Gardasil: A License to Kill?

[Taximom5]

This is a chapter from the excellent book, Vaccine Epidemic:

How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children

Edited by Louise Kuo Habakus, MA and Mary Holland, JD with

Kim Mack Rosenberg, JD

http://vaccineepidemic.com/images/gardasillicensetokill.pdf

A LICENSE TO KILL? Mark Blaxill, MBA and Dan Olmsted

This article identifies a pattern of conflicts of interest at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—and ultimately throughout the federal government—involving Merck’s controversial Gardasil vaccine against HPV, or human papillomavirus.

[WildKingdom]

And you accuse pro-vax people of fear mongering.

Really.  License to kill, huh?

[rnra]

[Mirzam]

Death after quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV) vaccination: Causal or coincidental?

Quote:

Herein reported is the case of a 15-year-old female without a relevant medical history, who developed severe headaches, speech problems, dizziness, weakness, inability to walk, depressed consciousness, confusion, amnesia and vomiting, 14 days after receiving her first qHPV vaccine injection. After the second vaccine booster, her symptoms worsened and she expired 15 days later. Autopsy revealed cerebral oedema and cerebellar herniation indicative of a focally disrupted blood-brain barrier.

http://sanevax.org/

HPV VACCINE VAERS REPORTS AS OF AUG 2012

 

Description			Total
Disabled			894
Deaths			119
Did Not Recover			5,477
Abnormal Pap Smear			496
Cervical Dysplasia			199
Cervical Cancer			57
Life Threatening			517
Emergency Room			9,889
Hospitalized			2,781
Extended Hospital Stay			221
Serious			3,723
Adverse Events			27,023

[Taximom5]

In response to Wildkingdom's accusation that I am fear-mongering:

"When it comes to the accurate measurement of adverse effects of Gardasil, there is little justification for reliance on a placebo with ingredients that are not inert. There is some limited value, perhaps, in comparing adverse events that are introduced solely by the addition of VLPs to the vaccine solution. But a truly rigorous safety assessment would investigate the full safety profile of the VLPs in combination with the aluminum adjuvant and compare that profile to the profile of an inert solution. After all, the adjuvant is present precisely because it is not inert."

Let's remember that the adjuvant contained in the  "placebo" used in these trials is being increasingly acknowledged as being causally linked with severe autoimmune disorders, which in some cases prove fatal.

That's not fear-mongering.  It's fact. It's also fact that these autoimmune disorders did NOT occur in the test subjects who didn't receive the adjuvanted vaccines.  See below.

Edited by Taximom5 - 10/18/12 at 5:50am

[Taximom5]

And here is an excellent point, which is often lost on medical practitioners who bleat, "Oh, but Gardasil was tested against a placebo, so it must be safe!"

It's clear that the adjuvanted "placebo" caused 3 times the rate of adverse events as compared to the non-adjuvanted placebo:

"Although less frequent than minor instances of pain or swelling at the injection site, these serious events were disturbingly common in the groups exposed to active substances. Nearly 5 percent of the Gardasil recipients had a serious adverse event, well over six times the rate of the carrier solution group. And more than 2 percent of the aluminum “placebo” recipients had severe reactions, more than three times the rate of adverse events in the carrier solution group. Based on this finding alone, it’s hard to defend the choice to clas- sify Merck’s adjuvant as an “inert” placebo."

This is absolutely INSANE.  They tell us that we should get the flu shot based on 59% fewer people getting the flu if they've gotten the flu shot--but here with Gardasil, we have SIX TIMES the number of SERIOUS adverse events compared to a non-adjuvanted placebo.  

Do they even tell us that?  No, they hide it by giving a much larger cohort the adjuvanted placebo, which brings the adverse reaction rate closer to that of Gardasil. Then they focus on things like swelling and pain at the reaction site, and conclude, "well, there's not much difference in adverse events between Gardasil and placebo!"

Smoke and mirrors.  Again.

Edited by Taximom5 - 10/18/12 at 5:57am

[Taximom5]

There seems to be no doubt that Gardasil can cause autoimmune disorder. Funny how it's not mentioned as a risk, when the link is so clear in the study.

When the longer-term adverse events were examined, autoimmune disorders (like arthritis, lupus, and thyroiditis) were significantly higher in subjects who were given Gardasil rather than the overall "placebo" group.  The FA reviewer even noted this as a source of concern.

Significantly, these conditions occurred at a rate of more than 1/1000--but there were ZERO reported cases of autoimmune disorders in the non-adjuvanted placebo group.

Read the study if you don't believe me.

So let's see--lifelong, serious autoimmune disorders at a rate of 1/1000, from a vaccine whose efficacy only lasts 4-6 years, and which would only prevent, AT BEST, 5 cases of cervical cancer for every 100,000 women vaccinated. And that's assuming only ONE set of vaccinations.  The boosters that would be needed every 4-6 years would obviously cause even more cases of autoimmune disorders.

Edited per prosciencemum's observation: And wildkingdom thinks that I'm fearmongering?

Edited by Taximom5 - 10/19/12 at 9:02pm

[prosciencemum]

Taximom - I think you're getting me and WildKingdom mixed up. And I think she was suggesting the title of the book chapter - "License to Kill" was fear mongering rather than anything you've said.

I'm not much hopeful that anything cited in an article titled "License to Kill" in a book with the subheading "How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and 

Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children" will be done in a balanced and fair way. But I'll give it a try and get back.  

[prosciencemum]

 I'm going to have to search down the original study. This presentation of it I felt was quite biased. As a scientist I was very uncomfortable with the lack of error bars on anything. Given the small sample size in the saline group I suspect they were left off because if you leave them on you see there's no statistical difference in the adverse affects. 

It's presented in a way to convince you there's harm. But I'm not convinced it's objective evidence of harm yet.

[Mirzam]

Gardasil contains HPV DNA bound to insoluble aluminum adjuvant - a new chemical with untested toxicity?

Dr. Sin Hang Lee of Milford Hospital recently published an article in The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry entitled, Detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 gene DNA possibly bound to particulate aluminum adjuvant in the HPV vaccine Gardasil®.

According to Dr. Lee’s research (sponsored by SaneVax Inc.), during the manufacture of Gardasil, Merck may have inadvertently created a new chemical compound composed of HPV L1 gene fragments chemically bound to the aluminum nanoparticles of the AAHS adjuvant used in the vaccine.

If this is true, the toxicity of this chemical has not been tested. No one knows what the potential health consequences the injection of this ‘ingredient’ may be.

(Note: Dr. Lee’s study was commissioned and sponsored by SaneVax Inc. for a future payment not to exceed one U.S. dollar.)

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Taximom - I think you're getting me and WildKingdom mixed up.   

Quite right--I edited. Thanks for the observation!