HPV vaccination Gardasil kills three New Zealand girls and debilitates hundreds of others
By Jenese James

Serious adverse reactions are striking down and killing young kiwi girls after having the HPV vaccination Gardasil – As the global death rate escalates similar deaths and illness are now replicating throughout New Zealand

This is a huge story that in order to expose fully will be covered in two or three parts

This is part one

Three girls have died in their sleep – including Jasmine Renata. However only Jasmines details are available at this time – The two other young girls privacy will be respected until their parents wish to talk about it.

Eighteen year old Jasmine died September 22nd 2009 - the New Zealand Herald was first to break the story on 11th December and on the 9th January 2010 the Heralds Saturday paper carried the story of her mother Rhonda who knows beyond doubt that Jasmines Gardasil HPV vaccination caused her healthy and fit young daughter to die in her sleep – her case is well documented – see documentation here 

Those of us who have been watching the devastation the HPV vaccination is having on the lives and families of young girls/women across the globe have also been waiting. It was just a matter of time once New Zealand bought into the HPV program that we would begin to see the same devastating health affects begin to replicate in our girls; Gardasil was introduced in New Zealand 1st September 2008.

To bring yourself up to speed read my previous two articles on Gardasil 

Gardasil – The Great HVP Vaccination Exposed 

and

Gardasil Ingredient Caused Sterility In Lab Rats

On the 9th of July 2008 I wrote an article critiquing TV Ones News report on Gardasil – What TV One news did NOT tell you – They had visited the same sites as I had and yet they chose to omit the growing numbers of death and severe adverse reactions – thus through their calculated and deliberate omissions they gave parents a false sense of reassurance by repeating consistent industry speak about how safe the vaccine was – Instead of warning parents TV one became a mouth piece for pharmaceutical and MoH agendas.

In other words they sold out the parents and young girls of New Zealand by not telling the whole story only selected parts – scripted parts that continue to be taken as gospel in the face of emerging reality – and everyone knows – that if its on the tele – it must be true aye !! or that government agencies wouldn’t lie or do anything to harm us or that TV reporters and researchers wouldn’t let their pay packets get in the way of the truth 

On the 19 of August TV One’s web site carried another news item reiterating the ‘safety’ of the HPV vaccination - at that time Dr Stewart Jessamine from Medsafe was quoted as saying

Gardasil – Dodgy Science – Follow the money trail
By Jenese James
107 views


The NZ Family Planning Association received $614,000 from Merck Sharp & Dohmen in 2008 …. $650,795 was given in 2009, an overall increase of 600% since they started promoting the HPV vaccine Gardasil.


Part II

When the HPV vaccination first came on the New Zealand market its $450 price tag for a series of three vaccinations was somewhat off putting. Sales were slow; this was the case all over the world. One of the ways to boost revenue for slow drug sales is to lobby the government into buying them. The FPA actively lobbied for New Zealand to buy into the trend; a guaranteed income for drug sales and Merck rewarded them well. Nothing wrong with that you say – perhaps …but….

In the face of mounting evidence and a rising tide of dead and injured girls, would this amount of funding negate speaking against Gardasil and the MoH vaccination program? 1

FPA Financial records –  2008 an 2009 scroll to end of report

Doctors offices all round the country are sending out letters to the target group of girls: But It’s not just one letter it’s three or in some cases four.

There seems to be a good deal of pressure being put on the parents of young girls and women to have the HPV vaccination by Doctors offices and schools. Could it be because the MoH is paying good money to get as much of the target demographic as possible: An entire generation of girls.

The Manawatu Standard under the heading - Schools hand girls' info to health board - By JANINE RANKIN reported that the privacy of hundreds of girls are being breached by schools giving pupils personal contact details to District Health Boards – why? – Could it be there’s a ca$h incentive.

In early 2009 Ian Wishart, in a piece entitled Schools Bribed to market Vaccines reported that…

“A letter sent by the Ministry of Education to school principals this week states that “To recognize the role that schools play in the program, the Ministry of Health will provide a one-off support payment to participating schools…the Ministry of Education will assist in the funding transfer to schools, by placing the Ministry of Health funds in participating schools’ accounts in April 2009, with the identifier, ‘HPV Payment’.”…..he goes on to say ….that …..“The letter, published first on a major blog site, discloses a base payment of between $200 and $300 per school depending on whether they have Year 8 classes, plus an additional $2.50 per female student eligible to receive the vaccine (years 8 to 13).
Some larger high schools could receive cash payments totaling several thousand dollars if they allow schools to be used to market and administer the vaccine to children.”


How neutral are these schools and district health boards in the face of the disturbing deaths and illness now replicating around New Zealand?

Will they withdraw their support?  We all know how underfunded schools are.

Who will speak out for the girls that have died and those now suffering debilitating adverse affects?

Remember all these girls and their parents were PRO vaccination.

We know whose speaking out for the Vaccine

We know it won’t be the main stream media which is the reason why so many citizen media sites and blogs have grown up over the years and why so many documentary films have been made and now doing the rounds in homes, bars, cafes, and other places, relying only on word of mouth.

Mainstream news controls what you see and hear; and by consequence the way you think and the things you believe or buy into.

As witnessed by ‘ What TV One news did NOT tell you” 

This Mainstream News channel, instead of warning parents of the dangers emerging overseas they deliberately gave parents a false sense of security by reiterating the standard ‘it’s ok ‘ response echoing around the world from both big Business and government health officials. They gave no warning that anything was amiss despite seeing the same information that I did and despite the rising tide of concern growing overseas at that time. They continue to do so.

Why?

Lets look at Reuters a ‘highly’ respected News agency that feeds the worlds dailies. It reported that few serious side effects were observed during trials conducted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials to promote Merck's HPV vaccine, Gardasil. That news went all over the world even as young girls where dying and their health was ebbing away – and it is still happening right now.

Only a little digging, discovers that Thomas H. Glocer, the media mogul CEO of Reuters News Service is also director of Merck & Co Inc . He is also partnered with David Rockefeller in the worlds leading biotechnology trust called "Partnership for New York City (PFNYC). " Members of this trust advance the worlds largest companies creating global drug markets.” 

The hype coming out of the US via its news media is just that - hype – but its highly influential hype.

“Another instance of direct conflict of interest and vested interest comes from the influential US News & World Report, where vaccine industrialist and media mogul, Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief uses his publication to propagate the safety of the HPV vaccination. Mortimer Zuckerman advances vaccine research and development at the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Research Center (MBZRC) in association with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Rockefeller University. The US News & World Report editor is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, largely directed by his partner, the honorary PNYC founder, David Rockefeller.”

And what are we to make of Mercks latest acquisition

Former CDC director Gerberding to lead Merck Vaccines

Who owns the media is an interesting story but not one that is within the scope of this commentary – however here is a snippet

“Who Owns The Media in NZ” by Professor Bill Rosenberg 

“In 1993, the London-based magazine “Index on Censorship” commented on the news media in Australia that Australians were “losing some of their liberty to dissent at a time when the country is undergoing profound changes and the need to ventilate dissent is critical. The causes of the weakening of dissent are not for the most part, the imposition of legal limits. Rather the chief cause is a potent increase in the concentration of media control in a few hands.” Saying the Australian media was being “colonised by new global powers”, it named Rupert Murdochs News Corporation and Conrad Black as dominating the Australian press. Kerry Packer as dominating magazines and television and Packer and Murdoch as about to dominate pay television. If the concentration of control in Australia in 1993 was leading to a loss of liberty to dissent at a critical time in Australia, the loss is even more likely in New Zealand today.”….

and

“There is mounting evidence that journalists are experiencing unacceptable pressure to change what they write. A 2007 survey of 514 New Zealand journalists reported in the Pacific Journalism Review 568 found that more than half of those that answered this question [on commercial pressures and media freedom] (55%, n=213) agreed that newsrooms had been pressured to do a story because it related to an advertiser, owner, or sponsor”

Which is why you would never have heard the information that follows in the Mainstream media. Thus your ‘informed’ choice is limited to what Main stream media tells you unless you take the time and do your own research.

Prestigious and trusted peer reviewed medical journals have also been affected 

Vaccine Studies: Under the Influence of big Pharma

This report reveals ….“In Conclusion Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.”

Meaning it’s not the quality of the science or even the accuracy of the science – that falls by the way side - it’s all about the MONEY!!

Further in the article the writer comments ……“It is time for medical journals to disclose all financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It is time for studies questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to receive a fair hearing. In scientific journals rather than editors confining themselves to primarily publishing studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry maintaining that every vaccine is totally safe, effective and necessary……..Kudos to the British Medical Journal for having the integrity to publish Jefferson's comprehensive analysis of pharmaceutical money influence on vaccine studies published in the medical literature.”

The Truth is that as far back as 2001 it was known that HPV alone DID NOT cause cancer. This is NOT what the hype says about Gardasil – they HYPE says that it does which is why you MUST get this vaccine

The minuets from the FDA Biological Products Advisory Committee, 28th November 2001, clearly lay it out when Dr Elizabeth R. Unger stated…

"So it is believed that infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer, and additional factors are required for neoplasia.” (Means literally new growth, usually refers to abnormal new growth and thus means the same as tumor, which may be benign or malignant.)

Report available here (p. 21)

This is at the core of Merck$ Billion dollar $cam and because it is so important I will quote verbatim a news letter by Cancer Monthly dated December 10th 2007.

Gardasil - the Cervical Cancer Vaccine - FDA Approval Not Based On Actual Cancer Prevention 

“The FDA-approved cervical cancer vaccine "Gardasil," has been debated for a number of reasons including its cost of $360 (plus the cost of doctors visits to get the shots) and the fact that it is approved for young girls and the moral and sexual implications associated with this. Up until recently however, no one challenged the vaccine on the grounds of its presumed safety and efficacy. The fact that it is FDA approved was considered prima facie evidence that the vaccine is both safe and effective.
We must remember however, that the FDA approved Gardasil is an agency with countless conflicts of interest that has approved drugs and vaccines that were later found to be dangerous or deadly such as Vioxx and RotaShield.”

* Note – both these cases reveal the same thing happening again with Gardasil

“When Cancer Monthly began looking at the research that enabled this "cervical cancer vaccine" to receive FDA approval we were astounded to find that this approval was not based on the vaccine's actual prevention of cervical cancer. Instead a surrogate was used - precancerous lesions. We were pleased to see a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that echoed these same issues - "Questions on Efficacy Cloud a Cancer Vaccine" April 16, 2007; Page A1. The WSJ stated, "The Food and Drug Administration didn't ask its panel of experts advising on Gardasil to rule on whether the vaccine specifically prevented the cancer itself." 

Cancer Not Measured

“How effective is Gardasil in decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer? 100%? 50%? No one really knows because this question has not yet been answered.

As of today, the Gardasil vaccine has never been proven to decrease the actual incidence of cervical cancer. In the studies that led to the vaccine's approval, the incidence of cervical cancer was not measured. Instead CIN (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) 2/3 and AIS (adenocarcinoma in situ) were used as the surrogate markers for prevention of cervical cancer because according to the vaccine's insert "CIN 2/3 and AIS are the immediate and necessary precursors of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix, respectively." While this is true it is also true that CIN 2/3 and AIS usually do not lead to cancer. For example, according to published data, CIN2 only leads to invasive carcinoma 5% of the time and CIN3 only leads to invasive carcinoma 12% of the time.

HPV Alone Insufficient to Cause Cancer
In addition, Gardasil is targeted against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) (types 6, 11, 16, and 18). However, during discussions at the FDA it was admitted that HPV alone is insufficient to cause cancer. Dr. Elizabeth Unger of the Centers for Disease Control stated, "So it is believed that infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer, and additional factors are required for neoplasia.

There are certainly lots of questions about HPV infection

This point is echoed in the medical text book Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology whose editors include Dr. Vincent DeVita, Jr. who was President of the National Cancer Institute and Dr. Steven Rosenberg, Chief of Surgery at the National Cancer Institute. According to this text,
"HPV infection is not sufficient for cervical carcinogenesis.

HPV the Correct Target?

This is of course quite rational. If HPV alone caused cervical cancer then the number of cases in the U.S. would be the same as the number of women with HPV infections. Since only a relatively small percentage of HPV infected women get cervical cancer this raises the question whether a vaccine against HPV is the right target at all?

In fact, according to the text Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology, "In most studies, HPV status was not a strong independent prognosticator of outcome in cervical cancer patients; however there appears to be a trend for HPV-negative tumors to do worse …those tumors containing HPV DNA tend to be of an early stage and low grade." This suggests that if the goal is to reduce deaths from cervical cancer the target should not be HPV at all because the tumors without HPV actually "do worse."

Concern at the FDA

Obviously a vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer should have measured cervical cancer during testing, but it did not.

During meetings at the FDA, Dr. Karen Goldenthal of the FDA discussed this very point. She said, "Now, here is some advantages of cervical cancer as an endpoint. Clearly the major concern is cervical cancer. This would be viewed as very, very definitive data, and it may be easier to identify any unanticipated vaccine associated problems. "Nonetheless, the FDA did not require that the actual number of cervical cancers be measured.”

As a result we now have an FDA approved "cervical cancer vaccine" that is yet unproven to reduce or prevent cervical cancer.

Leap of Faith

As quoted in the Wall Street Journal article, Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington who sat on the FDA advisory committee, says he's not persuaded the vaccine is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in coming years.   "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical-cancer rates in this country is another question entirely…There is a leap of faith involved," Dr. Emerson said.”     END

*See end notes in article proper. 

Professor Scott Emerson is not the only one thinking and saying such a thing. The vaccines chief researcher no less has said similar and more 

Dr. Diane Harper. The recipient of a Masters Degree in Public Health, is a Professor and Vice-Chair of Research at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, specializing in Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bioinformatics and Personalized Medicine.

Dr Harper is an international expert on HPV, which was why she became the lead researcher in the Gardasil clinical trails. She has a bit more intimate relationship with the vaccine than many other commentators.   Dr Harper has been a consistent voice speaking out about its dangers and shortcomings including an interview on NZ National Radio when Gardasil was about to be released here. There are numerous articles on what she has said, the most recent from the Huffington Post, US, December 2009

Note - Read entire interview as I will only take out relevant bits for the purpose of this article

An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV Expert 

Right off the bat she says...

"The most important point that I have always said from day one, is that the use of this vaccine must be done with informed consent and complete disclosure of the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines. The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman's (or parent's if it is for a young child), and not the physician's or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value.”

We know that this isn’t happening; only the benefits are being focused on and the harm minimized or ignored completely. Any one who tries to talk about the side affects and dangers is dismissed and put down as an “anti vaccination liar.” We know that both parents and young girls are under pressure from all sides including peer pressure at school with the slogan – “be wise – Immunize” – a catchy little propaganda phrase.

Remember however that all these parents and girls were once PRO vaccination. 

The interview

Interviewer - “Do you believe that the Gardasil vaccine, as it currently stands, could present more risks to a young girl or woman than the possibility of cervical cancer?

Dr Harper - "Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone. ….Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit. Only risk for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.”

That’s worth repeating ….If the vaccine does NOT last for at least 15 years, and we know it DOESN’T it lasts for only 5 years – Then there is NO benefit and only RISK …..the vaccine will NOT reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer !!

Continue on and you will read evidence that Gardasil may actually increase the cervical cancer rate in the years to come.

What else has Dr Harper got to say

Interviewer“Has the original Gardasil marketing campaign of "one less" muddied the waters and misinformed the public, who heretofore believed that a Pap smear was sufficient to protect them from cervical cancer?”

Dr Harper - “Yes, the marketing campaign was designed to incite the greatest fear possible in parents, so that there would be uptake of the vaccine.”

And we are seeing how the pressure has been put on girls and parents in New Zealand. Fear has been the prime motivator of all government agencies to get people to buy into and support various agendas. Its always been used in selling vaccinations to parents through fear and guilt.

Interviewer – “Could you clarify the content and context of the statements that you made at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in October 2009, which have been so widely read and misquoted? Specifically the reported quote, "The rate of serious adverse effects is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Dr Harper - "The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women. This is what I said."

Ok lets stop a minuet and review that sentence. What would this relate to in New Zealand? Since I am hopeless at math’s I found someone who had already worked it out – big thanks to you Cathy van Miert

Gardasil - The Mercky World of Anti-Cancer Vaccines

“How much does "One Less" cost???

The current incidence (new cases per year) of cervical cancer in NZ is 14 per 100,000 women - and one in three will die from the disease.

The cost of the 3 vaccinations required is $450.00. Once the GP fees are included (around $50.00 per visit) the total cost is roughly $600.00.

GSK's (glaxo Smith and Klien) rival cervical cancer vaccine was shown to have "efficacy [antibodies in the blood] for up to 4.5 years". If we assume Merck's vaccine to be slightly superior, and generously allow up to 5 years protection (and it is a big if) and then calculate the number of HPV 16 and 18 associated cancer incidence:

14 X 70% (HPV-associated cervical cancer) = 9.8 cases per 100,000
9.8 X 30% (non HPV 16, 18-associated cervical cancer = 2.94 per 100,000
9.8 - 2.94 = 6.9 per 100,000 women per year with an HPV16,18-associated cervical cancer
6.9 per 100,000 equates to a 1 in 14,492 chance per year of getting the type of cancer associated with the strains of HPV in the Gardasil vaccine.

Put another way, 14,492 females would have to be vaccinated to prevent one case of cervical cancer:

14,492 X $600 = $1,739,040
5 years

$1,739,040 X 3 = $5,217,120

To possibly prevent one death from cervical cancer”


 At the conference itself Dr Harper gave more revelations. This is a first hand account

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing

“Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us…… “Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.”
“If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.”

And this …..

Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell the US Bulletin October 2009

“This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”…..At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said:

“I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

Here are some more disturbing FACTS about the actual HPV virus that few want you to know

“Thomas R Broker, President of the International Papillomavirus Society, made this comment1 at a talk:

“Papillomavirus is in, effectively, all the vertebrates: snakes, amphibians, birds, and almost all the mammals. This virus coevolved with the vertebrate kingdom, and it’s just part of what it is to be alive. It’s a virus that’s extraordinarily successful at persisting and passing itself down to the next generation not just in people but in any animal you’ve ever seen. So it’s something we just have to deal with.”

And

“There is a very large transfer of the virus amongst children and this study concluded that HPV?16 DNA in children’s’ mouths was a transient event, and that the virus is most probably acquired from their peers.

In a 1994 study which found perinatal transmission of HP viruses 16 and 18 in 55% of babies, the authors cautioned that, “Information on the persistence of perinatally acquired human papillomavirus is required before rational vaccination programmes can be considered.”

Persistent HPV 16 and HPV 18 infection10 was found in infants in 1995, which led to those authors saying: “the observation that infection with high cancer risk genital HPVs may occur in early life and persist is of considerable importance for HPV vaccine strategies.”

In 1996 11 different researchers found the same thing, and listed studies which found HP16 viruses in children whose mothers did not have evidence of HP16.

Again, in 1998 researchers said: “Thus the traditional view that cervical cancer associated HPV infections are primarily sexually transmitted needs to be re? assessed...These facts are pertinent to those developing prophylactic vaccines to prevent high?risk HPV infections and cervical carcinoma.”


See studies here

Dr Thomas Broker continues: “So, we know there are a huge number of these viruses, perhaps millions, and every time they turned around to look at someone, they found a new type.” He went on to say: “We also know that in the developed world, herpes viruses which cause clinical problems are mainly a problem for people whose immune systems are suppressed somehow.”

Researcher writer and concerned mother Cynthia Janak also came to this realisation via her investigation into Gardasil. In her article dated August 8th, 2009 and entitled Pandemic of Harm She explains

“Out of 1,000,000 females the likelihood of exposure to HPV at some time in their early lives is 97.4%. That gives us 974,000 females who may have been exposed to HPV previous to inoculation. If 44.6% of those females are at a greater risk of later life cervical cancer after inoculation then we will have 434,404 young women who by the time they reach middle age and have families could acquire cervical cancer via a persistent infection with HPV types in the vaccines.

This makes perfect sense when you look at the reports of genital warts popping up in young girls who are not sexually active after inoculation. To me this means that HPV is present in the body in some way because of prior exposure. …..

“In my opinion, what we have done by allowing this vaccination program to continue is that we have just put 97.4% of our youth at risk for cervical cancer”.

Sadly Cynthia and others just may be right.

And what about Menstruation ?

Vaccinating Teens During Menstrual Phase May Increase Adverse Reactions

“Every cycling woman, who is aware of the changes that her body goes through prior to menstruation, knows that she is more prone to infections, colds, fatigue, irritability and a general feeling of malaise at this time. All of these issues are a direct result of hormonal changes that are cycling through her entire body, from the brain right on down to the uterus. Why haven’t the clinical researchers, FDA/CDC oversight committees, gynecologists, pediatricians or family practice physicians who have approved and administered Gardasil® considered how the injection of this chemical cocktail might affect a still maturing female body that is least able to defend itself during the paramenstrum?”

Gardasil is also one of the first vaccinations that is genetically engineered

“Gardasil is made with GE virus-like proteins (VLP) that are obviously not the same as the HPV proteins and only resemble them," said Claire Bleakley, President of GE Free NZ in food and environment. "This raises the possibility of allergic reactions and changes in the immune system.”

And why are our doctors not aware of what’s going on. One answer can be found in the heading of this article. If your selling Gardasil your not going to want Dr’s to take notice of any criticism are you so you wont tell them will you 

74% OF PHYSICIANS LOOK TO PHARMACEUTICAL REPRESENTATIVES TO STAY INFORMED ABOUT MEDICATIONS.

“Physicians have spoken and reps DO have a pivotal role in keeping physicians informed. According to a recent survey of physicians, 74% of respondents said they rely on pharmaceutical companies and their reps to stay informed about medications to treat certain conditions. The online survey conducted by S&R Communications Group also found that physicians considered gaining insightful information from representatives to be a higher priority than searching for relevant information on the web or through the FDA.”

NONE of this information is NEW – it’s been doing the rounds of news and health sites, blogs and alt radio shows for a few years now.

As seen in part one – web sites with forums for affected girls and their parents are everywhere and they make for sad reading as mothers feel guilt and devastation. After all they did what they were told was good for their daughters, they trusted the government, they trusted the MoH and they trusted their Doctors. Now that the money is in the bank no one wants to know them. Most doctors scoff at the idea that the sacred cow of medicine – a vaccine – could be responsible for any harm especially one that industry reps assured them is totally safe, side affect free and will be the he best thing since sliced bread. Thus mothers/parents and the suffering girls have zero support or voice.

Will ‘Inside New Zealand or 60 Minuets or Sunday contact these mothers, will they do a balanced piece giving significance to those whose voices are ‘off the radar’?

Will they put all this evidence on the table and do some real investigative journalism and tell the truth of these girls stories? Only time will tell, but please – don’t hold your breath.

Meanwhile Merck has protected itself from any liability for your daughters death or injury in what Erin Brockovich calls ……. 

“About as big a tort reform as I have ever seen.”

She goes on to say ….“I do not believe the big drug companies should be able to do what they want to do, unchecked. The high ceiling of damages is about the only thing that can touch, reach and affect a huge corporation. The problem with tort reform is that it is legislation designed to reduce liability costs through limits on damages and modification of liability rules. Simply, that means reducing the damage to fat cat Merck who has made upward of a billion and a half in profits, leaving behind a marketing battlefield scattered with the shells of sick and dying girls. (Even ONE is too many--what if she were YOUR daughter?) This kind of reform is meant to protect the corporation and allow them to keep raking in money hand over fist--over the bodies of our injured daughters.”

Speaking of making money hand over fist, did you know that the world actually has a Cervical Cancer Market? Yes you heard right but that’s the way the world does business these days – nothing personal its just all about money – your daughters are the pharmaceutical corporations cash cow.


The Cervical Cancer Market is Forecast to Show Significant Growth until 2016

In the face of all this evidence what can you do?
Remember your rights

Right 6: the right to be fully informed.
Right 7: the right to make an informed choice and give informed consent.

If you’re a concerned parent contact these web sites listed below. (both links are directories)
Seek registered alternative health care providers such as homeopaths  and naturopaths. 

It may be the only chance your daughter has of regaining her health

Vist these sites for help and advice

www.offtheradar
www.beyondconformity.co.nz
Women’s health action trust

 Read “GARDASIL – CARTWRIGHT’S DAUGHTER?” by Lynda Williams. An aptly named speech given at the annual luncheon to commemorate one of the biggest scams New Zealand had ever seen - The Cervical Cancer Scam.

Write to your local newspaper – send this article to your doctor – local MP – gather as much information as you can and pass it round. Stand strong in the face of ignorance and being seen as an ‘anti’ vaccination’ activist which you will probably be accused.

What we need to remember is that if people stop buying into the fear campaigns i.e. educate and don’t vaccinate - then there is no market. It is via the support of the masses i.e. buying into the hype and the fear that drives it - that big business continues to thrive.

I challenge all health official’s who are dispensing this vaccination to read this article, follow the links. Do your own research instead of buying into pharmaceutical spin and to take off your professional mask and stand in your humanness and speak out to the parents of affected girls – or have an open and public debate about this issue.

I know from experience that most health professionals are beautiful people who think that what they are doing is right and good, thus they fully believe the spin, support the spin and promote the spin without ever fully looking into the ‘other’ side of the spin – the victims side.   Its time for change.

Too much damage has been done already, and given what we know about the science and the history of pharmaceutical companies this vaccination needs to be STOPPED –and an official enquiry held and compensation paid to the families of affected girls NOW before we start seeing a real version of – “the children of men” that if we don’t wake up – could one day be our future 

Post Script.

Over the last couple of days and just before I post this article, a few timely news items
Merck has now been given permission to expand its Billon dollar bus$nes$$ to include your sons and all females from the age of 12 – to 45 years

Britain apologizes 50 years after Thalidomide scandal

Prompting Thalidomide UK to remind us that ….

“The thalidomide disabilities was man-made by a drug, which could have been so easily avoided if the manufactures and suppliers had carried out the adequate testing on the drug. Those who were responsible for the marketing of the drug did not have a care for human life.”

Sixty years later - same story – different decade - new generation – déjà Vu

Other headlines that should alert our authorities that something is seriously wrong

ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH CALLS FOR AN URGENT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY INTO THE HPV VACCINE USED IN THE UK 

EXCLUSIVE: EXPERTS CAST DOUBT ON CLAIM FOR ‘WONDER’ CANCER JABS

And this, just so you know that they really don’t give a flying F%$# – they have enough money to fight anything

Seven billion dollars in fines for big pharma since May 2004... and they keep breaking the law

We now know that Gardasil is far from being adequately tested and its long-term affects are unknown. We do know however that it has the ability to cause large scale sterility, disability and death.
Counter act the MoH slogan ‘Be wise – Immunize”
with

Investigate before you vaccinate

** I would like to thank all those that helped me piece this article together – you know who you are – many thanks to all of you for posting it in other places and sending it far and wide.

I would like to dedicated this article to all the girls and young women who have lost their lives and those who are now suffering adverse reactions

Aroha whanie - it is the creative force that comes forth from the spirit 

Gardasil – Will it cause a Cervical Cancer pandemic?
By Jenese James

WARNING: All those who have had this vaccine are now warned to go and get a pap smear - There are over 200 events reported to the American Adverse affects VARES detailing abnormal pap smears in girls who have had Merck’s HPV Vaccination Gardasil…. Its just a matter of time before we see the same thing happen here.

Here in New Zealand we are already witnessing the same rising death toll and debilitating illness as those experienced by other young girls and women in every country that this toxic (deadly) vaccine has been approved.

And like other health officials globally - New Zealand health officials remain tight lipped and very pro vaccine even in the face of incredible evidence gathered by mothers and girls themselves.

NO ONE is listening

NO ONE in official circles gives a dam and are to busy protecting the interests of Big Busine$$ - they tend to dismiss the deaths, the adverse affects debilitating illness of over 200 young women (according to CARM) as not significant.

Schools are bullying young girls into getting this - Read this interesting article based on an Auckland experience

HPV vaccine and the school-based vaccination programme: A mother and daughter share their story

A mother and daughter agreed to share their story of how the pressure to participate in the Gardasil school-based vaccination programme led to a full-scale argument between them and ongoing hostility.”

There are reports coming through of Doctors offices ignoring the instructions given by the manufacturer NOT to give to pregnant women – they didn’t listen and there have been miscarriages - and not to give to those with known allergies - they didn't listen 

Vaccination is NOT the same as immunization although the same toxic ingredients are included

"Vaccination involves intoxication and hypersensitization of the immune system. Alternatively, 'immunization' classically involves natural, not man-made genetically-engineered, exposures to germs. The two terms have been purposely confused and falsely promoted in the media to mean the same."

Why are our health officials ignoring what is happening over seas – why are doctors offices, district health boards not bothering to do their research?

It seems they are all content to protect their investment and would rather ‘protect’ big pharma than the lives and health of young kiwi girls.

The evidence is clear – Gardasil is dangerous and will result not only in death and debilitating illness but in a possible pandemic of cervical cancer – the evidence is slowly growing.

Please read my last article for the dodgy science related to this dangerous vaccine

HPV vaccine and the school-based vaccination programme:

A mother and daughter share their story 

A mother and daughter agreed to share their story of how the pressure to participate in the Gardasil school-based vaccination programme led to a full-scale argument between them and ongoing hostility.

The daughter, Kay * is in Year 8 at a primary school. Earlier this year, Kay, together with her friends, attended the education session run by the public health nurse at school about the ‘cervical cancer’ vaccination programme. Kay watched the DVD and listened to what the public health nurse had to say. Some months down the track Kay didn’t remember that much information from the DVD but she specifically recalled the girl coming home with the consent form for her mother, and the girl telling her mother she had to get it done. Of the presentation given by the public health nurse, Kay felt there was statistical information that wasn’t easy for her to understand; the public health nurse talked mainly about “how easily you can get it” and that it was important to “have it done.” Kay and her friend “were frightened we would get cervical cancer if we didn’t get the jab.”

Kay’s mother, Wendy * recalls Kay coming home and saying it was really important to be vaccinated and that “she had to get it done.” But Wendy wanted to delay any decision to vaccinate. She felt she still didn’t know enough about the vaccine and that in a couple of years time, when there was more data available, she would be better placed to make an informed decision. She was also concerned about the young age for vaccination, and the mixed messages around vaccinating against a sexually transmitted infection when it is illegal in this country to have sex under 16.

This disagreement led to a full-scale argument between Wendy and Kay.

Kay thought she had to “get it done” or she would get cervical cancer. She thought any of the additional information her mother raised with her regarding the vaccination programme was incorrect because she hadn’t heard it from the nurse.

Wendy filled out the Do Not Agree part of the consent form, indicating she would have Kay vaccinated at the doctor’s. But she acknowledged this was “a cop out” as she was wanting to avoid any potential confrontation with the public health nurse who might wish to challenge her decision. The consent form was returned to the school secretary.

Kay continued to pressure her mother about the decision. She falsely claimed she was the only one who wasn’t getting vaccinated to make her mother feel bad. She was under considerable pressure from her peers.

Nearer the time of the first round of vaccinations the school principal came into the classroom and made the girls who were being vaccinated, stand up in front of the class. She then made the girls who weren’t being vaccinated stand up, and each of them was asked, “why not?” Kay recalls feeling “stink” about this. It was nothing short of bullying on the part of the principal. What made it even worse was that her friends who were being vaccinated continued to ask “why she wasn’t getting it.” Kay said it made her feel as if her mother was going to let her get cervical cancer and perhaps die.

It’s not surprising there was ongoing anger and hostility between mother and daughter, given the lack of information, the misinformation, and the undue pressure that Kay was subjected to, not only from her friends but also the school principal.

It was only recently that both Kay and Wendy learned that Kay had until she was twenty years old to access the free programme. Immediately, the pressure came off, the hostility over the issue ended, and a more rational and informed discussion took place. And it was only then that Kay disclosed to her mother what the principal had done.

As phone calls to the AWHC office earlier in the year have confirmed, this story is not uncommon, and it highlights a number of very important issues: 

  • The risks of using a health promotion strategy that lacks balance, over-estimates the risk of developing cervical cancer, and is intended to frighten girls and young women into ill-informed compliance
  • The failure to provide parents and caregivers with sufficient and balanced information to counter any misinterpretation of the information provided in the classroom setting
  • The risks to family relationships when schools and public health nurses present information on vaccinations to students with the aim of gaining compliance rather than informed consent from both parents and their daughters
  • The risks to students of being subjected to peer pressure
  • The management within schools of the return and completing of consent forms
  • The bullying by school staff.

Acknowledgement.

The AWHC would like to thank both Kay and Wendy for sharing their story.

* Not their real names as their identities need to be protected. 
November 2009 

 

 

GARDASIL IN SCHOOLS –

BUT IS IT COST-EFFECTIVE?

As the economic situation worsens and the media peddles doom and gloom, the government is pressing ahead with its $160 million + school-based vaccination campaign to vaccinate all high school aged girls and young women. This despite the fact that there are still questions about the cost-benefit of the vaccine as well as whether it will be effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer.

In August 2008 an article by Dr Jane Kim and Dr Sue Goldie appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on the health and economic implications of the HPV vaccine in the United States. It concluded that the cost-effectiveness of the HPV vaccine depended on achieving an extremely high coverage of preadolescent girls and whether the vaccine-induced immunity is lifelong (emphasis added).(1)

In the same issue of the NEJM, Dr Charlotte J Haug, editor of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote “Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer.”

Commenting on Kim and Goldie’s model she wrote “Their base-case assumptions are quite optimistic. They presume lifelong protection of the vaccine (ie, no need for a booster dose), that the vaccine has the same effect on preadolescent girls as on older women, that no replacement with other oncogenic strains of HPV takes place, that vaccinated women continue to attend screening programs, and that natural immunity against HPV is unaffected. If the authors’ baseline assumptions are not correct, vaccination becomes less favourable and even less effective than screening alone…With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.” (2)

Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers on the vaccine, spoke on National Radio on Friday 1 August 2008 about her concerns over the pharmaceutical company’s marketing of the vaccine. She stated that there was evidence that the immunity to two of the HPV viruses that can cause cervical cancer was already showing signs of waning at 5 years. It is therefore extremely unlikely that this vaccine is going to provide the lifelong immunity needed to justify spending all these millions of dollars.

Last year the AWHC applied under the Official Information Act for information on the cost benefit analysis undertaken by the Ministry of Health on the HPV vaccine, but the documents sent to the Council had so many blank pages that it was impossible to ascertain what the facts were and whether the MOH had done their homework.

The AWHC has major concerns with the informational material being provided to parents, young teens, as well as the health professionals responsible for doing the actual injecting of the HPV vaccine. It is woefully inadequate, fudges important issues, and does not give accurate information about the concerns that some researchers have voiced about the vaccine. Last year a formal complaint was made to the Health & Disability Commissioner about the inadequate amount of information provided to parents during the MeNZB vaccination campaign, in the hope that the Ministry of Health would get its act together and undertake the Gardasil vaccination campaign with a heightened awareness of the need to strengthen the requirement to obtain informed consent and adhere to the standards required by the Code of Consumers’ Rights.

Unfortunately, the Gardasil campaign has all the hallmarks of the MeNZB vaccination campaign. Only this time the campaign is being conducted with aggressive marketing by the drug company, something that the New Zealand public was spared during the MeNZB campaign.

It therefore absolutely essential that parents and young women are told the following facts:
· 90% of those infected with HPV clear the infection within two years
· There is no proof that this vaccine will reduce the number of cases of cervical cancer
· Gardasil protects against only two of the dozen or so HPVs that can lead to cervical cancer
· Other varieties may in time come to replace HPV 16 and 18 as the major causes of cervical cancer
· Having regular cervical smears is the only proven method of preventing the development of cervical cancer
· In New Zealand deaths from cervcal cancer have reduced from 90 to 54 a year since the National Cervical Screening Programme (NCSP) was established in 1990.(3)
· Some researchers doubt that the immunity provided by the HPV vaccine will last much longer than five or six years
· Whether the Ministry of Health will pay for booster doses if needed
· As other countries have started vaccinating with Gardasil or Cervarix there have been increasing reports of a number of serious adverse events, including death (4) (5)

References:
1. Jane J Kim and Sue J Goldie. “Health and Economic Implications of HPV Vaccination in the United States” New England Journal of Medicine. 21 August 2008 35;8 821-832.
2. Charlotte J Haug. “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination – Reasons for Caution.” New England Journal of Medicine. 21 August 2008 35;8 861-862.
3. NCSP 2006 Annual Monitoring Report June 2008.
4. Julia Brotherton et al. “Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 9 Sept 2008 179(6)
5. www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/hpv.aspx

 

GARDASIL: AN EXPERIMENT ON GIRLS

The May 2007 issue of the AWHC Newsletter featured a report on the papers and articles that had appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on the subject of human papillomavirus (HPV) and Gardasil, the HPV vaccine developed by Merck that had been undergoing trials. The HPV vaccine has been shown to be effective against two HPV types – 16 and 18 – that are currently responsible for around 70% of all cervical cancers.

Reversing the previous year’s decision not to introduce an HPV vaccination programme in the immediate future, then Prime Minister Helen Clark and Health Minister David Cunliffe announced that the programme will be offered free to 300,000 young women aged 12 – 18 years from September 2008. This can only be seen as another political decision based on the desire to win an election rather than on sound evidence.

In August 2007, a commentary expressing concerns about Gardasil appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It was written by Dr Abby Lippman of McGill University’s Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Dr Ryan Melynchuk of Dalhousie University’s Department of Bioethics, Carolyn Shimmin, and Madeline Boscoe from the Canadian Women’s Health Network.

In the article the authors noted that information about the efficacy of Gardasil remains uncertain, that relatively few girls were enrolled in the vaccine’s clinical trials, and that the cost of the vaccine is one of the most expensive proposed for mass use. The issues they raised are applicable to New Zealand and are quoted below using references to New Zealand instead of Canada:

There is no epidemic
There is no epidemic of cervical cancer in New Zealand to warrant the sense of urgency for a vaccination programme. Both the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer have been declining in New Zealand. However, the incidence and mortality still vary between different groups of women, being notably higher among Maori and Pacific women than European women.

Cervical cancer is slow to progress
Invasive cervical cancer typically follows a slowly progressive course that can be halted at one of various stages. It usually takes more than a decade to develop cervical cancer.

HPV clears spontaneously
Most HPV infections are cleared spontaneously. Recent research using available molecular detection tech-nologies has suggested that clearance occurs within one year for about 70% of infected women, and within two years for 90%. Thus, HPV infection and cervical cancer must not be conflated: cervical cancer will not develop in most women who are infected with even a high-risk strain of HPV. Unfortunately, there are no data on clearance rates among girls, nor even about the actual HPV prevalence rates among youth and young children, yet this is critical information for developing, and subsequently evaluating, policy proposals.

Aim of vaccination programme
What exactly is the aim of the vaccination programme? Is it the eradication of high-risk HPV types from the population? Or is it to reduce the number of deaths from cervical cancer?

If the goal is the former then it is necessary to vaccinate boys and young men. If the latter is the goal then there is a need for a vaccine that is directed against more than the two high-risk HPV types in Gardasil. It is important to note that the potential exists for other HPV types to emerge to take the place of HPV types 16 and 18 in causing cervical cancer, given that there are more than a dozen HPV types that have the ability to result in the development of cervical cancer.

Information uncertain
Information about the efficacy of Gardasil remains uncertain. Its real-world effectiveness is even less clear. To date, only a handful of randomised controlled trials of sufficient quality to qualify for systematic review have been reported, and all of the reported HPV vaccine trials whether of Gardasil or its competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Effectiveness of the vaccine
The length of immunologic protection offered by the vaccine is unknown. Will boosters be needed, and if so, when? Other questions concern the possibility of short-term immunity altering the natural history of viral infection, as seems to be the situation with chicken pox.

There is also a lack of data on the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine when co-administered with other immunisations. As well, will such factors as a person’s nourishment, smoking status and general health influence the safety or usefulness of the HPV vaccine?

Few young girls in trials
Relatively few girls under the age of 15 years of age were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil, the youngest of whom were followed for only 18 months. Based on the assumption that they will not yet have been exposed to HPV viruses, girls in this age group represent the priority target population for mass vaccination. This is a thin information base on which to construct a policy of mass vaccination for all girls between 12 – 18 years.

The cost
Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for mass use. Where is the cost-effectiveness analyses of this vaccination programme that are needed to evaluate this expense? Girls and women will still need to practise safe sex and have regular smear tests. What is the impact on other health care priorities of devoting limited resources to this HPV vaccination programme?

Recommendations
The article concluded with a number of general recommendations. They are that it must be publicly funded. However, before millions of dollars of public funding is diverted into such a vaccination programme, the broader issues of how public funds are used to promote and protect the health of girls and women must be considered – issues such as the needs of the marginalised and most vulnerable groups in society. Government support for HPV vaccinations must not perpetuate existing health inequities. Instead such programmes ought to reduce health inequities through thoughtful, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches that permit those most at risk to benefit.

It is too soon to be spending money on a vaccination programme targeting teenage girls when there is an urgent need for prompt and clear answers to the questions raised. We must be certain that spending $177 million to vaccinate a population of girls and women in New Zealand who are already mostly well protected by their own immune systems, safer sex practices and existing screening programmes, will not perpetuate the existing gaps in care and leave the actual rate of deaths from cervical cancer unchanged. Worse would be the emergence of iatrogenic effects, such as an increase in cervical cancer rates, if a false sense of security led girls and women to stop having regular smear tests and to view vaccination as a simple fix.

Individual girls and women, as well as policy makers, can make truly informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence, and today there are more questions than answers.”

Reference:
Abby Lippman et al. Canadian Medical Association Journal. “Human papilloma-virus, vaccines and women’s health: questions & cautions.” 28 August, 2007; 177(5).

From AWHC Newsletter May 2008 "Gardasil: An Experiment on Girls"  

Unvaccinated Children

 Richard Moskowitz, MD (medical doctor)

The refusal of significant numbers of parents to vaccinate their children has created a sizable group of people needing very much to be studied, and has raised a number of important public health issues. Foremost among them is the fear that a large reservoir of unvaccinated persons could contribute to epidemic outbreaks that might involve vaccinated individuals as well. Equally pressing are the immediate practical questions of how best to protect the unvaccinated persons from disease, how to prevent such outbreaks if possible, and how to treat them effectively if they do occur. The long-term question which interests me the most is what the general health of this unvaccinated group will be like, and what we can deduce from this data concerning how vaccines really act.

I would like to begin by proposing that we use the terms vaccinated and unvaccinated instead of immunized and unimmunized, since the basis of the vaccination controversy is the belief of many parents that the vaccines do not produce a true immunity', but rather act in some other fashion--or, in my view, that they act immunosuppressively.

This may sound like a purely semantic distinction, but in fact it bears directly on the first question raised above. If the vaccines conferred a true immunity, as the natural illnesses do, then the unvaccinated people would pose a risk only to themselves. Children recovering from the measles or polio or whooping cough need never fear getting them again, no matter how often they are reexposed in the future. So, the reports of large-scale pertussis outbreaks in the United Kingdom since the vaccine was made optional seem to me a convincing argument against vaccinating anybody, even those who desire it, because if the vaccine produces authentic immunity, then this rebound phenomenon should not occur.

Furthermore, we should be skeptical about the "outbreaks" that are reported to have occurred. Pertussis, or "whooping cough," is actually rather difficult to diagnose conclusively, as it requires special cultures or antibody tests that many laboratories cannot perform and that many doctors, in the presence of suggestive symptoms, rarely take the trouble to order. Conversely, there are other cases of pertussis with typical signs and symptoms but negative cultures and no detectable antibodies. In other words, whooping cough as a clinical syndrome need not be associated with the organism Bordetella pertussis, against which the vaccine is prepared, or indeed with any microorganism whatsoever.

Reservoirs of people unvaccinated against measles, mumps, or diphtheria, on the other hand, should result in periodic outbreaks of these diseases. But again, authentic immunity, would insure that only the unvaccinated would fall ill, which has never proved to be the case. All known out breaks of these diseases in the post vaccine era have included large numbers of vaccinated people as well; an. in many instances a large majority of the cases had previously been vaccinated, some of them quite recently.

The argument that parents should vaccinate their children to protect society as a whole from epidemic does not make sense. Such epidemic argue rather against vaccinating the ones who were vaccinated but still came down with the disease as soon as they were exposed to it. Likewise, if we accept partial or temporary immunity--conceding that the vaccine are not that effective, but that we have no other alternative to these rebound epidemics--then are we not simply throwing good lives after bad, rather like acknowledging that our patients are addicted to dangerous drugs yet fearing to withdraw them or even withhold them from others, lest the original error be fully or frankly exposed?

Which brings us to the second question, namely, how to protect your unvaccinated child from an acute out break of one of these illnesses in the vicinity. The first priority is clearly to know the illness--its signs and symptoms, its natural history and vehicles of spread, its prevention and treatment.

Rather than reading this information from a pediatrics text and the passing it along to you, I suggest that you read up on these diseases. Even more importantly, meet with your local pediatrician or primary healthcare provider and plan a course of action. If you cannot immediately find someone whom you can work with or relate to, keep looking. Your local support system is too important to be left for the time when you need to call on it in a hurry.

Taking responsibility for not vaccinating is no different from taking responsibility for a homebirth or any other form of alternative health care. It calls for not a substitute for conventional care, but rather a different relationship to the healing process and the health-care system, based on personal choice and direct participation. We still need help when our children get sick, and we need to know that this help is available to us.

In the event of an outbreak, a great deal can be done to minimize the risk to those exposed and to treat those who actually fall ill--much of which does not involve chemical drugs or vaccines of questionable safety and effectiveness. The homeopathic method, one such approach, uses minute doses of natural substances to stimulate and enhance the natural defense mechanisms of the host. The homeopathic prevention and treatment of specific acute diseases are discussed in detail in the highly recommended book Homeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd, a prominent English homeopath.'

The homeopathic approach to epidemic diseases in general was first employed by Hahnemann in 1799, during an extensive scarlet fever epidemic in the province of Saxony.2 After he had treated a dozen or so cases in the usual homeopathic fashion, giving small doses of remedies capable of producing similar illnesses experimentally, Hahnemann realized that one remedy helped to cure at least 75 percent of the cases, a second remedy covered another 15 percent or so, and the remaining 10 percent required a variety of different remedies corresponding to the unique features of each case. The principal remedy, which corresponded to the genus epidemicus (the main characteristics of the outbreak as a whole), was then given out prophylactically to people exposed to the disease, and also to patients in the early stages of illness--before the critical point, when other remedies would sometimes be needed, was reached.

The results were quite dramatic. Those so treated either did not get sick at all or suffered much milder illnesses, on the whole, than their compatriots who were not treated or who received the drugs and other heroic measures in standard practice at the time. Hahnemann became justly famous for this exploit; and since this time, his method has been used with equal or greater success throughout the world in treating numerous outbreaks of cholera, typhus, smallpox, yellow fever, influenza, and other acute diseases of similar type. Why it has not been more widely influential in this country is a great mystery, and clearly has to do with the historic decline of homeopathy as a thought form until the advent of the alternative health and self-care movement of the past 10 years or so.

The argument that parents should vaccinate their children to protect society as a whole from epidemics does not make sense.

Pertussis

"Whooping cough" can be quite a nasty and prolonged illness, even in older children, in whom it is seldom fatal or dangerous. It can certainly threaten life in young infants under one year of age, because of the narrowness of the immature laryngeal opening and its particular vulnerability to obstruction from any inflammation or swelling. It is rarely serious in children older than six; and adults, for some reason, rarely contract the illness at all, even when they are exposed and have never had it before.

The incubation period varies from one to two weeks; and the illness often begins quite slowly, with some fever, typical upper respiratory symptoms, and a cough that gradually becomes more and more paroxysmal, until the characteristic spasms appear, often terminating in vomiting or tenacious sputum ejected with great violence. Such a cough may commonly persist for six weeks or even longer, suggesting an autoallergic as well as an infectious origin.

The nosode Pertussin, prepared from the sputum of patients with this disease, is the homeopathic remedy generally used for prophylaxis of exposed children (Pertussin 30c, one dose daily for two weeks after contact); and it can also be given in early stages of illness, at four-hour intervals. Drosera is the remedy most often used for the illness itself, although other remedies may also be needed. For children with a well developed cough, Drosera 30c or Pertussin 30c may be given every four hours, or even more often if necessary. A physician should be consulted if the illness is severe.

Homeopathic remedies are available without prescription, but care should be exercised to obtain them from a manufacturer belonging to the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacies. This way, you will know that they have been prepared in accordance with the standards of the U.S. Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

Diphtheria

Diphtheria is rarely seen today in developed countries, but small outbreaks have occurred in the southwestern U.S. (San Antonio in 1977). The illness is primarily a poisoning attributable to the toxin (a highly antigenic protein of high molecular weight) elaborated by the diphtheria bacillus. Diphtheria toxin is the source from which the standard vaccine is prepared (diphtheria "toxoid" is the toxin denatured by heat, alum precipitated? and preserved with an organomercury compound), and is also the source of the homeopathic remedy, or nosode, Diphtherinum, which is commonly used for prophylaxis and for treatment of complicated cases.

Diphtheria begins as a "cold" or sore throat after a very brief incubation period of two or three days. The primary infection is usually in the throat or nasopharynx, and quickly becomes apparent with a greyish, ulcerating "pseudomembrane," foul breath, high fever, and marked swelling of the cervical Iymph nodes (producing the classic "bull neck" in severe cases). Complications such as heart or kidney failure or esophageal obstruction may follow within a few days; and severe cases may be accompanied by difficulty in swallowing or talking, due to residual postdiphtheritic paralysis that may require further treatment. Diphtherinum 30c or 200c may be given in a daily dose for the first three days following exposure. A physician should be consulted and other remedies used if the illness develops.

Tetanus

Tetanus is essentially a wound infection complicated by inoculation of tetanus spores into the wound and germination of these under strict anaerobic conditions. The infection itself is relatively minor; like diphtheria (and its close relative botulism), tetanus is largely an intoxication produced by a highly antigenic protein, tetanus toxin, against which the standard vaccine is prepared by heat denaturation.

Tetanus does not occur epidemically, and cannot be passed from person to person, although conditions associated with wound infections (such as warfare) definitely favor it if the spores are present. The spore forming organisms live in horse manure, and to a lesser extent in human manure (chiefly among people who keep horses); but the spores themselves are highly weather-resistant and can survive in the soil for decades. They will germinate only under strict anaerobic conditions--such as a deep, jagged puncture wound with enough tissue damage to get the infection started (the proverbial "rusty nail") or a simple wound infection (a severe burn or an infected umbilical cord stump in a newborn) which consumes all the available oxygen and thereby allows the spores to germinate underneath.

Careful attention to wound hygiene will effectively eliminate the possibility of tetanus in the vast majority of puncture wounds. Wounds should be carefully inspected, thoroughly cleaned, surgically debrided of dead tissue (under local anesthesia, if necessary), and not allowed to close until healing is well under way "from below." Two homeopathic remedies that may have a useful role at this stage are Ledum 30c, which should be given every two to four hours from the time of the puncture, and Hypericum 30c, which should be substituted if any signs of infection are present.

I have had no experience with Tetanus, the remedy prepared from the toxin itself; and tetanus toxoid is of no value unless the individual has previously been vaccinated, since a primary antibody response takes at least 14 days, and the incubation period of the disease can be considerably shorter than this (three to 14 days). Hypericum can reputedly treat as well as prevent tetanus, but I would recommend giving human antitoxin at the first sign of the disease, since it is far less effective later on.

If you do decide to vaccinate your children with tetanus toxoid alone, there is no need to vaccinate until the child is old enough to walk around and navigate on his or her own (18 to 24 months), at which time the vaccine is far less likely to cause complications.

Poliomyelitis

The poliovirus produces no illness at all in over 90 percent of those exposed to it; among others, it causes, at most, an ordinary flu syndrome with fever, weakness, gastrointestinal symptoms, aches, and pains. Even in epidemic conditions, poliomyelitis (the severe central nervous system complication) develops only in relatively few anatomically susceptible persons, most of whom eventually recover.

The typical symptoms of poliomyelitis include extreme sensitivity to touch, irritability, stiff neck, and fine tremors in the early or preparalytic stage, which may look rather like a viral meningitis. Not infrequently, the fever will return to normal for a few days just prior to the onset of these central nervous system symptoms, at which time it will rise again, producing the "dromedary," or double-hump, fever chart. Paralysis--due to inflammation of the anterior horn cells, or motor nuclei of the spinal cord--often appears suddenly and early in the course of the illness, as complete loss of voluntary movement in a single limb, or perhaps of the palate and throat muscles (in the dangerous brain-stem or bulbar type), producing disturbances of swallowing. Most of these cases will still recover, with residual paralysis or death often supervening much later, after the acute inflammation has subsided.

The homeopathic remedy Lathyrus sativus has been found to correspond most closely in its symptomatology to central nervous system polio, and has been used with great effectiveness both for prophylaxis of exposed individuals and for treatment in the early stages of the illness, before irreversible damage has occurred. According to Dr. Shepherd, a Dr. Taylor Smith of Johannesburg used Lathyrus 30c, one dose every 16 days, in 82 healthy people (aged six months to 20 years) living in a seriously infected area, 12 of whom were direct contacts. This regimen was continued for the duration of the outbreak, and not one of these people developed poliomyelitis.

Dr. Smith also used Lathyrus 30c in three doses, 30 minutes apart, for a second group of 34 children who were ill with fever, neck rigidity, and muscle tenderness of varying severity. All of these children recovered promptly and completely, without any sequelae.

Dr. Grimmer of Chicago, a well known homeopath of the thirties and forties, recommended Latharus 30c or 200c in a single dose repeated every three weeks for the duration of the epidemic, and stated most emphatically, from his own experience, that paralysis will not develop in those so treated. Other remedies may be required for the illness itself, at the first sign of which a physician should, of course, be consulted.

Measles

Wild-type measles is a strong, febrile illness lasting at least one or two weeks, with a long incubation period of 14 to 21 days; a characteristically smooth, confluent rash; "measly" or runny catarrh of eyes and nose; and a sizable risk of further developments, such as pneumonia, otitis media, or even laryngitis of the croupy or whooping-cough type. The incidence of measles in susceptible contacts approaches 100 percent; and in populations not previously exposed to it, the fatality rate may be 20 percent or more. After generations of contact with European and North American cultures, it became a largely self-limited illness for these populations, one still memorable but producing complete recovery and a permanent or lifelong immunity in the vast majority of cases.

The prophylaxis and treatment of measles varies somewhat from outbreak to outbreak, the genus epidemicus corresponding most closely to Pulsatilla in Hahnemann's series, Bryonia in Dr. Shepherd's experience, and probably other remedies in other times and places. In the U.S., largely because of mass vaccination programs, acute measles is now predominantly a disease of adolescents and young adults, undoubtedly involving some genetic interaction with the vaccine virus; and it will probably call for still other remedies. Pulsatilla remains the remedy most often recommended for prophylaxis, although my own experience is still too limited to confirm or refute it.

Mumps

Mumps, or epidemic parotitis, resembles measles in its highly contagious nature and its predilection for the older age groups as a result of the vaccine program; but it is rather milder, as a rule. After an incubation period of three weeks, it begins with fever, runny nose, tenderness around the ears, and swelling of the parotid on one side, spreading to the other in a few days. About 25 percent of boys with mumps show swelling and inflammation of one or both testicles; in girls, the ovaries and breasts are occasionally affected. Residual scarring and atrophy of one testicle is sometimes seen in adolescent boys and young men.

The nosode Parotidinum, prepared from the saliva of an infected individual, may be used prophylactically, although Pilocarpine 6c is the remedy recommended by Shepherd for both prevention and treatment. I have had no personal experience using remedies with mumps.

Rubella

Rubella, or German measles, is the mildest of all the illnesses for which vaccines are presently required, and very often escapes detection entirely. In the adolescent and young adult populations--those presently most likely to develop it--the illness may be somewhat bothersome, with arthritic symptoms more likely; the same symptoms are often encountered after vaccination of these age groups. In children, there is no reason to treat rubella at all, in most cases. Pregnant women, especially those exposed in the first trimester, may be given Pulsatilla 6c or 30c every day for 14 days following exposure, or every four hours for fever and acute symptoms. Rubella should be suspected in the event of a mild fever; punctate rash; and swollen or tender lymph nodes behind the ears and neck, and around the base of the skull--an area seldom affected in other ailments.

People often ask if it is possible to "vaccinate" homeopathically, to use remedies for the same purpose that the vaccines are normally given. This question addresses not short-term prophylaxis in the event of an acute outbreak, which is discussed above, but routine, long-term protection of the entire population against these diseases.

There is some evidence that remedies can be used in this way. I know of several British veterinarians who use homeopathic rabies nosode in lieu of injections to protect their dogs--with no serious side effects and, as yet, no rabies. But in order to do so, they must give the remedy repeatedly throughout the life of the animal--an approach that would be much less suitable for humans. This brings us back to the concept of trying to permanently eliminate susceptibility to specific diseases. Why attempt such an uneconomical fantasy, as well as an unnecessary one, since the remedies work so splendidly well when illness is actually present or threatening?

People also ask whether or not homeopathic treatment can be used in conjunction with vaccines. Homeopathic remedies may be given to mitigate the effect or severity of vaccines, just as they have been used with good effect in cases of vaccine-related illness. Certainly, when vaccines are given, I would recommend giving Ledum 30c--the basic first-aid remedy for puncture wounds--immediately afterward, in three doses 30 minutes apart; and following it with either the nosode prepared from the disease or vaccine itself or Thuja 30c, the general "antidote" to all vaccines, in three doses 12 hours apart.

Be aware of the possibility that a strong family history of vaccine reaction may greatly increase the risk of receiving that particular vaccine. Any child whose brother or sister or parent reacted strongly or violently to a vaccine should certainly be excused from receiving it, preferably by obtaining a medical exemption from a physician practicing in that state. Likewise, any child whose sibling or parent previously contracted poliomyelitis, or a severe or complicated case of measles or whooping cough or any of the other diseases listed, should not receive the vaccine prepared against that illness. Other grounds for medical exemption include preexisting epilepsy, central nervous system disorder, or any severe or disabling chronic disease where the risk of serious exacerbation from the vaccine outweighs the more imponderable long-term benefit.

This brings us to the final question of the long-term impact of mass vaccination programs on individual and community health. Since I have expressed my concerns on this score, many people have asked if any research has been done to substantiate them. I can only appreciate the irony in the fact that the compulsory feature of these programs is precisely what makes it so conveniently impossible to study them--so much so, that parents refusing to vaccinate their children deserve to be congratulated for making such research possible, and should, in fact, be recruited when it is ready to be carried out.

Equally noteworthy is the unprecedented breadth and scope of the research that will be required. Nothing less than the total health picture of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, followed over an entire generation, will suffice--a great collective enterprise that not only will be exciting and important in itself, but surely will yield invaluable new models for holistic medical research generally, models that take us well beyond the outmoded focus on single "disease entities" in which we are still imprisoned today. So, regardless of whether or not you decide to vaccinate, I urge you all to think about a mechanism for how collaborative research of this kind can be conducted, and how each of us can play our part in it.

Notes

1. D. Shepherd, Homeopathy in Epidemic Diseases (Rustington, Essex [U.K.]: Health Sciences Press, 1967). Available from Homeopathic Educational Services, 2124 Kittredge St., Berkeley, CA 94704.

2. Samuel Hahnemann, MD (1755- 1843), the discoverer of homeopathy. .

3. R. Moskowitz, "The Case Against Immunizations,"Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 6 (7 March 1983). Available from the National Center for Homeopathy, 1500 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Abridged version published in Mothering (Spring 1984). .

_________________________

Ricbard Moskowitz, MD was educated at Harvard (B.A.) and New York University (M.D.). After medical school he did 3 years of graduate study in Philosophy at the University of Colorado in Boulder on a U. S. Steel Fellowship.

He took his internship at St. Anthony's Hospital, Denver, and has been practicing family medicine since 1967, as well as attending about 800 home births. With a background in Oriental medicine and other forms of natural healing, Dr. Moskowitz studied homeopathy with George Vithoulkas in Greece and Rajan Sankaran and others in India.

Bookmark and Share
SUBMISSION TO THE SELECT
  
COMMITTEE ON VACCINATION
  
RATES IN NZ


 

By Jonathan Eisen


This is my understanding of vaccines after many years' of research and study:

I began my work as an agnostic. Katherine and I had a baby and we wanted to look into the pros and cons of everything we did for her to raise her healthy and strong.

So we decided to look into it. We were totally objective, as we had not thought about the idea at all in many years. For us it was a non-issue. So we began to look into it.

What we found was truly shocking and has inspired us to inform others about the real and long-term harm vaccines do.

Firstly, and this is important: What we discovered is that they don't work. Viruses come and go in their frequency and virulence. Lots of diseases appear and then disappear, having run their course. 

They have done so for millennia, way before vaccines came on the scene.  In fact, vaccines definitely DO NOT prevent the diseases we are told they prevent. The instances of so-called "vaccine preventable illnesses" such as measles, whooping cough, polio, etc., BELIEVE IT OR NOT, had declined dramatically during the previous decades, and were at their LOWEST RATE OF INCIDENCE when the vaccines were introduced. 

There is no correlation between the decline of these diseases and the introduction of the vaccine.

Full stop. 

When I discovered this I was astonished, to say the least. But the more I checked, the more certain I became it it was right. I even asked Dr Gillian Durham of the Ministry of Health in a public forum if she could find any problem with these statistics, and she allowed that she could not.

I had in fact stumbled across a story of unprecedented implications – the story of a huge industry thriving off a product that didn't work. (Not that it would be the first time something along these lines happened in the medical industry.)

I discovered that not one vaccine actually works, no matter what we are told. I discovered that much of what passes for "conventional medicine" is deeply flawed.

Vaccine "efficacy" is measured by AN INCREASE IN THE ANTIBODY COUNT. An antibody is a blood particle that the body uses against  viruses and bacteria, aka ANTIGENS.

Now, if the lab technicians detect a rise in antibodies as a result of the jab, they deem that the vaccine "works". They do not correlate any decline in the illness rates with vaccines. If they did they would come to the same understanding that I did, which is that nutrition and better sanitation caused the decline in the so-called "vaccine-preventable" illnesses and vaccines have nothing to do with it.

There is a rather serious logical problem in the way that "vaccine science" measures "efficacy". "Efficacy" is usually measured by how much a person's "antibody count" goes up in response to a vaccine.

Unfortunately for the statisticians, if a person already has antibodies to a disease-causing virus, they already have natural protection from that virus. An increase in the antibody count says nothing about how well protected a person was in the first place against the disease, especially since artificially induced antibodies may not function the same way as natural ones.

Therefore, if a person does not come down with the diseases he/she is supposedly "protected against" how can we tell why?

We can't. 

In fact, the truth about the efficacy of vaccines has been banished from our public discourse, while people who have discovered the truth are relegated to the fringes.

So it is with corporate-based medicine, and corporate-based science in general.

To my thinking, a society that banishes the truth is a society in deep trouble, and indeed our rising rates of serious disease are proving my point.  We are truly a dysfunctional society walking around in a "consensus reality" trance. We all believe the same thing, even though that "same thing" is patently untrue.

And we relegate the honest researchers to the sidelines, or worse.

In many ways we are still living in the Middle Ages, and we are still burning "witches" at the proverbial stake.

But the story didn't stop at the vaccines' lack of efficacy.

Because vaccines are highly dangerous as well. 

They actually attack the body, rather than strengthen it. They produce lots and lots of chronic illnesses and disabilities (including juvenile diabetes, according to the NZ Journal of Medicine) while not even preventing the diseases they are claimed to.

The manufacturers don't even test whether or not a vaccine is carcinogenic! This, even though one carcinogenic virus, SV40 was found in several vaccines, including the polio vaccine, and later cultured out of cancerous tumours, including brain tumours.

In 1962, the chief virologist for the NZ MoH actually warned the Ministry that this virus was in the polio vaccine and could cause trouble down the line.

He was ignored. And this has happened again and again. The MoH takes its cues not from the medical literature, and not from peer reviewed studies, but from the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves. It is part of a corporate culture and uncritically takes on board whatever the manufacturers say.

Unfortunate, but again true nonetheless.

I woke up to the fact that we the public, have been sold a product that actually CREATES more business for Big Pharma and their doctors, hospitals, and ancillary institutions by making us unwell.

Surprisingly, the trade journal for GPs in this country, NZ DOCTOR, is actually pushing vaccines on its members to increase LONG TERM business. (See: NZ Doctor, 1994 - 1996)

Disease is big business, very big business, and the sicker and weaker the people become, the more business there is for the "Health" System. And they have succeeded very well.

In fact, the Medical System itself is now (according to the NZ MoH) the third leading cause of death in New Zealand. (In the US, it is the SECOND leading cause of death according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (June 2000)

And vaccines are a major, perhaps THE major component in this agenda.

Proven over countless generations, natural paths to health are ignored, or disparaged, or blatantly suppressed.

The public is lied to again and again that vitamins are dangerous, that chemically grown food is as nutritious as organically grown food; that war is peace and white is black.

Vitamin D is an essential frontline component in the defence against flu, but is NEVER mentioned by the MoH. Vitamin C is an essential frontline component in the defence against meningococcal disease, and again never mentioned.

As I said, we are in deep trouble.

The reason "alternative" or "natural" medicine has succeeded so well over the years, despite the opposition from the "mainstream" is that it worked for generation after generation. Herbal medicine is our inheritance, and a rich one it is. However, it is not necessarily our legacy as it continues to be disparaged and suppressed by the large corporate interests that determine how our doctors are trained and what the priorities are of the Ministry of Health.

We are dealing with a system of deep political and economic corruption in which the same people who caused the problem are the same people called on to solve the problem. 

It never worked historically, and it won't now.

In health matters the system is exacerbating the problem of our declining health, rather than referencing and utilisating the solutions that have worked so well in the past.

The question is whether or not we will respect "evidence-based" medicine or treat it merely as a slogan. The evidence is all there of the harm vaccines can do and their lack of efficacy, and all we need to do is to pay attention to it.

Jonathan Eisen

Thursday October 29, 2009



Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease

Less Than 10%, Maybe Even Less Than 1% of Vaccine Side Effects Reported

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A researcher with Merck Pharmaceutical who helped develop the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, has revealed that the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and may cause more illness than the disease they are intended to prevent.

Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, and lead researcher in the development of the two vaccines, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4.

Dr. Harper has on several occasions warned that the vaccines were being "over-marketed" and the research on their potential side effects not properly carried out.

Dr. Harper told CBS News on August 19, 2009 that "young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine" and that a girl is more likely to die from an adverse reaction to Gardasil than from cervical cancer.

report by Steven W. Mosher and Joan Robinson of the Population Research Institute (PRI), who attended Dr. Harper's presentation at the Conference on Vaccination, states that although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, it left many of the health professionals wondering if the drug should be given at all, considering its "poor promise of efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side effects."

Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a "safe and effective" prevention measure against cervical cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.

However, "I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn't help but question why we need the vaccine at all," said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Robinson added that she "did not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did tout certain 'real benefits,' chief among them that 'the vaccine will reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,' and thereby reduce the 'relationship tension,' 'stress and anxiety' of abnormal or false HPV positive results.


Dr. Harper Indicates Vaccine "will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US"

Dr. Harper also explained, however, that 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

"Indeed," Robinson continued, Dr. Harper "surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that 'if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.'"

At this point Dr. Harper said that "with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will appear in 60 years."

In the US, the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women, and is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 cases of the disease and is steadily declining due to traditional PAP tests and treatment.

The PRI report points out that the most recent records from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicate 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil in the US, and that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths linked to the vaccine.


Less Than 10%, Maybe Even Less Than 1% of Vaccine Side Effects Reported

Of even greater concern is the probability that numbers of deaths and adverse effects are underestimated.

Dr. Harper's comments in an ABC News report concur with the National Vaccine Information Center's claim that "though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review."

The PRI report notes that "on average, less than 10 percent - perhaps even less than 1 percent - of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal of Public Health."

PRI's Steven Mosher concluded the report on Dr. Harper's revelations by offering some thoughts on the intense promotion of Gardasil by not only the manufacturer of the vaccine, but by state and country government agencies.

"I think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a "wedge" drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps even including pregnancy itself.

"For if they can overcome the objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating pre-pubescent - and not sexually active - girls against one form of STD, then it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.

"After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease - or even death - stand in the way of their pleasures. They believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate:  They might have to learn to control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence."


See related LSN articles: (For much more information on Gardasil type "Gardasil" into the LifeSiteNews search)

Seizures and Brain Damage Follow HPV Vaccine Injection for U.K. Girl

Gardasil Vaccination Results in Three Outbreaks of Genital Warts in Fiji School Children 

Controversial HPV Vaccine Causing One Death Per Month: FDA Report

Drug Conglomerate funds campaign to impose Mandatory HPV Vaccine on Young Girls

Canada's Conservative Government Distributes $300 Million to Provinces for Controversial HPV Vaccination

Updated at 10:19pm on 11 March 2010

The principal of Westland High School says its board changed its mind about allowing anti-cervical cancer immunisation to be given on school premises.

Tony Guilliland says the board doesn't want to be seen to endorse the vaccine.Westland High School

The school, which is in Hokitika, has withdrawn its permission to the West Coast District Health Board to administer the Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccine on its grounds.

The vaccination, for girls from the age of 12, is to protect against cervical cancer.

Mr Guilliland says the board believes it's up to parents to decide whether their daughters are immunised, and didn't want to influence their decisions by appearing to endorse the vaccine.

The board included differing opinions on the vaccine in a school newsletter last year.

The DHB says the board didn't consult it before reaching its decision, but says it is the board's choice.

DHB spokesperson Brian Jamieson says it is the school's right to decide whether to allow immunisations to take place on its premises.

An alternative venue has been arranged.

Mr Jamieson says parents can also take their daughters to their family doctors to be immunised.

Diane Harper’s Latest Interview

This article was written by Marcia G. Yerman, published on December 23, 2009. Throughout my examination of the Gardasil vaccine, there has been a steady flow of information, disinformation, and new developments. In my opening article, I wrote about the mandatory ruling in July of 2008 by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that would require all female green card applicants and immigrants between the ages of 11 – 26 to receive the Gardasil vaccine. As of December 14, 2009, that ruling was reversed.

In the larger conversation, perhaps no one professional has been quoted, and misquoted, more frequently than Dr. Diane Harper. The recipient of a Masters Degree in Public Health, Harper is a Professor and Vice-Chair of Research at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, specializing in Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bioinformatics and Personalized Medicine.

I first contacted Harper in September 2009 to get a primer on the Gardasil vaccine, and to gain insight into the issues that were being raised about the marketing and the safety of the vaccine. In addition to the questions that I raised this month with Dr. Harper, I asked her to contribute a statement that would clearly elucidate her point of view in her own words. She sent me what follows via e-mail.

Statement:

Diane Harper M.D., M.P.H. with patient“The most important point that I have always said from day one, is that the use of this vaccine must be done with informed consent and complete disclosure of the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines. The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman’s (or parent’s if it is for a young child), and not the physician’s or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value.

As all of the information in the United States concerned Gardasil, since that was the only vaccine approved in the U.S. from June 2006 until this past October 2009, my comments have been focused on Gardasil.

My points are as follows:

The Benefits of Pap Screening:

• Individual benefit to detect early precancers.

• Public health benefit: Only when 70% of the population has been screened will the population incidence of cervical cancer drop.

• Pap tests do not kill or handicap.

The Harms of Pap Screening:

• Screening must be repeated throughout a woman’s life. One screen is not sufficient to protect her from cervical cancer.

• False negative rate of cytology screening: Among the women who develop cervical cancer in the U.S., 30% are women who have been routinely screened, and all their Paps have been normal.

• False positive rate of cytology screening: Women who screen abnormal are psychologically upset, anxious and left doubting the medical process (i.e. Her Pap was abnormal, but her colposcopy and biopsy were normal, with no explanation why her Pap was abnormal).

• Quality of life harms: Women with abnormal Paps have anxiety as high as women diagnosed with cervical cancer undergoing their surgical treatment. The stress of going to colposcopy and biopsy can be high for many women. The contemplation of a cervical biopsy and a scraping of the endocervical canal can lead to fear of pain.

• Relationship harms: Once women are told they have an abnormal Pap and that the Pap is abnormal because of a STD called HPV, most relationships are stressed as the partners attempt to understand who brought the infection to the relationship.

• Excisional treatments for detected precancerous lesions cause preterm deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, with concomitant low birth weight infants (which puts the infant at risk for life). In addition, scarring from the treatments lead to an increased cesarean section delivery method (as the cervix does not dilate normally due to scarring from prior excisions). These reproductive morbidities occur between 70%-300% more often in women with excisions.

• Recurrence of HPV associated cervical/vaginal/anal cancers at a rate of 3-12 times higher than those women who never had a cervical cancer precursor or cancer. These recurrences happen around ten years after treatment with peak recurrences between ten and twenty years from the initial treatment.

• Cervarix protects against five cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).

• Gardasil protects against three cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).

• Cervarix induces antibody titers for HPV 16 and 18 that are at least ten fold higher than natural infection titers; the antibody titers for the other three cancer causing types (HPV 31, 45, 33) are also significantly higher than natural infection titers, and the titers stay high for at least 7.4 years – lasting the longer of either vaccines.

• Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV.

• If vaccination occurs within one year of the onset of sexual activity, there will be 57/1000 cases of all CIN 2+ types and persistent HPV 16/18 infections prevented, as compared to only 17/1000 cases prevented if virgins are vaccinated.

The Harms of HPV Vaccination:

• Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11- year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.

• Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto- immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.

• No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).

• Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year– better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.

• Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level. Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

Boosters for Gardasil after antibodies wane makes the cost of vaccination escalate significantly, and cause implementation challenges to reach those women who might want to be revaccinated.”

Questions:

Can you explain what your role as a “principal investigator (PI) for clinical vaccine trials” for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) entailed?

“Principal investigator means that I was responsible for assembling a research team to recruit participants, deliver the health care during the study, collect biological specimens at the correct time, and retain subjects over the entire time frame of the study. After the data collection is complete, I have a professional/medical/clinical obligation to review the data for interpretation, comment and publication. There are instances when industry will exclude a PI from participating in the data publication process. In total, for Merck and GSK, our team enrolled and followed nearly 3000 women in these studies. We have been participating in these trials as early as1997 when the first protocols were written.”

Some reports state that you received no compensation; others qualify you as a “paid consultant.” What was your relationship with these companies?

“The institutions at which I conducted the clinical trials were reimbursed for the costs of conducting the trials. I received no direct money for conducting the trials. I was a consultant for both GSK and MERCK, for which I was paid.”

The public has identified you as a doctor knowledgeable about HPV and the vaccines, potentially without an agenda. Can you explain what you support about the Gardasil vaccine and what you see as its faults?

“I am an international expert in HPV science, its vaccines, its clinical disease and treatment. I have personally seen tens of thousands of women with abnormal Pap smears and have a referral clinic/office that includes women coming from all continents of the world to consult for my opinion on their personal care.

Gardasil offers sexually active women, who do not currently have HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 infections, protection from genital warts and CIN 2+ disease for five years. If the vaccinated person is not sexually active during the five years of its efficacy, then the vaccine has not protected her from disease (as we do not have evidence that Gardasil offers efficacy any longer than five years). Its faults include tiny antibody titers for all HPV types other than HPV 16; limited protection; limited duration of efficacy; and safety concerns (as outlined in my opening statement).”

Can you comment on the disconnect between the fact that efficacy was proven only in the 16-26 year old demographic, yet Gardasil is being approved for those in the 9-26 year old demographic.

“Immunologically, the disconnect is explained by two studies. One study in the 16-26 year old women showed both antibody titers and efficacy. The second study in 9-15 year olds showed similar antibody titers to those induced in 16-26 year olds where efficacy was seen. Hence, the inference is that efficacy must exist in 9-15 year olds. The fault in this logic is that 9-15 year olds may not be exposed to the virus until after the vaccine has waned.”

Do you believe that the Gardasil vaccine, as it currently stands, could present more risks to a young girl or woman than the possibility of cervical cancer?

“Pap smears have never killed anyone.Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone.

Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit – and only risk – for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.

If a woman is never going to get Pap screening, then a HPV vaccine could offer her a better chance of not developing cervical cancer, and this protection may be valued by the woman as worth the small but real risks of serious adverse events. On the other hand, the woman may not value the protection from Gardasil as being worth the risk knowing that 1) she is at low risk for a persistent HPV infection and 2) most precancers can be detected and treated successfully. It is entirely a personal value judgment.”

Has the original Gardasil marketing campaign of “one less” muddied the waters and misinformed the public, who heretofore believed that a Pap smear was sufficient to protect them from cervical cancer?

“If women were participating in Pap screening, or if as a parent you educated your daughter to seek Pap screening at the appropriate age (21 years) for her entire life, then she would have been very unlikely to be at risk for being “one” and would not be “one less”. She would not have been “one” to begin with!

Yes, the marketing campaign was designed to incite the greatest fear possible in parents, so that there would be uptake of the vaccine. If parents and girls were told the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines as described above, an informed and valued decision would have been able to be made. Many may have chosen to continue with a lifetime of Pap screening and forgo the vaccines, with the unknowns of duration of efficacy and safety unable to be answered for many more years.”

Are the protocols of the CDC and VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) properly processing reports of adverse reactions and deaths due to the vaccine? What do you see as the weak link in the VAERS system of collecting data?

“VAERS is biased in both directions, not allowing any veritable conclusions to be drawn about vaccine safety. If an association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information collected in VAERS to determine causation, which is a multi-step process. Likewise, if no association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information to reassure the public that no serious adverse events occur. With our new health care reform, we need to budget money to collect true registries of vaccinated individuals and what happens to them after vaccination so that appropriate conclusions can be drawn.”

Could you clarify the content and context of the statements that you made at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination in October 2009, which have been so widely read and misquoted? Specifically the reported quote, “The rate of serious adverse effects is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

“The rate of serious adverse events reported is 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The current incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States is 7/100,000 women. This is what I said.”

Should there be an informed consent/full disclosure statement that doctors are compelled to deliver to parents before advising them about giving the injection to their daughters, stating that there are small but real risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil?

“The informed consent/full disclosure as I described initially must be disclosed to parents and young women. The questions should be raised, ‘How do you want to prevent cervical cancer? Pap screening? Vaccination? Both?”

Do you think that those who have received the HPV vaccine will become lax with getting their Pap smears, ultimately leading to a greater rate of cervical cancer within the United States population?

“No one wants the incidence of cervical cancer to increase. But, there is a problem with women’s’ understanding of what Gardasil offered them. Many vaccinated women have returned to me in clinic with more abnormal Pap tests and more HPV disease. They are tremendously disappointed when told that Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV, and that they are still at risk for cervical cancer.

In answer to your question, Yes. Finland has shown us that even a lack of screening for five years, resulting in less than 70% of the population being screened, is enough to increase the population incidence rate of cervical cancer. Yes, there is a real risk that cervical cancer will increase in the U.S. if those women getting Gardasil do not realize that:

• Gardasil will not protect them for life

• They can get other HPV infections that lead to cancer that are not covered by Gardasil

• They need to continue to have Pap tests throughout their lifetime”

Recent reports state that Gardasil may have triggered MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in some girls receiving the vaccine. What are your thoughts on this?

“Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown.”

Can you point out specific “misstatements” that Merck has promulgated about the Gardasil vaccine?

“Less misstatements, than incomplete statements. For instance, the cumulative incidence of HPV infections for women in the U.S. through the age of 50 years old is 80%. That statement is true. That statement infers that nearly every one is infected with HPV at least one point in their life.

What is left out is that 95% of all HPV infections are cleared spontaneously by the body’s immune system. The remaining 5% progress to cancer precursors.

Cancer precursors, specifically CIN 3, progresses to invasive cancer in the following proportions: 20% of women with CIN 3 progress to invasive cervical cancer in five years; 40% progress to cervical cancer in thirty years. There is ample time to detect and treat the early precancers and early stage cancers for 100% cure.

Other examples include inferences that Gardasil will last a lifetime, with no mention of boosters or limited protection possible. Regarding wart protection promotion, there is no mention that the data showed protection against genital warts in men for only a 2.4- year period of time.

Gardasil is not really a cervical cancer vaccine. The vaccine prevents HPV infection. not the development of cervical cancer.”

Are there any final comments that you would like to make about the Gardasil vaccine?

“Until Merck funds a multi-ethnic efficacy study lasting at least fifteen years, the vaccine should be used primarily by women within the first six years of their onset of sexual activity, to gain the most protection possible…if they choose to be vaccinated. The women can also choose to continue Pap screening for their lifetime.

Within the “first six years” comes from the National Cancer Institute data compiled from the Guanacaste study (Rodriguez – first author) that shows that the prevention rate is 32/1000 women, still much higher than the 17/1000 rate when vaccinating virgins who go on to become sexually active, but less than the 57/1000 women if vaccinated within the first year of sexual activity.

Cervarix is the superior cervical cancer vaccine, in that it prevents five types of cancer causing HPV infections. Gardasil is the superior vaccine in preventing HPV types causing genital warts.”

In the next installment, a mother speaks out.

Additional information