Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples

[Mirzam]

It looks like researchers have found a possible cause for the "unknown" reason in Gardasil deaths. The entire research article can be access from both articles.

http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/

Two teenage girls from opposite ends of the world – both dead before their time have two additional things in common. They both took Gardasil to try and prevent cervical cancer and fragments of the HPV-16-L1 antigen used in Gardasil have been found in blood vessels within their brains.

Given that the autopsy in both cases revealed no major abnormality (anatomically, microbiologically or toxicologically) that might have been regarded as a potential cause of death; it appears plausible that the antigenic component of the HPV vaccine (HPV-16-L1) was indeed responsible for the fatal inflammation of the blood vessels.

Here is the second article, New Research Shows How Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines Can Silently Kill Your Daughters And Sons

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/new-research-shows-how-gardasil-and-cervarix-vaccines-can-silently-kill-your-daughters-and-sons/

This article highlights yet more shenanigans from the UK Government, this time to obscure the dangers of Cervarix.

CHS has separately obtained evidence showing that British Health officials in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] published analyses of adverse reactions to GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in such a way that the conditions underlying the reported symptoms of 4700 adverse reactions in 4.2 million British schoolgirls could never be identified.  This looks like “cooking the books” to ensure no information would be made public which might suggest the vaccine is dangerous 

To diagnose an underlying condition it is fundamental that all the symptoms be considered together.  What the MHRA officials did was to split up the symptoms each girl suffered to report the symptoms separately under five categories which bore no relation to the potential underlying conditions suffered by these children.  A large number of the reported individual symptoms are symptoms of an encephalopathy – which is a general medical term for a brain disease or injury.  But it will never be known from the MHRA’s published analyses because 1) all the symptoms were split up and 2) not a single reported adverse reaction was investigated despite Cervarix being a new vaccine whose full adverse effects were unknown.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

It looks like researchers have found a possible cause for the "unknown" reason in Gardasil deaths. The entire research article can be access from both articles.

http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/

Here is the second article, New Research Shows How Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines Can Silently Kill Your Daughters And Sons

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/new-research-shows-how-gardasil-and-cervarix-vaccines-can-silently-kill-your-daughters-and-sons/

This article highlights yet more shenanigans from the UK Government, this time to obscure the dangers of Cervarix.

no responses here either yet?
 

awwww.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

 

no responses here either yet?
 

awwww.

Yet another inconvenient truth? 

[Mirzam]

Here is another article on the research

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-25/gardasil-is-probable-cause-of-girls-deaths-brain-histology-study/

[T]he presence of HPV-16L1 particles in cerebral vasculature in brain tissue specimens from both young women vaccinated with Gardasil may be explained by a “Trojan horse” mechanism dependent on circulating macrophages by which these particles adsorbed to aluminum adjuvant gain access to brain tissue.

 

The vaccine manufacturer may have created a Trojan horse method of brain access, resulting in an autoimmune attack on the brain and its supporting blood vessels.

Further supporting this concept, they point out that there are only three ways for immune complexes to accumulate in the brain:

• A brain infection.
• Brain tissue trauma.
• Excessive immune system stimulation, as with vaccination.

In the case of the two girls whose brain tissue was examined, only one of these three possibilities existed: vaccination with Gardasil.

[erigeron]

Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting study. Definitely a point for further research. I admit, particularly since we are dealing with a vaccine where the true therapeutic effects will take decades to come to light, I'm glad that it's going to be some years before my daughter is old enough to receive it. That allows us some time for more safety data to come in. 

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I'm glad that it's going to be some years before my daughter is old enough to receive it. That allows us some time for more safety data to come in. 

Isn't this unethical though - not about you, but in general ... ?

How many will be vaxed from now till there's enough safety data?  At this point, how can one predict how safe/unsafe the vax is?  How many of those vaxed or will be vaxed are aware that they're in the group that will establish the safety/un-safety of this vax?

Why not "recall" the vax instead?  Perhaps make the vax an option for hi-risk individuals with full disclosure of known possible side effects?  And meanwhile do more studies too?

[erigeron]

That's the problem with any new drug or treatment, though, and there's not a lot that can be done about it. Even after it is tested in clinical trials before approval, the fact does remain that some people are going to be in the early users group, and I don't think most people really want to be in that group unless it is for some really dire condition (say, for a new cancer treatment when they've already tried existing ones). But it's just the way it is. Gardasil is judged safe and effective by the FDA now, but I'm totally okay with the fact that we will not be vaccinating until a lot more data is in, as our daughter is only 1 year old right now. 

Recalling the vax based on one study of two people seems like overkill to me. 

[MamaMunchkin]

Just wondering ... if 2 people die eating some contaminated food ... does the food company/distributor/grocery store have to do a recall?  Or is this done voluntarily?  Also, do they have to do that after the cause of deaths are confirmed, or do they have to do that as precaution?

What is the law, anyway?  Are companies obliged to recall the product in this case?  Or is it state government, federal government?

Another thing - would any of the parties in the food scenario be liable to lawsuit if they don't recall the product?

One crucial distinction is vax manufacturer cannot be sued ... what about some prescription-only medication?  What's the law regarding this?  Do different states have different laws? How is it in different countries?

I believe hi-risk group should have the option to have access to vaxes, drugs, treatments - experimental, or otherwise - they have the right to take any risk they like.  However, given that this vax is preventative and is marketed to public make things a bit more complicated.  If one doesn't belong to the hi-risk demographics, given this info - would they still choose to vax?  Perhaps yes, perhaps not - regardless, it'd be ideal to know before deciding.  So, then, the question is - why is this not more widely known?  Is it because the info is still in its early stage?  Further confirmation needed?  Or something else?  Or who knows?

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 10/26/12 at 1:11pm

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

That's the problem with any new drug or treatment, though, and there's not a lot that can be done about it. Even after it is tested in clinical trials before approval, the fact does remain that some people are going to be in the early users group, and I don't think most people really want to be in that group unless it is for some really dire condition (say, for a new cancer treatment when they've already tried existing ones). 

I totally agree with this. And it is a large part of what concerns me over vaccines in general. They're approved and bam- immediately our kids become part of that early user group. And if that group of early users is so large that it encompasses all of my child's cohort, how can we accurately spot trends attributable to the new drug? Guardasil is not one of those made mandatory for school attendance, so parents have more choice with this one, but what about others? I don't want my kid to be a guinea pig for any drug at all.

[prosciencemum]

OK, so both the original links are blog articles on anti-vaccination websites citing the same study. There are so many factual inaccuracies in both of them that I won't bother to critique those opinion pieces on the implications of this one study (I'd rather keep my blood pressure a bit more even on a grey rainy Monday morning).

So I clicked through to the study. Slight conflict of interest seems to be raised at the end - this is research funded by foundations set up by parents who believe their children were vaccine injured, or are called a "mystic healing" foundation. 

I always think it's ironic that the first Google hit for Dwoskin gets you to the Wikipedia page of Stephen Dwoskin (no link to the foundation as far as I'm aware) a British filmaker who was wheelchair bound due to contracting polio as a child... but that's OT. 

Katyln Fox is a little girl whose parents believe passed away due to vaccine reactions. (http://katlynfoxfoundation.com/?page_id=2). Very sad that she died. 

Lotusfoundation.com had malware (according to my computer) so I did not visit it, just read the tagline on Google (mystic healing). 

Quote:

This work was supported by the Dwoskin, Lotus and Katlyn Fox Family 

Foundations. 

So it looks a bit like they were trying to find proof vaccines cause injuries, but conflict of interest like this doesn't mean necessarilly it's bad science, so I'll keep looking. 

There's a skeptical review of the paper posted on this blog: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/another-bogus-anti-vaccination-paper/

You might not like the tone of the blog, but it raises some important objections to statements in the abstract. 

 And it makes me very concerned about the motivations of the scientists who wrote the paper. Every single paper they've published recently finds results which support anti-vaccination points of view. And they seem to ignore in their papers (ie. don't reference) any study which disagrees and shows HPV is safe and effective (and there are a bunch, for example these two: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/24/infdis.jis590.full http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1363509). 

 So I am curious as to their motivations (fame seeking - jumping into the vaccination wars a sure fire way to get noticed for example...). I

[erigeron]

The one skepticalraptor is responding to isn't the same one as in some of the links. Full text of the autopsy study is here. http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Tomljenovic-Shaw-Gardasil-Causal-Coincidental-2167-7689-S12-001.pdf

[emma1325]

Are conflicts of interest of concern only if they are on the anti-vaccine side? 

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

OK, so both the original links are blog articles on anti-vaccination websites citing the same study. There are so many factual inaccuracies in both of them that I won't bother to critique those opinion pieces on the implications of this one study (I'd rather keep my blood pressure a bit more even on a grey rainy Monday morning).

So I clicked through to the study. Slight conflict of interest seems to be raised at the end - this is research funded by foundations set up by parents who believe their children were vaccine injured, or are called a "mystic healing" foundation. 

I always think it's ironic that the first Google hit for Dwoskin gets you to the Wikipedia page of Stephen Dwoskin (no link to the foundation as far as I'm aware) a British filmaker who was wheelchair bound due to contracting polio as a child... but that's OT. 

Katyln Fox is a little girl whose parents believe passed away due to vaccine reactions. (http://katlynfoxfoundation.com/?page_id=2). Very sad that she died. 

Lotusfoundation.com had malware (according to my computer) so I did not visit it, just read the tagline on Google (mystic healing). 

So it looks a bit like they were trying to find proof vaccines cause injuries, but conflict of interest like this doesn't mean necessarilly it's bad science, so I'll keep looking. 

There's a skeptical review of the paper posted on this blog: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/another-bogus-anti-vaccination-paper/

You might not like the tone of the blog, but it raises some important objections to statements in the abstract. 

 And it makes me very concerned about the motivations of the scientists who wrote the paper. Every single paper they've published recently finds results which support anti-vaccination points of view. And they seem to ignore in their papers (ie. don't reference) any study which disagrees and shows HPV is safe and effective (and there are a bunch, for example these two: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/24/infdis.jis590.full http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1363509). 

 So I am curious as to their motivations (fame seeking - jumping into the vaccination wars a sure fire way to get noticed for example...). I

Edited by emma1325 - 11/5/12 at 7:51am

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Do conflicts of interest only bother you if they are on the anti-vaccine side? 

Conflicts of interest are very complicated with regard to research. It's hard to tell sometimes how objective a study is that has potential conficts of interest. A confliict of interest alone is not enought rto dismiss te science in an article in my opinion, but it is something which raises a flag. You'll notice I didn't just dismiss the science out of hand when I noticed it was funded by organizations with an agenda to prove vaccinations are unsafe. I continued to examine the study iteself, and concluded that in addition to the conflicts of interest there were other problems.

[Mosaic]

Emma, edit your post. Your comment was targeted at an individual and not at the topic.