarkable claims of Gardasil’s benefits to women in the war on cancer are full of holes and not supported by the science, even that science funded by Merck itself. It is important to deconstruct the falsehoods and half-truths that masquerade as facts about Gardasil.
THERE IS NO HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS HEALTH CRISIS.
Cervical cancer in the United States has been at record lows for the past two decades. Currently only an estimated 3,600 women die of cervical cancer each year. The spectacular success in lowering the death rate from cervical cancer can be attributed to annual Pap screening – between 1955 and 1992 deaths from cervical cancer declined 74% and continue to decline annually by 4%.  Part of the success of Pap screening lies in the fact that cervical cancer, unlike most other cancers, is very slow growing. With screening, there is ample opportunity to catch and successfully treat cervical cancer before it gets out of hand. It would be unlikely, then, for any further treatment to improve upon this already very low rate of cervical cancer death.
When government officials and vaccine advertising make wild claims of high death rates associated with cervical cancer, according to neuroscientists Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia, 88% of these deaths occur in developing countries without adequate Pap smear screening programs.
HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION DOES NOT USUALLY LEAD TO CANCER
It is estimated that virtually all women in the US experience a series of human papillomavirus infections throughout their lifetimes. What the makers of Gardasil try to hide is the well-documented fact that 90% of all HPV infections go away of their own accord within two years without causing any disease and with no treatment or intervention of any kind.
GARDASIL DOES NOT PREVENT CANCER
The end point of all the efficacy studies for Gardasil was not, in fact, prevention of cancer. Researchers couldn’t actually assess the development of cervical cancer following the vaccine because this process normally takes 20 to 40 years and their studies stopped after just five. So instead, Merck’s scientists decided that the presence of atypical cervical cells was a valid “surrogate end point,” or substitute for cancer. They used this hypothesis despite the fact that there is no evidence that the types of cervical lesions they chose as their end point would eventually lead to cancer. Merck has never acknowledged that their entire premise for the efficacy of Gardasil rests on pure speculation. In fact, many if not most atypical cervical cells resolve on their own without intervention.
GARDASIL IS NOT 98% EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING HIGH-GRADE CERVICAL LESIONS.
Results of Merck’s efficacy study published in a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine claim that Gardasil is 98% effective at preventing high-grade cervical lesions. Subsequently, Merck and the CDC have lowered that figure to 70%. But the article itself reveals that Merck manipulated the data by excluding women and girls who did not follow the exact protocol. When all women in the study were considered, vaccine efficacy dropped to 44%. But even these numbers only actually reflect cervical lesions associated with HPV 16 and 18. When Merck looked at Gardasil’s ability to prevent all cervical lesions, Gardasil was only 17% effective! And again, their definition of “effective” rests solely on the unfounded assumption that certain types of cervical lesions turn into cancer.
More damning is Merck’s own acknowledgement that in their controlled studies, a percentage of girls actually developed serious cervical lesions following Gardasil. The vaccine seemed to cause the most lesions in girls with pre-existing HPV 16 or 18 infections, but also in girls who had no pre-existing HPV infections. At the very least, screening girls for HPV 16 or 18 infections would give HPV-positive girls the chance to avoid developing cervical lesions by declining the vaccine. Yet not only does Merck not recommend testing for HPV prior to vaccination with Gardasil, they have actually discouraged this practice, presumably so as not to draw attention to the danger. Anything to maintain the fantasy that this is a safe and effective vaccine.
GARDASIL DOES NOT PREVENT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS
Gardasil is designed to prevent only 4 HPV strains: 16 and 18, which can cause cervical cancer, and 6 and 11, which can cause genital warts. However, there are 150 other types of HPVs, at least 15 of which can cause cancer, and Gardasil provides no protection against these other strains. Does Merck’s so-called consumer education ever mention any of this? Of course not. Why would you have your daughter vaccinated if you knew the protection was so limited?
VACCINATING PREPUBESCENT GIRLS WITH GARDASIL WILL NOT PROTECT THEM AGAINST HPV OR CERVICAL CANCER.
Despite the sanctimonious advertising which suggests that both mothers and daughters can empower themselves through Gardasil, Merck’s own studies show that the vaccine is only effective for 5 years. So if your 11 year-old daughter gets the Gardasil vaccine, it will have stopped working by the time she is 16. But since Merck doesn’t give out this information voluntarily, these girls and their mothers will be in the dark.
GARDASIL VACCINATION DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ANNUAL PAP SCREENING
In portraying Gardasil as a treatment that will prevent 98% of cervical cancer, the strong implication is that vaccinated girls will no longer be at risk of cervical cancer at all. As we have already seen in Finland, this can lead to the false assumption that there is no longer a need for annual Pap testing. When women in Finland stopped getting Pap screens, cervical cancer increased to 4 times the incidence in only 5 years! This complacency about risk, started and fostered by Gardasil advertising, is also likely to lead to an actual increase in cervical cancer in the US as more females receive the vaccine and stop taking actions that have been proven to be protective.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GARDASIL IS EFFECTIVE IN BOYS AT PREVENTING GENITAL WARTS AND ANAL CANCER.
Merck’s study of HPV vaccine efficacy in males published in the New England Journal of Medicine states that Gardasil is 89% effective against genital warts and 75% effective against anal cancer. Given the fact that there are approximately 300 annual deaths from of anal/rectal cancer among men in the United States, one wonders how Merck was able to prove such a huge reduction in such a rare problem. As with the female group, external lesions substituted for actual cancer with no proof that lesions of that type actually lead to cancer at all. Yet, Merck’s statistics regarding their cancer substitute penile/perianal/perineal intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) listed in their appendix to the article show that in men who did not have HPV prior to vaccination, both the vaccinated group and the placebo group had the same number of these types of lesions, making the observed efficacy of Gardasil minus 98%! And for HPV strain 18-related genital lesions, there were actually more lesions in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. So as in the previous study, Merck’s impressive numbers for the efficacy of Gardasil in men can only be attained by excluding one-quarter of the study participants. When everyone is included and all outcomes are assessed, the efficacy drops to zero!
GARDASIL IS NOT SAFE
Most significantly, Gardasil has been associated with an unacceptable number of serious, life-altering adverse events following vaccination. According to World Health Organization data, the rate of serious adverse reactions reported to the VAERS system is 2.5 times higher than the current age-standardized death rate from cervical cancer. According to an evaluation performed by Sanevax of the 75 FDA approved vaccines, the HPV vaccines account for 60% of the entire VAERS database of adverse events. This includes 64% of all reported deaths and 65% of life threatening reactions. An additional 82% of all cases of permanent disability for women under 30 years of age is attributed to the HPV vaccines. Adverse reactions include seizures, anaphylaxis, paralysis, transverse myelitis, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome (uncontrollable movement of the eyes back and forth and jerking movements of the extremities), brachial neuritis, loss of vision, postural tachycardia syndrome, facial palsy, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, chronic fatigue syndrome, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss, miscarriage, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorders, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, abnormal Pap smears and even cervical cancer. Yes, you read that correctly – VAERS reports 62 cases of cervical cancer following vaccination with Gardasil.
Also, while Merck has not made pregnancy a contraindication for Gardasil vaccination, recent data released by VAERS reveal that Gardasil is by far the most dangerous vaccine to receive while pregnant, having caused a reported 26,000 adverse reactions in its six year existence compared to the next most dangerous vaccine frequently given to pregnant women, the flu vaccine, which has caused 200 adverse events over the past 20 years. Gardasil vaccination while pregnant has also been associated both with frequent miscarriage and a high rate of birth defects. But most tragically, as of August 2012, the tally of deaths due to the HPV vaccine has reached 118. 
THERE IS BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT GARDASIL IS ASSOCIATED WITH ENCEPHALAPATHY, AUTOIMMUNE DISORDERS AND DEATH
Cindy Bevington has investigated and reported about Gardasil extensively. During a Progressive Radio Network interview, she remarked about the hundreds of emails she receives from girls, mothers and doctors around the US and other countries expressing their serious misgivings about the HPV vaccines. Often she receives requests from parents “begging” for help because their pediatricians and physicians refuse to report their daughters’ adverse events as vaccine related.
By the CDC’s own admission, only 10 percent of adverse events get listed on VAERS. Even this very conservative figure has been refuted by independent analyses; actual records can be as low as 1 percent of all actual negative reactions for any given vaccine. It is therefore realistic to suspect that Gardasil is associated with anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of adverse effects among vaccinated American girls and young women.
Starting in mid 2011, discoveries about hidden Gardasil ingredients and the biological mechanisms contributing to the high rate of adverse events went public. First, blood samples from a 13 year old girl who developed acute juvenile rheumatoid arthritis within 24 hours after receiving a Gardasil injection was analyzed. In fact, the DNA from a human papilloma virus infection will reside in the bloodstream only for a very short period of time. What was so alarming in this case is that the girl’s blood was drawn two years after vaccination. The head researcher, Dr. Sin Hang Lee in Connecticut, discovered the presence of HPV DNA. However, what was more startling is that this was no ordinary DNA from a wild or clinical HPV strain. Instead this was genetically engineered HPV DNA that was designed to firmly attach to the vaccine’s aluminum adjuvant, contrary to Merck’s own package insert stating “No viral DNAs in the vaccine”—which Merck promptly removed after Dr. Lee went public with his finding. According to Dr. Lee, “based on medical literature and some of the FDA/Merck’s own publications, adventitious (coming from an outside source) DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies.” In short, boys and girls receiving Gardasil are being injected with a biohazardous weapon.
The controversy over the safety of Gardasil took a major turn in 2012 when parents of two unrelated teenage girls, who believed their daughters died from the HPV vaccine, had the coroners send brain tissue samples sent to Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics Research Group for investigation. Neither of the girls had a history of previous medical conditions or drug use. One was a 14 year old Caucasian Canadian and the other a 15 year old New Zealander of Maori decent. The only thing held in common was that both had received Gardasil. Prior autopsy analyses showed no signs of brain inflammation that could contribute to their sudden neurological death.
The University of British Columbia’s findings, published in the journal Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs, were shocking. In all the brain tissue specimens provided to the researchers, it was discovered that the vaccine’s HPV16-L1 antigen, from the HPV virus, had penetrated the blood brain barrier of the teenagers, thereby triggering an autoimmune reaction that affected the brain’s cerebral vasculature and led to brain blood vessel hemorrhaging. In other words, the antigens contained in the vaccine crossed over into the brain tissue, signaling the immune system to actually target the brain’s blood vessels for destruction. These two cases of autoimmune vasculitis offer clear neurobiological evidence to explain why there have been so many deaths, permanent neurological disabilities, incidences of seizure and loss consciousness and encephalopathy due to Gardasil.
After discovering a biological association between the HPV antigen in the vaccine and encephalopathic conditions that most likely caused the girls’ sudden death, Dr. Tomljenovic wrote to British medical authorities about her findings. The letter response she received back was appalling; it stated that the health officials in the UK had already made up their minds about HPV vaccine safety and no research could be provided that would cause them to reconsider their views.
GARDASIL IS NOT SAFE IN PREGNANT WOMEN
Dr. Suzanne Garland at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne published a study in a 2009 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology showing a “higher rate of congenital abnormalities in infants were noted in pregnant women who received the vaccine.” A second study, according to Christina England, found slightly higher fetal deaths and rare cases of central nervous system malformations and neural tube defects in vaccinated pregnant women. Such studies confirm the seriously flawed nature of the clinical trials conducted by Merck on Gardasil. They also speak to the dangerous conflicts of interest present in the FDA’s approval process in which the agency receives millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical cartel to expedite vaccine and drug launches despite having limited data on their efficacy and safety.
From the start, a vaccine against the human papillomavirus was completely unnecessary. Aside from the unreasonable health risks that come with this vaccine, Gardasil is also the most expensive recommended vaccine on the market at $120 – $150 per injection and three required doses. If this vaccine becomes mandated for school attendance, how are underprivileged people and the uninsured to come up with the money? And as funding for government programs dries up, does it make any sense to allocate state health care dollars to vaccinate Medicaid-eligible girls with Gardasil instead of using the money for something that actually might be of benefit?
Since the ACIP arm of the FDA already approved Gardasil in 2007 for inclusion in the Vaccination for Children (VFC) program, which provides free immunizations to about 40-45% of children in the US due to their low income status, Merck’s siphoning off of money from other health priorities is poised to become a reality. Vaccination of every 11 and 12 year old girl in the US with three doses of Gardasil in order to attend school would cost $1.5 billion. To vaccinate these girls for a lifetime, once word gets out that the vaccine is only effective for five years, would cost $7.7 billion. Will there be any money left over for anything else, like Pap screening for poor women? Does this really seem like a good use of limited resources? Only to Merck and its well-compensated allies.
India banned the HPV vaccine a year ago due to vaccine-related deaths. France no longer permits advertising for Gardasil or Cervarix. So why hasn’t the FDA, the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or Merck itself responded to the VAERS reports that Gardasil is not a safe vaccine? The argument, which is the same defense used by all the drug companies and government agencies against any adverse reaction to any vaccine, is that since the VAERS system uses voluntary, passive reporting, it does not prove that a sudden health problem – or even death — occurring after vaccination was in fact caused by the vaccine.
The only causal relationships acceptable to the powers that be are those that result from scientific studies. But these are often unacceptable to the rest of us since the majority of these studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. So the fix is in. What can any injured child or concerned parent do in the face of this hard line – should they be required to set up their own scientific study? Obviously, neither Merck nor our government are willing to spend money to prove that Gardasil is dangerous – it is much simpler and infinitely more lucrative to just ignore the allegations and try to portray the victims as conspiratorial whiners.
Instead we get studies published in peer-reviewed journals such as, “HPV Immunization in Adolescent and Young Adults: a Cohort Study to Illustrate What Events Might be Mistaken for Adverse Reactions,” from a lead author who received funding from Sanofi Pasteur (which partners with Merck for vaccines outside of the US) and GlaxoSmithKline (makers of the HPV vaccine Cervarix), while the other two authors received support from both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Sounds like objective science, right? Remember, Merck is the same company that intentionally kept the cardiac risks associated with Vioxx secret while aggressively advertising the product directly to consumers. The same company that so effectively fabricated a supposedly peer-reviewed journal to support Vioxx that even doctors couldn’t tell it wasn’t real – The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. Merck let 60,000 Americans die from Vioxx-related heart attacks before finally pulling the drug from the market when they could no longer deny the truth, and cold-bloodedly set aside $1.6 billion with the intention of fighting every claim for damages.
The CDC and the FDA maintain that Gardasil is an important cervical cancer prevention tool that could protect the health of millions of women. But the facts show that the opposite is true. In point of fact, Gardasil vaccination is not justified by the health “benefits” nor is it even economically feasible. Nevertheless, the lure of huge profits appears to cloud the thinking of everyone in a position to say no to the promotion of Gardasil. It is up to us, the victims, the parents, and the concerned friends and neighbors to get the message out to as many people as we can. We must flood our legislators with notice that this vaccine is dangerous, should not be given to anyone, and at the very least, should not be mandated for school attendance.
Tracy Wolf carries enormous guilt, blaming herself for ever agreeing to let Alexis get the Gardasil vaccine. She believed she was doing the right thing; doing what Alexis’ doctors had recommended. It was too late when she realized that the doctors really didn’t know any more about this vaccine than she did. Tracy is now an advocate for informed consent. She tries to share her story with anyone who will listen to prevent this type of injury from happening to anyone else’s daughter. To all parents being asked to vaccinate their daughters – or even sons – with Gardasil, Tracy has this to say: “Please do your homework. Please educate yourself about the risks of this vaccine. The risk of cervical cancer is so low and the success of regular Pap testing has been so great that there really is no need for this vaccine at all. There is no going back once your child has brain damage.”
1. Herskovits B, Brand of the Year, February 1, 2007, Pharmaceutical Executive Magazine, http://pharamexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/Articles/Brahd-of-the-Year/ArticleStandard/Article/detal/401664, accessed December 26, 2011.
2. Zimm A and Blum J, Merck Promotes Cervical Cancer Shot by Publicizing Viral Cause, Bloomberg, May 26, 2006, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2107001&sid=amVj.y3Eynz8, accessed December 27, 2011.
3. Pettypiece S and Zimm A, Merck Stops Campaign to Mandate Gardasil Vaccine Use, Bloomberg, February 20, 2007, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2107001&sid=atbGQuDYx7_c. accessed December 30, 2011.
4. Bevington C, Researcher, Diane Harper, Blasts Gardasil HPV Marketing, Off The Radar, http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html, accessed September 15, 2011.
5. Siers-Poisson J, The Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer, Part III: Women in Government, Merck’s Trojan Horse, PR Watch, July 18, 2007, http://prwatch.org/node/6232, accessed 12/27/11.
6. Siers-Poisson J, The Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer, Part III: Women in Government, Merck’s Trojan Horse, PR Watch, July 18, 2007, http://prwatch.org/node/6232, accessed 12/27/11.
7. Levatin J, Why Do Doctors Push Vaccines? Tenpenny Integrative Health Center, December 24, 2011, http://tenpennyimc.com/category/vaccines/, accessed January 3, 2011.
8. Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of Medicine December 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
9. Interview with Tracy Wolf, January 3, 2012
- Interview with William Ronan, January 5, 2012
- Interview with Meryl Nass, January 5, 2012
- Bevington C, Researcher, Diane Harper, Blasts Gardasil HPV Marketing, Off The Radar, http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html, accessed September 15, 2011.
- Cervical Cancer, American Cancer Society, Cancer.org/cancer/cervical cancer/detailed guide http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CervicalCancer/DetailedGuide/index, accessed October 15, 2011.
- Rothman SM and Rothman DJ, Marketing HPV Vaccine: Implications for Adolescent Health and Medical Professionalism, JAMA 2009, 302(7); 781-786.
- Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of Medicine December 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
- Lenzer J, Should Boys be Given the HPV Vaccine? The Science is Weaker than the Marketing, Discover Magazine, November 14, 2011.
- Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of Medicine December 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
- Erickson N, Dr. Sin Hang Lee: A case study in ethics don’t pay, Sane Vax Inc, http://sanevax.org/dr-sin-hang-lee-a-case-study-in-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay/, accessed October 15, 2011.
- Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer, National Cancer Institute, September 7, 2011, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV/print, accessed January 3, 2012.
- Haug CJ, Human Papillomavirus Vaccination – Reasons for Caution, New England Journal of Medicine, August 21, 2008, 359; 861-862.
- Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of Medicine December 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
- Lenzer J, Should Boys be Given the HPV Vaccine? The Science is Weaker than the Marketing, Discover Magazine, November 14, 2011.
- Examining the FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records, Judicial Watch Special Report, June 30, 2008, http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf, accessed September 16, 2011.
- VAERS – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. http://vaers.hhs.gov/index, accessed October 14, 2011.
- Gardasil May Be Causing the Cancer It Pretends to Prevent.” Gaia Health. N.p., 28 June 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-06-28/gardasil-may-be-causing-the-cancer-it-pretends-to-prevent/
- Rubin S, Blog Entry for October 2011, National Vaccine Information Center, posted December 29, 2011, http://medalerts.org/analysis/archives/394, accessed December 30, 2011.
- Shilhavy, Brian. “Merck Now Bribing College Girls to Complete Gardasil Vaccine | Health Impact News.” http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/merck-now-bribing-college-girls-to-complete-gardasil-vaccine/N.p., 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. .
- Siers-Poisson J, The Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer, Part One: Setting the Stage, PR Watch, http://prwatch.org/node/6186, accessed December 27, 2011.
- Englund C, India has suspended the use of HPV Gardasil vaccines due to deaths, American Chronicle, April 11, 2010, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/150425, accessed December 27, 2011.
- England C, France Says “No” as They Ban Gardasil Ads, Sane Vax, Inc., January 11, 2011, http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/224-france-says-qnoq-as-they-ban-gardasil-ads.htm, accessed December 28, 2011.
- Siegrist C et al, Human Papilloma Virus Immunization in Adolescent and Young Adults: A Cohort Study to Illustrate What Events Might be Mistaken for Adverse Reactions, Pediatric Infect Dis J. 2007 Nov;26(11):979-84.
Grant B, Merck Published Fake Journal, The Scientist, 30th April 2009, http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/, accessed December 15, 2011
MB comment: HPV related-cancer rates went UP after the introduction of Gardasil.
In a market economy, a product flop typically leads to the product being withdrawn from the market and the company that made it incurring big losses, embarrassment and shareholder revolt against management.
Not in the vaccine market. The vaccine world rewards failure with a larger market, more doses and more profits. Vaccine failure is profitable. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland gets vaxxed – or perhaps Julie in Wonderland is a better analogy – starring as the Queen of Spades (Julie Gerberding – Merck Vaccine Queen).
Product failure is an excuse to enlarge the market in the vaccine world. If a vaccine doesn’t work, the needle nuts always insist on more doses. They simply can’t accept that a vaccine is ineffective and harmful because it negates the pseudo-scientific indoctrination that have been subjected to since day one of their programming, uh … medical training.
HPV-related cancers up despite vaccines from Merck, GSK
Fierce Vaccines January 9, 2013
From 2000 to 2009, rates of oral, vulva and anal cancers increased, according to a study by the National Cancer Institute. But if Merck and GSK both market HPV vaccines–Gardasil and Cervarix, respectively–then why the upward trend in cancer? “The investments we have made in HPV research to establish these relationships and to develop effective and safe vaccines against HPV will have the expected payoffs only if vaccination rates for girls and boys improve markedly,” NCI Director Harold Varmus said, according to the report. To put it simply, a vaccine can’t protect if people don’t receive it.
Gardasil and Cervarix both still land in the top 20 selling vaccines for 2012, based on estimates made by EvaluatePharma. Gardasil takes the No. 2 spot on that list, raking in $1.78 billion, while Cervarix falls in at No. 11 with $581 million in sales. Gardasil has had a bit more time on the market, making its debut in 2006. Cervarix followed in 2009.
Though the companies’ sales are nothing to scoff at, they can both do better; only a third of girls ages 13 to 17 have been fully vaccinated as of 2010, far below the 80% rate experts say is needed to significantly reduce the prevalence of infections. That leaves a full two-thirds of the available market untapped. The vaccine is a regimen of three shots; a mere 32% of U.S. females ages 13 to 17 received all shots.
Researchers can’t pinpoint why the HPV vaccination rate is so low in the U.S. Neither Gardasil nor Cervarix makes it onto the list of vaccines required for school enrollment, which puts less pressure on parents to get their kids vaccinated, and the three-dose regimen means parents need to bring their kids to the doctor multiple times, which can be a hassle.
“Vaccination rates are still quite low in terms of where we need to be to really impact HPV infections,” Edgar Simard, an author of the study and senior epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, told Bloomberg. “If we don’t address these disparities now they will continue to manifest.”
The Entire Vaccine Industry Is Being Exposed For Unproven Assumptions And Misrepresentations of Data – Dr. Dave Mihalovic
by Dr. Dave Mihalovic Oct 10, 2012
‘Nothing ever will change when it comes to the effectiveness or preventative nature of vaccines. That’s because they aren’t effective and they will never prevent disease. The fact is, they were never designed to. When it comes to disease prevention, vaccines are a myth of orders and magnitude so large, that most people could never really conceive the true historical facts on why vaccines were first developed …’
The Entire Vaccine Industry Is Being Exposed For Unproven Assumptions And Misrepresentations of Data
There are no safe vaccines. There never was and never will be with the current misrepresented data and unproven assumptions that have spanned over a century in the making. The fact is, every single vaccine is now being exposed for the lack of demonstrated evidence to actually prevent a single case of disease over a placebo. Think it’s an exaggeration? Think again.
The reality of two centuries of mortality graphs, and disease declines and vaccine effectiveness vs. dangers is always in stark contradiction to the claims of government health officials.
People are now listening more than ever and the message is spreading like wild fire. The evidence being highlighted is that the historical significance and effectiveness of vaccines is nothing more than repeated myths absent of any real-life data.
The questionable contributions of vaccines and other medical measures were highlighted with incredible accuracy in 1977 by John and Sonja McKinlaywho brilliantly detailed how medical care is generally unrelated to improvements in the health of populations.
“History is replete with examples of how, understandably enough, self-interested individuals and groups denounced popular customs and beliefs which appeared to threaten their own domains of practice, thereby rendering from heresies (for example physicians’ denunciation of midwives as witches, during the Middle Ages),” they wrote.
Not much has changed. The pro-vaccine camps have been dismissing the anti-vaccine community for quite some time (even their own peers who are physicians) as they have resorted to some very nasty measures to ensure that people do not discover the truth about vaccines. Marco Torres wrote an excellent article in 2010 on how Everything is Lie in our current mass exchange of mainstream information and any truth still left scattered on the internet is picked up and tossed around by disinformation specialists as Torres points out in the middle of the article (Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation).
So what’s different today about our knowledge on vaccines than it was thirty years ago? Everything. Every month that passes is exposing more quackery and myths about vaccinations and their misrepresented benefits. More people are becoming aware so the truth can no longer be suppressed.
A report which is again being highlighted by the alternative media (of course) is a remarkable study published in the Cochrane Library which found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations and also noted that the vast majority of trials were inadequate.
The authors found that vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract, usually meaning by injection, reduced influenza-like symptoms by 4%. They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission putting the whole herd immunity myth once again into question.
The maximum success rate of the flu vaccine is 6.25% which is a pretty big under-achievement, considering that the average reaction to placebo injections of distilled water is 30%.
More independent scientific studies are also coming forth showing evidence of massive fetal toxicity associated with flu vaccines. Recent research I reported on is now published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology showing a 4,250% increase in fetal deaths according to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data when comparing three consecutive influenza seasons.
The HPV vaccine is another excellent example of a massive cover-up that is incrementally being exposed. The most recent scientific study was found online at PubMed from the National Institutes of Health — Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines as an Option for Preventing Cervical Malignancies: (How) Effective and Safe?.
The study carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. They also noted an abundance of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).
The authors note that the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.
Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).
Late last year, the Annals of Medicine exposed the fraudulent nature of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines such as Gardasil and Cervarix. Key messages the researchers report include a lack of evidence for any HPV vaccines in preventing cervical cancer and lack of evaluation of health risks.
Vaccinations such as HPV are not preventative, they do compromise safety and physicians will never provide accurate explanations of vaccine risks and benefits because they do not know themselves. Physicians can only rely on the information from vaccine manufacturers and since long-term pharmacokinetic effects which study the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of vaccines and their ingredients are never examined or analyzed, a Physician can never fully inform of patient of ANY benefits or risks. That ladies and gentlemen is the BOTTOM LINE!
Take into consideration all of the unintended (or perhaps intended) mutations that are taking place with whooping cough, polio and hepatitis vaccines. Or what if we consider all of the known and very dangerous excipients and preservatives (including thimerosal) in flu vaccines that continue appearing year after year as evidenced in approved 2011/2012 influenza line-up of vaccines introduced last year. Stay tuned as I will soon release my report for the 2012/2013 flu season which will clearly show that nothing has changed.
Nothing ever will change when it comes to the effectiveness or preventative nature of vaccines. That’s because they aren’t effective and they will never prevent disease. The fact is, they were never designed to. When it comes to disease prevention, vaccines are a myth of orders and magnitude so large, that most people could never really conceive the true historical facts on why vaccines were first developed (and that had everything to do with the promotion and not prevention of disease). That’s not something I usually get into, but the cat is out of the bag and the vaccine industry is crumbling. It’s only a matter of time before every single human being is faced with the reality that vaccination and immunization are impossible to interrelate.
The validity and scientific merit of the vaccine industry is now hanging by a thread all I can say is…it’s about time!
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.
MB Comment: Here is the latest piece of pseudo-scientific research to come down the pike pushing for male HPV vaccination (Gardasil). This 10,000 word medical journal article was obviously written by academic know-nothings who can’t even get to first base with regard to the real-life issues about vaccination. This article does not contain a SINGLE WORD about adverse events associated with this vaccine.
The latest FDA data show 115 reports of deaths after HPV vaccination (108 Gardasil, 7 Cervarix). There are currently 26,069 FDA adverse event reports for HPV vaccines, with numerous cases of neurological damage, blood clots, etc.
Here’s a quote from one FDA adverse reaction report: ‘the patient was vaccinated with a second dose of GARDASIL (lot number, injection site and route not reported). Subsequently the patient died. The cause of death was reported as allergic reaction to GARDASIL.’
This absurd medical journal article is a perfect example of why educated, informed parents should not trust the system that determines which vaccines are administered to their children. This article will undoubtedly be referenced by policy makers when they attempt to make Gardasil mandatory for boys for school attendance, etc.
Here is the key information that this article omits: From the Merck Gardasil PACKAGE INSERT (page 11)
The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during post-approval use of GARDASIL …
General disorders and administration site conditions: Asthenia, chills, death, fatigue, malaise.
Immune system disorders: Autoimmune diseases, hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria.
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: Arthralgia, myalgia.
Nervous system disorders: Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré syndrome, headache, motor neuron disease, paralysis, seizures, syncope (including syncope associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury, transverse myelitis …
Vascular disorders: Deep venous thrombosis.
Can Male Vaccination Reduce the Burden of Human Papillomavirus-Related Disease in the United States?
Garren M.I. Low, Yasser S. Attiga, Gaurav Garg, Richard Schlegal, and G. Ian Gallicano. Viral Immunology. June 2012, 25(3): 174-186. doi:10.1089/vim.2011.0083. Published in Volume: 25 Issue 3: June 12, 2012
‘ … Marketing campaigns in the U.S. which are focused on even the most pressing HPV-related health concerns in women have failed to induce compliance with vaccination recommendations. As described above, the net result has been a low rate of vaccination, and potentially decreasing rates of screening for cervical cancer in the U.S. (75). Since vaccinating additional females seems to be increasingly difficult in the U.S. (4), vaccination of males becomes an ever-more viable option for increasing herd immunity to HPV …
Because funding for vaccination campaigns is scarce, economic analyses in conjunction with public health and social welfare considerations are necessary for determining the cost-effectiveness of including males in strategies for HPV vaccination programs …
Since the vaccines have only been available for few years, we do not yet have a full understanding of the longevity and efficacy of the vaccine in males …
While definitive literature on the economics of vaccinating men still seems to be forthcoming, it is clear that HPV vaccination in boys is highly expensive compared to girls-only programs …
we can say that girls-only vaccination programs, without a doubt, represent a more economically efficient option than extending the same preventive measures to boys. As such, if scarcity of resources requires a choice to be made, we can ensure greater health return for our investment by vaccinating girls. From an economic perspective, we should consider vaccination of boys only if the availability of additional resources permits …
Several countries are subscribing to the idea of including males in the vaccination process to help eradicate HPV more effectively. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Australia have already licensed the use of HPV vaccines in males (1,31), and the FDA recently approved the use of Gardasil in males to prevent genital warts in the United States. Vaccination of males could one day be the ideal solution to diminish the prevalence of HPV.
The two current vaccines on the market, Gardasil and Cervarix, have been proven to be highly effective against HPV types 16 and 18, which account for 70% of cervical cancer cases. The current marketing of the vaccine is directed towards prevention of cervical cancer specifically. In order to encourage male participation in HPV vaccination in the United States, a new marketing campaign would have to be developed that outlines the other risks of HPV infection, while describing the potential role of the vaccine in mitigating those undesirable outcomes. In conjunction with this marketing push, vaccination for HPV could be added to the normal vaccination schedules for adolescent males and females.‘
Gov. Nikki Haley Rejects Gardasil: A Moment Of Sanity In A Sea Of Corporate-Sponsored Confusion – Gary Null
By Gary Null, Ph.D. and Nancy Ashley, VMD June 22, 2012
Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina, made headlines on Tuesday by vetoing a bill initiated by the Democrats which would provide sixth graders with government-sponsored information encouraging parents to get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for their children as well as one free HPV vaccine for seventh graders. Haley has received a barrage of criticism for her actions, and charges of hypocrisy for having previously sponsored a bill in 2007 that would have mandated the HPV vaccine in South Carolina, even though she ultimately withdrew her backing because the bill did not contain an opt-out provision. While the current bill had broad bipartisan support, Governor Haley rejected it as unnecessary and because it would be a precursor to a vaccine mandate entirely dependent on government funding. More importantly, however, Haley was quoted as saying her previous support of a human papillomavirus vaccine mandate was a mistake: now that she has a 14 year-old daughter she feels differently about “what I am going to do as a parent and what I want for my child.”1
Instead of relying on her own common sense and intuition as a parent to reject Gardasil, all Governor Haley had to do was look at real science, including the results of a study published on June 21, 2012, in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. This study reviewed the claims made by the Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) – a charity supported by Bill Gates – aggressively advocating the introduction of a government-funded program for HPV vaccine in India, a country which it asserts “has the largest burden of cancer of the cervix of any country worldwide.”2 The Indian government had suspended research on the feasibility and safety of the HPV vaccine in April 2010, after the death of four girls in the two Indian states where HPV research was being carried out. The evidence presented in the Royal Society study refutes the claim that India has a large burden of cervical cancer, and rejects the arguments favoring a government-sponsored HPV vaccination program. Professor Allyson Pollock, one of the study authors, concluded that “HPV vaccine, which is among the most expensive vaccines on the market, is not justified as a health care priority for India.”3
While we support Governor Haley’s courage in standing up for a parent’s right to determine the health care given to their children, which is laudable, we would offer Governor Haley, along with every governor in America, every state and federal legislator, and every pediatrician, pharmacist, and nurse, a reality check. Mandating, or even encouraging or supporting, the human papillomavirus vaccine is tantamount to promoting a public health fraud, and intentionally and with malice aforethought, placing millions of young girls’ and boys’ lives at risk for debilitating injury, including death. Our public health policies, including vaccination, have been formed not by independent, qualified scientists, but rather by lobbyists who have paid for access to politicians at the state and federal levels, bringing forth hand-picked, highly compromised scientists and physicians to promote a fallacy and make it codified by law that the HPV vaccine will prevent cervical cancer and save countless lives when, in fact, independent science shows just the opposite. Therefore, we are offering you an opportunity to review actual scientific evidence that would convince any responsible and reasonable parent, politician, or physician that this vaccine should be banned, not mandated.
While the Democrats in South Carolina moan about lost opportunities to save lives and to cut back on health care costs, what they seem clueless and grossly irresponsible about are the facts; once again allowing ideology to trump science. Even Governor Jerry Brown of California, demonstrated his unbridled promotion of the Gardasil vaccine by signing into law in October 2011, a bill which gives 12 year-old children the right to choose the HPV vaccine not only without parental approval, but without even parental notification!4 The scientific facts are that the HPV vaccine is dangerous, even deadly. The major HPV vaccine in question is of course, Gardasil, Merck’s premier product that has lifted it out of the financial doldrums since the ignominious removal of Vioxx from the market in 2004.
We spoke with Cindy Bevington, an investigative journalist, who says we should all be very concerned about these repeated attempts to force Gardasil on our children because there is absolutely no proof that using this vaccine will lead to the prevention of cervical cancer. Bevington broke the story in 2007 that Dr. Diane Harper, the lead investigator for the clinical trials of both Gardasil and its competitor, Cervarix, considered the HPV vaccine to be not only unnecessary, but “a huge public health experiment.” Dr. Harper revealed to Bevington that the current rate of cervical cancer in the US is so low, that every single 12 year-old girl would need to be vaccinated for the next 60 years to reduce the rate of cervical cancer at all.5 The news was a disappointment to the legislative campaign to mandate Gardasil across the nation to 12-year old girls, which was being heavily pushed by Merck together with ALEC and their spokespeople, Women in Government. Since then, despite all the advertising, Gardasil is nowhere near as successful as Merck was hoping for.
During the push to require Gardasil for children in Indiana, Bevington went to the hearings and observed Indiana legislators actually weeping, begging for the vaccine to be mandated as they spoke about lives lost to cervical cancer without it! Why have we become such an anti-scientific nation? We have been misled scientifically into believing that this vaccine will save lives when in fact the opposite is true. The remarkable claims of Gardasil’s benefits to women in the war on cancer are quite simply ridiculous, inaccurate, fraudulent, and are not supported by the science — even that science funded by Merck itself. We could ask where is the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, CBC, Fox, or CNN? Where are the journalists and the resources they have at their disposal to uncover these facts? Is this a truth they do not want to know because they would then be forced to report it? The Gardasil story is just one example of the bias in official media, both conservative and liberal. Here, then, are 10 facts that would seem that no Governor, Federal official, or legislator has taken the time to study. If so, we would have a different approach to mandating Gardasil in the 50 states.
1. CERVICAL CANCER RATES ARE LOW IN THE UNITED STATES – THE HEALTH CRISIS IS COMPLETELY FABRICATED.
Cervical cancer in the United States has been at record lows for the past two decades. Currently only an estimated 3,600 women die of cervical cancer each year. The spectacular success in lowering the death rate from cervical cancer can be attributed to annual Pap screening – between 1955 and 1992 deaths from cervical cancer declined 74% and continue to decline annually by 4%.6 Part of the success of Pap screening lies in the fact that cervical cancer, unlike most other cancers, is very slow growing, and takes an average of 20 years to develop. With screening, there is ample opportunity to catch and successfully treat cervical cancer before it gets out of hand, so a vaccine would not improve upon this already very low rate of cervical cancer death.
2. HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION IS COMMON IN ALL WOMEN AND DOES NOT USUALLY LEAD TO CANCER
It is estimated that virtually all women in the US experience a series of human papillomavirus infections throughout their lifetimes. What the makers of Gardasil try to hide is the well-documented fact that 90% of all HPV infections go away of their own accord within two years without causing any disease and with no treatment or intervention of any kind.7 Our immune systems are designed to clear this virus.
3. GARDASIL DOES NOT PREVENT CANCER, DESPITE WHAT THE ADVERTISING TELLS YOU
The Gardasil clinical trials never evaluated whether or not the vaccine could prevent cancer. Because cervical cancer normally takes 20 to 40 years to develop it would be too expensive to study a vaccine for that length of time. So instead, Merck’s scientists decided arbitrarily that the presence of atypical cervical cells was a valid substitute for cancer. They used this hypothesis despite the fact that there is no evidence that the types of cervical lesions they chose as their endpoint would eventually lead to cancer.8 Merck has never acknowledged that their entire premise for the efficacy of Gardasil rests on pure speculation. In fact, many if not most atypical cervical cells resolve on their own without intervention.9
4. GARDASIL IS NOT 98% EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING HIGH-GRADE CERVICAL LESIONS IF YOU EVALUATE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Results of Merck’s efficacy study published in a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine claim that Gardasil is 98% effective at preventing high-grade cervical lesions. But the article itself reveals that Merck manipulated the data by excluding women and girls who did not follow the exact protocol. When all women in the study were considered, vaccine efficacy dropped to 44%. But even these numbers only actually reflect cervical lesions associated with HPV 16 and 18. When Merck looked at Gardasil’s ability to prevent all cervical lesions, Gardasil was only17% effective!10 And again, their definition of “effective” rests solely on the unfounded assumption that certain types of cervical lesions turn into cancer.
5. PREEXISTING HPV INFECTION RESULTS IN SERIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS AFTER GARDASIL, BUT THEY DON’T TEST FOR IT!
More damning is Merck’s own acknowledgement that in their controlled studies, a percentage of girls actually developed serious cervical lesions following Gardasil. The vaccine seemed to cause the most lesions in girls with pre-existing HPV 16 or 18 infections, but also in girls who had no pre-existing HPV infections.11 At the very least, screening girls for HPV 16 or 18 infections would give HPV-positive girls the chance to avoid developing cervical lesions by declining the vaccine. Yet not only does Merck not recommend testing for HPV prior to vaccination with Gardasil, they have actually discouraged this practice, presumably so as not to draw attention to the danger.12 Anything to maintain the fantasy that this is a safe and effective vaccine.
6. GARDASIL ONLY TARGETS 4 TYPES OF HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS OUT OF AT LEAST 150 THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
Gardasil is designed to prevent only 4 HPV strains: 16 and 18, which can cause cervical cancer, and 6 and 11, which can cause genital warts. However, there are 150 other types of HPVs, at least 15 of which can cause cancer, and Gardasil provides no protection against these other strains.13,14 Does Merck’s so-called consumer education ever mention any of this? Of course not. Why would you have your daughter vaccinated if you knew the protection was so limited?
7. GARDASIL IS ONLY EFFECTIVE FOR 5 YEARS IN GIRLS, AND EVEN LESS TIME IN BOYS: VACCINATING PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN IS USELESS.
Despite the sentimental advertising which suggests that both mothers and daughters can empower themselves through Gardasil, Merck’s own studies show that the vaccine is only effective for 5 years.15 So if your 11 year-old daughter gets the Gardasil vaccine, it will have stopped working by the time she is 16. But since Merck doesn’t give out this information voluntarily, these girls and their mothers will be in the dark. The limited studies in males that exist show that the vaccine wanes by three years.16
8. GARDASIL VACCINATION DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ANNUAL PAP SCREENING, OUR MAIN DEFENSE AGAINST CERVICAL CANCER
In portraying Gardasil as a “treatment” that will prevent 98% of cervical cancer, the strong implication is that vaccinated girls will no longer be at risk of cervical cancer at all. As we have already seen in Finland, this can lead to the false assumption that there is no longer a need for annual Pap testing. When women in Finland stopped getting Pap screens, cervical cancer increased to 4 times the incidence in only 5 years!17 This complacency about risk, started and fostered by Gardasil advertising, is also likely to lead to an actual increase in cervical cancer in the US as more females receive the vaccine and stop taking actions that have been proven to be protective.
9. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GARDASIL IS EFFECTIVE IN BOYS AT PREVENTING GENITAL WARTS AND ANAL CANCER.
Merck’s study of HPV vaccine efficacy in males published in the New England Journal of Medicine states that Gardasil is 89% effective against genital warts and 75% effective against anal cancer. Given the fact that there are approximately 300 annual deaths from of anal/rectal cancer among men in the United States, one wonders how Merck was able to prove such a huge reduction in such a rare problem. As with the female group, external lesions substituted for actual cancer with no proof that lesions of that type actually lead to cancer at all. Yet, Merck’s statistics regarding their cancer substitute penile/perianal/perineal intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) listed in their appendix to the article show that in men who did not have HPV prior to vaccination, both the vaccinated group and the placebo group had the same number of these types of lesions, making the observed efficacy of Gardasil minus 98%! And for HPV strain 18-related genital lesions, there were actually more lesions in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. So as in the previous study, Merck’s impressive numbers for the efficacy of Gardasil in men can only be attained by excluding one-quarter of the study participants. When everyone is included and all outcomes are assessed, the efficacy drops to zero!18
10. GARDASIL IS NOT SAFE – SINCE 2006 IT HAS CAUSED 111 DEATHS IN GIRLS WHO WERE COMPLETELY HEALTHY PRIOR TO VACCINATION AND LIFE-ALTERING NEUROLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT IN OTHERS.
Most significantly, Gardasil has been associated with an unacceptable number of serious, life-altering adverse events following vaccination. Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the Gardasil and Cervarix clinical trials went on record to say that the rate of serious adverse events associated with Gardasil is greater than the incidence of cervical cancer itself!19 According to World Health Organization data, the rate of serious adverse reactions reported to the VAERS system is 2.5 times higher than the current age-standardized death rate from cervical cancer. VAERS data show that Gardasil has been associated with 24,184 adverse effects since its debut in June of 2006, including seizures, anaphylaxis, paralysis, transverse myelitis, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome (uncontrollable movement of the eyes back and forth and jerking movements of the extremities), brachial neuritis, loss of vision, postural tachycardia syndrome, facial palsy, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, chronic fatigue syndrome, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss, miscarriage, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorders, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, abnormal Pap smears and even cervical cancer.20,21,22 Yes, you read that correctly – VAERS reports 41 cases of cervical cancer following vaccination with Gardasil! Also, while Merck has not made pregnancy a contraindication for Gardasil vaccination, recent data released by VAERS reveal that Gardasil is by far the most dangerous vaccine to receive while pregnant, having caused more than 1300 adverse reactions in its five year existence compared to the next most dangerous vaccine frequently given to pregnant women, the flu vaccine, which has caused 200 adverse events over the past 20 years. Gardasil vaccination while pregnant has also been associated both with frequent miscarriage and a high rate of birth defects.23 But most tragically, as of May 2012, the death toll from Gardasil is now at 111!24
It is not possible to know exactly how many children have been injured or died from the Gardasil vaccine because the reporting system is voluntary and estimates are that as few as 5% of adverse events are ever actually reported. Indeed, to give just one current example, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, Roche, is being investigated after a routine inspection found that it had failed to properly assess 80,000 cases of possible adverse drug reactions, including 15,161 deaths!25
The efforts by Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, ALEC, the CDC, the FDA and the rest of the medical establishment to force our sons and daughters to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus will not stop. We have to be vigilant against this stealth menace if we want to protect our children against what clearly is a form of medical fascism, and preserve our right to make decisions for ourselves and our children free of government interference. We applaud Gov. Haley’s veto of the covert mandate of Gardasil in South Carolina, but the fight is far from over. It is up to us to do our homework and tell our representatives in no uncertain terms why we will not agree to risking our children’s lives in this greatest of public health experiments that stands to benefit only the drug companies and their supporters.
1. English HS, Nikki Haley Vetoes Child Vaccination Bill, Calls it Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare Mandate, The Inquisitr, June 20, 2012,http://www.inquisitr.com/259455/nikki-haley-vetoes-child-vaccination-bill-calls-it-taxpayer-funded-healthcare-mandate/, accessed 6/21/12.
2. Mattheij I, Pollock AM, Brhlikova P, Do Cervical Cancer Data Justify HPV Vaccination in India? Epidemiological Data Sources and Comprehensiveness,Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2012; 105; 250-262, http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/105/6/250.full.pdf+html, accessed 6/22/12.
3. Media Release, Controversial vaccine trial should never have been run in India, researchers say, The Royal Society of Medicine, June 21, 2012, http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr305.php, accessed 6/22/12.
4. McGreevy P, New law lets 12-year-olds consent to preventive care for STDs, LA Times, October 9, 2011, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/10/gov-the-governor-also-signed-a-measure-allowing-minors-who-are-12-years-of-age-or-older-to-consent-without-their-parents-kn.html, accessed 6/21/12.
5. Interview with Cindy Bevington, June 21, 2012
6. Bevington C, Researcher, Diane Harper, Blasts Gardasil HPV Marketing, Off The Radar, http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html, accessed September 15, 2011.
7. Cervical Cancer, American Cancer Society, Cancer.org/cancer/cervical cancer/detailed guide http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CervicalCancer/DetailedGuide/index, accessed October 15, 2011.
8. Rothman SM and Rothman DJ, Marketing HPV Vaccine: Implications for Adolescent Health and Medical Professionalism, JAMA 2009, 302(7); 781-786.
9. Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of MedicineDecember 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
10. Lenzer J, Should Boys be Given the HPV Vaccine? The Science is Weaker than the Marketing, Discover Magazine, November 14, 2011.
11. Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of MedicineDecember 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
12. Erickson N, Dr. Sin Hang Lee: A case study in ethics don’t pay, Sane Vax Inc, http://sanevax.org/dr-sin-hang-lee-a-case-study-in-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay/, accessed October 15, 2011.
13. Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer, National Cancer Institute, September 7, 2011, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV/print, accessed January 3, 2012.
14. Haug CJ, Human Papillomavirus Vaccination – Reasons for Caution, New England Journal of Medicine, August 21, 2008, 359; 861-862
15. Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of MedicineDecember 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
16. Merck, Gardasil Package Insert, revised 2010, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm111263.pdf, accessed 6/21/12.
17. Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Are They at Odds? Annals of MedicineDecember 22, 2011; http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890.2011.645353, accessed December 23, 2011.
18. Lenzer J, Should Boys be Given the HPV Vaccine? The Science is Weaker than the Marketing, Discover Magazine, November 14, 2011
19. Atkisson S, Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out, CBS News, August 29, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5253431.html, accessed 6/21/12.
20. Examining the FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records, Judicial Watch Special Report, June 30, 2008, http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf, accessed September 16, 2011.
21. VAERS – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. http://vaers.hhs.gov/index, accessed October 14, 2011.
22. Botha LC, New Death Post-Gardasil Updated VAERS Figures & Report that HPV Vaccines Adverse Reactions are 50% Higher Than Other Age-Related Recommended Vaccines, November 29, 2011, Sane Vax, Inc., http://sanevax.org/new-death-post-gardasil-updated-vaers-figures-report-that-hpv-vaccines-adverse-reactions-are-50-higher-than-other-age-related-recommended-vaccines/, accessed December 4, 2011.
23. Rubin S, Blog Entry for October 2011, National Vaccine Information Center, posted December 29, 2011, http://medalerts.org/analysis/archives/394, accessed December 30, 2011.
24. VAERS – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. http://vaers.hhs.gov/index, accessed 6/21/12.
25. Reuters, Drug company Roche accused of not reporting possible drug side-effects, Fox News.com, June 22, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/22/drug-company-roche-accused-improperly-reporting-drug-side-effects/#ixzz1yXGeh2rw, accessed 6/22/12.
June 5th, 2012
Guest Post by Leslie Botha, Broadcast Journalist
Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research
It appears that women ages 27 to 45 in Canada are being subjected to the same type of Gardasil® advertising campaign adolescents and their families are in the United States. The full page advertisements are running continuously in magazine supplements in Sunday newspapers north and south of the border.
‘Now women ages 27 to 45 can benefit from Gardasil®’. Say what? Benefit from what? ‘Talk to your health care professional today.’ Now, I am not sure of what is going on in Canada – but in the U.S., healthcare professionals have nearly become pharmaceutical sales representatives, and women cannot go in for a doctor’s exam without being pressured to go on the birth control pill or get vaccinated. In fact, a stamp is now placed on a patient’s chart to remind doctor’s if the adolescent is in the process of getting the three-shot Gardasil® series or has been ‘counseled and refused’ vaccination.1
According to the U.S. FDA, there is no health benefit to getting Gardasil® for women ages 27 to 45. Then why is the vaccine being offered to older women in Canada?
Only the Facts Ma’am
In April 2011, after a long awaited decision the U.S. FDA ruled against Merck’s supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for an indication to use GARDASIL [Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16 and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant] in women ages 27-45. This was Merck’s 4th request to expand Gardasil® use to an older population of women.
In a brief statement Merck stated that: “An indication for adult women was not granted; instead, the Limitations of Use and Effectiveness for GARDASIL® was updated to state that GARDASIL® has not been demonstrated to prevent HPV-related CIN 2/3 or worse in women older than 26 years of age.”1
Within the same month Merck issued a press release announcing Health Canada had approved use of Gardasil® for women ages 27 – 45 for preventing cervical cancer, vulvar and vaginal cancers, precancerous lesions and genital warts caused by HPV strains 6, 11, 16, 18. Health Canada was surprisingly silent on the HPV vaccine issue and did not release a statement of their own.2
This should have been the first red flag for Canadian women. According to Pharmalot, “Although Canada is a smaller market than the U.S., the approval is a notable step for Merck, which has been counting on a larger demographic target to boost sorely needed vaccine revenue.”3
The needed revenue is due to the decreasing uptake and non-completion of the three-shot series in the U.S. Health insurance records have shown that among 19 to 26-year-old women who received their first Gardasil shot, the number of 19 to 26-year-old women completing the 3-shot series dropped from 44 percent in 2006 to 23 percent in 2009. A similar decline was seen in the pre-teen demographic where 57 percent of girls in 2006 completed the vaccine series, compared to 21 percent in 2009.4
Perhaps another notable step for Merck will be to go back to the FDA with data from Canada to prove that Gardasil® can be demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer in this older demographic. This is a highly likely scenario, since the CDC has stated: “While there are well-established cancer registries in the United States, it will take decades before the impact of the vaccine on cervical cancer is observed.”5
What is potentially wrong with Gardasil® use in older women?
The CDC estimates approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. Another six million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives. 6
Gardasil® was not designed to treat pre-existing HPV infections – and therefore it was tested on women who were not exposed to HPV. This type of pre-screening prior to vaccination is not available to medical consumers in the U.S. or in Canada and was actually discouraged by the FDA.
This alone gives rise to a major concern because women are mostly unaware they have been exposed to HPV. In addition, women who are not aware they have the virus but get the vaccine could suffer outbreaks of genital warts or abnormal precancerous lesions. Both conditions require extensive treatment. 7
Why is this happening? A chart in the May 2006 FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s report clearly shows that women who have been previously exposed to HPV and who are vaccinated with Gardasil® have a vaccine efficacy rate of -44.6%, and -32.5% post Cervarix, placing those vaccinated at an increased risk of developing cervical cancer, as well as suffering from other adverse reactions. 8
According to American Cancer Society estimates, deaths from cervical cancer fell by 74% between 1955 and 1992, mostly due to Pap smear screening. The rate continues to fall 4% annually without Gardasil®. Hopefully, there will not be an increase in cervical rates due to the HPV vaccines. That unfortunately will remain to be seen, although reports of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer are being reported by young women post vaccination.
One thing is clear – women are the only ones who can protect their pelvic goldmines from exploitation. Meanwhile, unsuspecting women of all ages, all over the world are receiving a vaccine that will no doubt be become known as the great travesty of the 21st century. Our sisters in Canada need to be paying attention to what is happening in the U.S. before they partake in what may be a potential medical experiment with dire consequences for them and more profit for Merck.
1. Ob. Gyn News, May 17, 2012
2. Pharmalot, FDA Rejects Gardasil For Use In Most Adult Women, April 6, 2011
3. Pharmalot, Canada Approves Gardasil For Use In Most Women, April 28, 2011
4. Fox News, Fewer girls completing all three HPV shots, May 18, 2012
5. Post-licensure monitoring of HPV vaccine in the United States, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccine. 2010 Jul 5;28 (30):4731-7. Epub 2010 Feb 25.
6. Cervical Cancer Prevention, Health Professional Version, National Cancer Institute (NCI)
7. Judicial Watch Special Report on Gardasil: How Safe And Effective Is It?, September 22, 2011
MB Comment: This drug company-financed study bemoans lack of access for to the HPV vaccine for adolescent males. 86% of boys aren’t getting this dangerous vaccine. Drug companies are salivating like the Big Bad Wolf. Look out parents, vaccine manufacturers are hungry for your sons and daughters.
Few Adolescent Males Are Getting the HPV Vaccine
By: KERRI WACHTER, Internal Medicine News Digital Network 04/17/12
WASHINGTON – Adolescent males are significantly less likely to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine than females, largely because of the lack of information about the vaccine provided to their parents, based on an analysis of data from a statewide survey.
Researchers found that only 14% of males had initiated HPV vaccination compared with 44% for females, based on answers of 751 parents of adolescents (aged 11-17 years) who completed the 2010 North Carolina Child Health Assessment and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) – a statewide telephone survey.
|Photo courtesy: National Cancer Institute
Survey shows adolescent boys less likely to receive HPV vaccination than girls. This image is an electron micrograph of human papillomavirus (HPV).
In addition, HPV vaccine uptake in males was correlated with older age, minority race, a lower household income, and other vaccine use in the family. For females, HPV vaccine uptake was associated with older age and public school attendance.
The researchers also assessed parental reasons for not vaccinating their child against HPV. “We found that correlates and concerns related to HPV vaccine initiation varied for boys and girls,” the researchers noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Preventive Oncology. Parents of boys most often cited not getting a recommendation from their health care provider or not knowing that the vaccine was available for boys. Parents of girls most often reported concerns about safety and side effects.
Almost half of parents (48%) reported on a male index child. The mean age of the adolescents was 14 years. Most parents reported on children who were non-Hispanic white (69%) or black (20%). Males and females did not differ in terms of 13 sample characteristics assessed.
“Our findings underscore the importance of health care provider recommendation of the HPV vaccine,” wrote lead author Melissa B. Gilkey, Ph.D., and her coinvestigators. Dr. Gilkey is a researcher at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill.
“The difference in coverage between sons and daughters in our sample is not surprising, as our study was conducted soon after licensure for males,” they reported.
It’s hoped that new guidelines on HPV vaccination from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are likely to increase boys’ access to the HPV vaccine, as private insurers typically cover the cost of vaccines that are recommended for routine use. “However, the experience with girls suggests that achieving widespread coverage among boys will require a concerted effort,” the researchers pointed out. Recommending HPV vaccine alongside other adolescent vaccines is a strategy that may be particularly well suited for addressing the very low levels of uptake among boys.”
The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Cervarix vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, the cancer control education program at UNC Lineberger, and a National Research Service Award in primary medical care. The investigators did not report whether they had any relevant financial disclosures.