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