HOKITIKA SCHOOL REFUSES GARDASIL
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.
The school, which is in Hokitika, has withdrawn its permission to the West Coast District Health Board to administer the Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccine on its grounds.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.
“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.”
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.
CASH LURE TO VACCINATE HERE IN NZ?
Cash lure seen as way to raise immunisation
By Adam Bennett
4:00 AM Monday Mar 15, 2010
Parliament's health committee is considering whether parents should be offered cash incentives to have their children immunised, or even have benefits withheld if they don't without good reason.
Committee members were in Canberra last week looking at several issues including how Australia had dramatically improved its childhood immunisation rates and will report to Parliament on its trip.
Chairman and National MP Paul Hutchison said 91 per cent of Australian 2-year-olds were now fully immunised against little more than 50 per cent 10 years ago. In New Zealand the rate is about 75 to 80 per cent.
Australia's success had been been achieved with a seven point plan, including some measures such as a childhood immunisation register which is already in place here.
However, Dr Hutchison said he was particularly impressed with the effectiveness of cash incentives for families and health professionals in increasing immunisation rates.
Parents of 18-month-olds who had received all required shots received a A$125 ($163) cash payment. Another payment was made to parents of fully immunised 4-year-olds.
Other measures included requirements at some schools and pre-schools for children to be fully immunised before they could be enrolled.
Children not immunised could be enrolled when parents had demonstrated a "clear issue of conscientious objection" to their doctor, Dr Hutchison said.
But parents who didn't get their children immunised and couldn't satisfy medical authorities they had legitimate objections could have some childcare benefit payments withheld.
Australia also has cash incentives for health providers such as GPs both for achieving high rates of immunisation amongst their patients and for providing data to the immunisation register.
"I can't pre-empt the committee report's recommendations but I personally think that they've got some very good ideas and the incentives are quite innovative and they say have worked very well," Dr Hutchison said.
"There is no doubt in my mind that we should do a similar sort of thing using instruments that are appropriate to New Zealand. This is one of the most clear-cut effective evidence base ways to help children and in fact help the whole population."
Immunisation Advisory Centre research director Helen Petousis-Harris saw some value in cash incentives for parents but believed "but being very careful that its about making a decision, not about forcing people to do something they're not happy about".
Last year's UNICEF State of the World's Children report rated New Zealand 33rd out of 35 developed countries for rates of childhood immunisation.
25 Harrisville Road,
Regarding your article “cash lure to be vaccinated”. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632095
Either Paul Hutchison has been misinformed, or has misinformed you.
The payment Australian parents receive isn’t a “cash lure”. The key words are “without good reason”.
Any Australian parent who makes an active choice NOT to vaccinate and has a filed objection, receives any of the “incentives” or “payments” related to immunization, that those who chose to vaccinate also receive. To suggest that if you don’t vaccinate, you don’t get the incentives, totally undermines the concept of a right to chose, and democratic right to say no without punitive measures taken against you. Australia has recognized this, but the question is, would Paul Hutchison?
The Herald article was written by Adam Bennett. Mr Bennett has made it clear that those with a documented 'conscientious objection' would not be penalised. I absolutely agree with this. (As I am sure you are aware there can be rare but real side effects from immunisation). What is without doubt, is that the benefits of achieving herd immunisation far outweigh the disadvantages. (The World literature is clear) Few people would wish the re-emergence of polio, tuburculosis, rubella etc. for our children. The matters outlined in the article are being considered by the Health Select Committee of which I am Chairman.
Dr Paul Hutchison
Reply from Hilary Butler
I’m presuming that you do know that New Zealand has not used the Tuberculosis vaccine on a population basis for many years now, since many studies have showed that it’s far more likely to prevent Leprosy than TB? You have seen the TB deaths graph for New Zealand haven’t you? If not, I’ve attached if for you. You do know that the BCG was only introduced for nurses in 1951, then for teenagers, and was stopped in the late 80’s? And it beats me why the Health Department still rolls it out for the supposedly “at risk” people who are the very people in whom the trials have all showed that the vaccine doesn’t work? You do know that the USA has never used the BCG because their trials return negative protection results, and they found that it’s use prevented them being able to effectively detect Tuberculosis in people with infection?
I’m surprised at the ‘substance’ of your comments.
Implied in your statement on the Government website, in the newspaper and your response to me, is that the rates of vaccination in New Zealand are appalling and need to be improved. Define “appalling”. In what way do the current rates disadvantage New Zealand children?
You say that “few people would wish the re-emergence of…. for our children.”
Tell me. Where is the re-emergences of nationwide TB in New Zealand, without the universal use of BCG? You do know that there are many studies showing that very high rates of vitamin D deficiency is widespread in New Zealand? You do know that Vitamin D has been found to be effective in the treatment of TB? This is all in recent medical literature. Would you like me to send it to you? You do know, that Dr Robert Scragg, a New Zealander, has written about the fact that influenza is primarily prominent amongst people with vitamin D deficiency? You have heard that a recently published study, detailing the first ever blinded RCT trial of vitamin D vs influenza, was highly effective in preventing influenza, and much more so than the vaccine?
Have you read the medical literature, which shows that effective levels of vitamin D, would result in reductions in all viral, bacterial diseases, cancers, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and a whole raft of other both acute and chronic conditions? A New Zealand national wide vitamin D testing programme, and twelve tablets per annum to be taken once a month, at a cost of $3.30 to the person, would cut far more off the total health expenditure in this country than any other single act you could do?
In fact, doing away with the flu vaccine, would probably fund national vitamin D testing. But eliminating a useless flu vaccine programme would never happen would it Paul? How is it that, as the head of the Cochrane Collaboration said, that Flu vaccine continues to be used as a political decision, while ignoring the science?
The medical profession will never admit that the data on flu vaccines shows they don’t work, because to do so would be to admit that for 30 years, they’ve knowingly told New Zealanders porkies. And I know that, because I have enough studies of “useless” flu vaccines to sink a ship. But I’ll just attach one for you here, Paul. Simonsen 09.
Where is the wholesale emergence of the diseases you mentioned, in this country, with the current vaccination rates, or even the lower vaccination rates of 15 years ago?
Let’s leave out the whooping cough vaccine, which even the New Zealand medical literature (which I have neatly filed in date order) admits that the vaccine has done nothing to reduce either cases, or deaths. (Deaths wasn’t a hard one, since whooping cough deaths had reached bedrock before the vaccine was introduced, as did a lot of the other diseases, like diphtheria). The majority of children who get whooping cough now, are appropriately vaccinated, and the majority of babies who get it suffer primarily because their mothers were vaccinated, and the transplacental and breastmilk immunity immunisation transfers is now negligible. The numbers getting whooping cough in each epidemic cycle, hasn’t reduced since before the vaccine was introduced as a triple in 1961, and given that the single whooping cough vaccine had negligible use before that, (I have the data…) and was suspended for a few years from 1955 – 1961, that is irrelevant. Unfortunately for anyone who is vaccinated their immunity is faulty and the concept of “original sin” applies, something which I’m sure you know about. If you don’t, the attached article Cherry 2004 (one of many on this topic) will explain what I mean. This means that the key primary step of immunity to develop mucosal immunity to adenylate cyclase toxin (ACT), which was ignored because it can’t be incorporated in the whooping cough vaccine, is also ignored on the vaccinated person’s re-exposure. Vaccinated people re-exposed to whooping cough, respond to it, in the way in which their immune system is pre-programmed, result in those people not clearing the pertussis bacteria fast (as happens after natural immunity), and they become ready carriers and spreaders of whooping cough.
Cherry’s article is only one of the early articles in medical data bases, on this topic. It’s clear that the inability to put ACT into the vaccine is a fundamental flaw in terms of the pertussis vaccine, (since the “manufacture” and excretion of ACT from the bacteria is a process of disease, only started once the bacteria adheres to the base of the cilia on the bronchial wall). The aberrant immunity created by the vaccine, creates a situation whereby the vaccinated are now the most effective spreaders of the disease. The ones whose first attack was natural, are not likely to spread the disease, since their bronchials clear any reinfection bacteria very quickly. Again, this is all in the medical literature.
Not that the vaccine manufacturers can do anything about it, since just using parts of bacteria and toxins as your antigens, absolutely precludes immunity to ACT. However, they recognize the flaw, hence new research and studies on pertussis vaccines are looking at making one which is inhaled and has to initiate a mild infection, in order to achieve longer lasting immunity, quick bacterial clearance and a less aberrant immune response. But that will be decades away, if it even comes to fruition, since New Zealand has followed the mindless advice of CDC, to simply revaccinate every possible moving target within range of any child.
We are perhaps fortunate in this country, that records on hospital admissions for pertussis were never stopped after the vaccine was introduced, as was done elsewhere in the world. Had we been so “stupid” as to do what all other countries did, and stop all pertussis notification, period… we might not be in the position today where the data from the Health Department (and the ESR for that matter), conclusively proves that the pertussis vaccine in this country has done nothing.
Yet if you talk to Dr Cameron Grant ( as per Sommerville 2007 attached) , Nikki Turner, or Diana Lennon, they will admit to the data I’ve long since published but dismiss the data telling you that the problem is that we need “timely” vaccination, and “more” vaccination as per the CDC, which is scientifically inexcusable. Across the ditch in Australia, where they have blindly blamed the unvaccinated for all the vaccinated getting whooping cough, they’ve only just gulped and said “oops”, because they realized that just as in every other country in the world, there are now strains of pertussis which have developed precisely because of the vaccine, not for lack of a vaccine. But instead of taking it on the chin, they then turned round and said that if the non-vaccinators had vaccinated, that would never have happened. That is utter rubbish Paul. You are very much invested in developing good science curriculum are you not? Then make sure you get de Bono into the act, as well as some other critical thinkers involved, because right now, much of the New Zealand vaccination propaganda simply contains weasel-speak and zero-think.
I realise some of this information might come as a surprise to you.
However, I’m quite happy to photocopy (or loan you) Tuberculosis and pertussis information from the New Zealand medical literature and show it to you. and even Polio if you wish.
Your statements about whooping cough in the paper on the Parliament website are perhaps excusable, since many doctors have only seen the published articles which told a load of bollocks, but were put in medical journals none the less.
So, pertussis aside, if we don’t see other epidemics right now, exactly what is the ‘gain’ to New Zealand from coercively pushing every child in this country into a “done it, whether you need it or not” hole? Do you think it right that parents should pay to have a choice they have made, “approved” by the very people who want to stick the needles in?
What “gains” has Australia made which they didn’t have before, through having a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate, when they had an 80% vaccination rate? Their whooping cough vaccination rates have increased 20% in 9 years; their number of vaccines has radically increased, yet their whooping cough rates have increase 1200% in that time.
Conversely the more you back parents like us into a corner, Paul, the more there is to lose, which I have no doubt, you will experience over the next few years, should your personal plans be implemented. There are many many parents in this country, who consider that democratic right of choice doesn’t involve paying a fee to gain a medical doctor’s permission for that choice.
We know what happens in Australia. Australians who can’t find a doctor who understands democracy, and is prepared to sign the form without an inquisition, and without charging a disapproval fee, are certainly spreading the message. Furthermore, doctors who then throw patients out of their practice for refusing to vaccinate their children, are further inflaming the situation, and if reaction from USA, and now Australia is anything to go by, such policies will “meet their Waterloo” at some point in time.
I note that the Secretary of the HHS in USA, Katherine Sebelius has attempted to suspect the American constitution by informing all media that they should not to report any vaccine concerns relating to autism, in any form, from any parents, scientists or doctors in the future. Such is the land of the free.
My inbox has been full today, of people who are disgusted at any suggestions of cash lures and signed inquisitions. We know the inquisitions which happen even without such means. And I know you know this was also mooted in a more radical form before, when Commander Jenny Shipley attempted to tell the nation that disgusting parents who don’t immunize should be penalized by losing any benefit. Just beware, Paul. You’re dipping your toes into an issue here, which will be met head on.
People throughout New Zealand, care a lot more about their bodies (unfortunately), and will defend their democratic right of “choice without coercion, pressure or unwarranted discrimination”, far more ferociously than they will the super city. A person’s health and home are sacrosanct Paul. And yet the issues of the super city and the right to refuse any medical intervention, are similar. Democratic right of choice, but even more so with health, since the Health and Disability Act enshrines a lot of provisions which are blatantly broken every day by zealous nurses from the “vaccine outreach” clinics around the country.
I know. We hear about it regularly!
PRESENTATION TO FDA - DANGERS OF HPV VACCINES
March 12th 2010 saw six very special women from around the world, present documents and research about the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix to the FDA by request. Never before have the FDA turned to members of the public regarding vaccine safety but in an extraordinary move this is exactly what happened. Dubbed the 'Little Women' by the FDA the group presented evidence that will shock the world and could have the FDA eating their words.
The six women who had become increasingly concerned about the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix presented a power point presentation accompanied with documents showing the dangers of the HPV vaccines to the FDA. Their hope was to prove to the FDA that these two vaccines are so dangerous that they should be removed from the vaccine schedule as soon as possible.
The women who were involved in this unusual move are Karen Maynor; mother of the late Megan Hild, New Mexico; Rosemary Mathis: mother of Lauren, adversely injured; co-founder of WWW.TRUTHABOUTGARDASIL.ORG North Carolina; Freda Birrell; political activist, Scotland/UK; Leslie Carol Botha; women´s health educator and broadcast journalist, and founder of Holy Hormones Honey , Colorado; Cynthia Janak: research analyst, journalist writing for Renew America and founder of Only the Truth Illinois; and Janny Stokvis: research analyst, Netherlands.
The reports that were presented, detailed worldwide data, proving that women and young girls have suffered severe adverse reactions, including death, after being vaccinated with the HPV vaccines.
Detailed charts were shown to the FDA clearly outlining evidence of girls from around the world showing very similar adverse reactions after having these vaccines. Only a few of these adverse reactions have ever been listed by either manufacturer on their leaflets. It is my belief that Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline should to study the findings very carefully indeed.
USA – Reports show girls have suffered from
Dizziness and Nausea
Joint and Muscle Pain
Loss of vision
Respiratory and Heart Problems
Spain - Reports show girls have suffered from
Loss of Vision
Australia - Reports show girls have suffered from
Loss of Vision
United Kingdom - Reports show girls have suffered from
Dizziness and Nausea
Joint and Muscle Pain
Respiratory and Heart Problems
New Zealand - Reports show that girls have suffered from
Joint and Muscle Pain
Respiratory and Heart Problems
There is a clear pattern from many countries, of girls suffering from the same side effects and yet up to now this fact has not been picked up, by either the committees who regulate our vaccines, or the Governments who sanction them. More worryingly the six women found that there were a huge number of deaths recorded on VAERS after HPV vaccines.
VAERS is the reporting system used in the USA for adverse events that happen after vaccination.
Strangely however, the system does not appear to be examined in great detail by the either Big Pharma or the Government and many adverse events are not even recorded at all, as it has now been discovered that some doctors are completely unaware of it's existence.
The six women involved in the presentation to the FDA have been able to show research papers from top scientists and researchers showing that blindness can occur after the HPV vaccine,. Papers on Menstrual evaluation were also seen for the first time as were papers on Vaccine and Autoimmune problems.
Janny Stokvis one of the women who researched the side effects of these vaccines after watching a YouTube clip said that she was horrified that so little has been done to protect women. She said she became involved completely by chance.
"In September 2008 I was looking for music on Youtube and I ended up watching a video the
father of Brooke Petkevicius made. Brooke died 14 days after her first dose of Gardasil from a pulmonary embolism or blood clot on March 26th, 2007. I was shocked by her story. In our family we have a rare blood clotting disease. I have had a pulmonary embolism twice myself. Few weeks later I saw a Dutch documentary about the marketing tactics of Merck. that alarmed me even more. My daughter was in the age group to get the HPV vaccine so I started to do my own research."
She has since studied the VAERS reporting system and now firmly believes that the reporting system is only the tip of the iceberg because it only has a small number of the actual side effects from these vaccines on. She was shocked to learn that many of the doctors she spoke to had not heard of the reporting system and said:
"Adverse reactions do not always start within a minute after inoculation like some people think. A lot of physicians have never heard of VAERS or know how to file a report. I was surprised when I heard this the first time. Physicians do not agree with parents when they tell that they think theirs daughter got sick because of the HPV vaccine and do not want to file a report.Mothers who find their way to the Gardasil groups did not always succeed in getting a report filed at VAERS.
HPV-vaccine victims can be very ill, but tests can show-up to be normal. Girls who have seizures several times a day or who are paralysed get diagnosed as "Psychogenic". Parents are often told the illness of their daughter is not vaccine related.
This has to change, because too many girls are not getting the proper treatment yet."
She said up until she looked into the HPV vaccines she had always believed in the Governments vaccine programmes but her confidence has now been badly shaken.
Rosemary Mathis whose daughter was changed after she had Gardasil vaccine and one of the six women told me she became involved with the group because she wanted answers. She says:-
"My 12 year old daughter was disabled by Gardasil. Her life as she knew it completely changed after her third vaccination. She could no longer attend school, go to church, or live a normal life. She was always in pain and we spent thousands of dollars and many hours going to doctors who could not help her. I spent countless hours on the internet researching how to treat my daughter. I quickly learned that I was not alone and many other parents were doing the same thing. Every night was spent researching trying to figure out what do to not only help my daughter, but many others. This led me to Gardasil Mom groups on Yahoo Groups, Twitter, and Facebook. That is where I met Marian Greene, another mother whose girl was affected that lives about 30 minutes from me. Her daughter was disabled also. Both our daughters were disabled by the exact same lot # 0067X.Night after night, we were trying to help the mothers figure out what to do and trying to comment on stories on the internet to warn others. We quickly learned that many of the girls stories are not recorded in VAERS. Either the parents do not know about VAERS and haven´t reported them or the doctors do not. I filed my daughter´s report in VAERS and then asked my doctor to after continuously expressing that the vaccine is what made her sick. The parents were struggling to find a way to express their stories and to find data. Each night, new victims were appearing on the boards with no idea of what to do. The board represents the TRUTH as we the parents of the victims of Gardasil see it. It is a central repository used to house the girls stories for view by others, has the latest news, and has a Guardian Angel page by location to give the parents contacts in their area who may be able to help them. It has videos, other site links, a forum so you can talk to other parents/victims, etc. It has made it easier for parents to quickly identify side effects, treatments that may have helped victims, etc. It takes about one year worth of research off the parents and allows them to quickly identify what occurred and what can be done to help the victims."
Since her research began Rosemary says she has met thousands of girls who have been adversely affected by the Gardasil and the Cervarix vaccines.
I asked Leslie Botha how the FDA had become aware of the six women and had asked the group to do the presentation.
Leslie said that originally Karen Maynor had contacted the FDA after her daughter had died after she had the Gardasil vaccine. Her letter to Dr Margaret Hamberg MD contained many reports and details of young girls who have either died like her daughter Megan, or had become seriously ill.
The reports contained in her letter do not make comfortable reading. She wrote how one child 'Samantha Hendrix' who had once been described as a 'walking encyclopaedia' has been left with no concentration and failing her exams.
"Also In the case of young Samantha, she had a serious history of illnesses prior to vaccination, have you ever discovered if Merck carried out research on impaired immune responsiveness to establish if young girls with a medical history would be well enough to have this vaccine? In the case of Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline did not carry out this research prior to the commencement of the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom. This young girl had many health problems before being vaccinated but now she is far worse off and what the future holds for her we just do not know. Perhaps, if more care and attention had been given by the pharmaceutical company in all of this, if they had taken more time to carry out the research into all aspects of safety and just had given it a few more years, exactly the same advice that Dr Harper gave to the UK regarding Cervarix, then perhaps these young ladies would not be so ill and I would not be writing to you today to ask for your help. With respect to Cervarix, many of the same "Gardasil" illnesses are occurring in the United Kingdom also so there appears to be a common thread that exists between these two HPV vaccines."
She has a point, as on the Glaxo Smith Kline original GP advert it does state that 'there are no data in the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness'.
Leslie said that the FDA do not just contact people but that they respond to letters. They contacted Karen and Karen knowing that she could not do what the FDA wanted alone asked the other women if they were prepared to help her.
"The first meeting conference call was in September/October with Cynthia, Freda, Rosemary and myself - where we expressed our concerns.
There was a second Webinar in November that the FDA presented for us on how their organization operates
It was at this meeting that a third meeting was initiated - to be held at first before the holidays so that we could present research and data that backed up our concerns.
It was at this point that we asked Janny to join us since she spent so much time going through the VAERS reports.
By agreement, the meeting was pushed back until after the holidays - until the presentation.
We were in discussion many times about how to proceed - and found the people in the Patient Representative Program Office of Special Health Issues - to be open, and supportive as they shared the guidelines for the presentation.
The FDA has just initiated "listening sessions" and our group was one of the first to participate in them.
It has been an honor and a very positive experience from beginning to end.
We started out by gathering data, Rosemary, Freda and Janny did a fabulous job of creating and presenting graphs, and outlines of VAERs deaths.Freda was in contact with women in Spain, New Zealand and Australia as she gathered reports of adverse injuries from the girls in these countries.
Cynthia and I kept coming from different angles on what was causing the problem with this vaccine - mine was on menstrual cycle influence and she was focused on histamine and IgE. We spent hours on the phone searching for studies.We would then do searches on histamine and IgE and the menstrual cycle and that is when we realized that our differing angles were beginning to blend into one perfect storm. It was the peer reviewed study that came out on the blind girl and HPV that nailed this for us - and we realized that we had discovered the REAL DANGERS with this vaccine.
We were shocked and awed that we had come across something no on had ever considered that founded both of our concerns."
The conclusion slide 52 in the powerpoint shows exactly what was discovered and one has to agree the implications this has on many girls is quite shocking.
"During the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, the production of estrogen releases histamine. During the luteal phase the protective effects of estradiol sharply decline, the production of progesterone increases and the immune system becomes more easily compromised; succumbing to the overdose of histamine from three sources: L-Histidine in the vaccine, increased amounts of estradiol in the body from natural production plus environmental toxins (estrogen mimickers) and the body´s own natural production of histamine. The rise and decline in hormones; the rise and decline in immunity and the overproduction of histamine – may be a factor as to why the health of the girls adversely affected by the HPV vaccines is not improving.
Both HPV vaccines are VLP´s (virus like particles). This can be termed ´molecular mimicry´and when an antigen in a vaccine is structurally similar to an antigen in the host antibodies are produced that react with the host´s normal tissue.
Allergy sufferers with moderate to severe asthma have IgE levels greater than 1,000 U/ml. Normal serum IgE levels in individuals without allergies is less than 70 U/ml. An increase in IgE means more free IgE is available for binding to the activated mast cells. More mast cell activation and degranulation may lead to an increased release of inflammatory histamine.This reaction also leads to TH2 cytokine and leukotriene secretion, resulting in systemic anaphylaxis in the form of allergy.
This proves an increased risk of injury due to an overload of histamine being released from the mast cells causing a more severe inflammatory response throughout the body. Tissue damage due to this process can cause hypertrophy of smooth muscles. Smooth muscles
are evident in the heart. With the rechallenge to an already active immune response we could have more smooth muscle damage especially to the heart and damage to the Central
With all our research completed, due to the lack of safety testing in regards to hormone,histamine and IgE level effects due to challenge and rechallenge on the female and male physiology the risks of the HPV vaccines outweigh the benefits."
Freda Birrell another member of the group became involved in 2009, when her friend wrote to her asking for her help, saying that her daughter Bridget had become injured after the Gardasil vaccine.
Freda said that she asked me to find out if Cervarix was having the same effect on British girls as the Gardasil vaccine. After research I found that both vaccines were having serious adverse reactions.
Freda feels disillusioned with the British and Scottish Governments she said:-
"Both of the Health Ministers are too ready to come back with the usual information - any incidents which have occurred are either coincidental or part of population related illnesses. At no time, to my knowledge or satisfaction, do they investigate any of these illnesses. There are serious cases of arthralgia after vaccination with Cervarix and this condition has been researched and it is known that it is and can be vaccine related. Sadly, our Ministers do not wish to recognise that fact. There are many other serious illnesses which have occurred, eg a rare form of encephalitis, paralysis, blindness, seizures to name but a few. They are hiding their heads in the sand in the hope that it will all go away. That will never happen where the lives of our young girls are involved."
I asked Freda as she had studied both vaccines in detail if she felt that Cervarix was as dangerous as Gardasil. She said:-
"For the most part Cervarix elicits a much higher percentage of adverse events in the initial days after inoculation over Gardasil. The comparison suggests that Cervarix is much less safe than Gardasil. High percentages of fatigue, headache and myalgia may also be initially construed as the flu and not Cervarix related and therefore would not be reported as an adverse event related to the vaccination until the symtpoms persist past the one week time frame for the flu, Gardasil has incurred many deaths. Only one girl to our knowledge has died following a Cervarix vaccination and her case was attributed to her underlying illness, cancer. She was undergoing tests apparently at the time. Whilst we cannot say that Cervarix caused her death, the authorities likewise cannot say with 100% proof that it didnt. What we can say with 200% certainty is she should not have been vaccinated whilst undergoing medical testing".
Also discovered by the group was the fact that neither vaccine worked if the girls already had an HPV infection.
Slide 15 states:-
"Conclusions: Evidence detailed here regarding the poor efficacy of both Gardasil and
Cervarix on already infected women has to be investigated further. If this is occurring in
established infected groups of women then what will be occurring in the bodies of adolescent girl´s who in many cases may already be sexually active and be infected at the time of vaccination? In the United States and United Kingdom, HPV SCREENING DOES NOT
TAKE PLACE TO DETERMINE IF HPV INFECTION IS ALREADY PRESENT."
The group had discovered that contrary to belief HPV is not only a STD but can be transmitted through other means. This was discussed on slide 9.
"The next series of slides will address whether HPV is transmitted solely via sexual contact".
In the first research paper there is growing evidence that HPV infection is acquired through non-sexual routes and that one potential route is mother-to-child transmission in the perinatal period; referenced as vertical transmission.
In the second paper, it was noted that HPV´s have been detected in virgins, infants/children, and juvenile Laryngeal papillomatosis was shown to be caused by these viruses. It has been acknowledged that HPVs may be transmitted by other non-sexual routes as well."
Another very important point raised was the fact that over 250 girls who have had the vaccine have since had abnormal PAP Smear tests. This was thought to be because this group already had the HPV virus when they had the vaccine.
We now await the FDA's verdict on the impressive array of documents and factual information that this group of so called 'little women' put before them. Will the FDA acknowledge that far from the wonder vaccines that Gardasil and Cervarix were supposed to be, these vaccines were more like poison darts thrown at girls in a crucial stages of their sexual development? These vaccines were given to young girls in many different stages of puberty and at many different stages of their menstrual cycles. We are now left wondering if the manufacturers Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline ever even considered this when developing these vaccines.
I will finish with a dedication to Megan from the very special mother Karen Maynor who wrote to the FDA and started this whole series of amazing events.
As I stand here and watch as your brother receives his award for Academic Excellence I cannot help but think of you now and how proud I know you would have been. It was hard for him Megan as he hurts so much because you are not here. When we come together as a family for these occasions it never feels right. We miss you so...
We are working hard for you babe to get this information out there so others will know what can happen with this vaccine. Help others to become informed. To keep other moms and dads from having to feel this pain.
There are so many now that are fighting for ones just like you and for the many that are injured. You should see them, facing the GIANTS of the FDA and Big Pharma with no fear. They are strong because they have the truth. They never got to know you but they are fighting for you.
We love you and miss you.."
VACCINES THAT WORRY PARENTS MOST
A study conducted at the University of Michigan shows that, although parents overwhelmingly share the belief that vaccines are a good way to protect their children from disease, these same parents express concerns regarding potential adverse effects of vaccines.
They especially seem to question the safety of new vaccines.
The study is based on a survey of more than 1,500 parents that was conducted last year. About 12 percent of parents said they had refused to allow their children to receive a vaccine that a doctor recommended.
Those parents tended to shy away from four vaccines:
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, because of concerns about side effects
- Vaccine for meningococcal diseases, because of the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome, an immune system disorder
- The shot for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), because of potential autism risk
- Chickenpox (varicella) vaccine
Of those who said they had refused a certain vaccine for their child(ren), the greatest share of parents said their concerns were based on something they had read, or heard, about the vaccine. An almost equal number said they believed that the risk for adverse effects from the vaccine was too great.
The study’s authors concluded that this finding indicates that current public health education campaigns on vaccine safety have not been effective, and that officials should make a better attempt at assuaging parents’ safety concerns.
The authors also suggested that the use of newer social marketing techniques (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) might be potential strategies for spreading the word about vaccines.
It’s ironic that this study found that health officials aren’t doing a good job at addressing parents’ concerns about vaccine safety. I happen to agree – but not for the same reasons as this study’s authors.
HORMONES AND HPV VACCINES DON'T MIX
New evidence shows hormones and HPV vaccines don't mix
April 03, 2010
On March 12th 2010 a presentation was presented to the FDA by six women, voicing worldwide concerns that the HPV vaccines were not only dangerous but should be taken off the market altogether. Up until now, no one has known exactly what was said at that presentation but on Wednesday 31st March this all changed as Leslie Carol Botha
one of the six women, a women´s health educator and a member of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research
spoke for the first time to the public and medical profession live online at a webinar conference, hosted by Dr Mayer Eisenstein the Medical Director of Homefirst Health Services.
Botha, used the very same powerpoint, that was presented to the FDA and spoke for one hour about what was said to the FDA, she was aided by Cynthia Janak, a research journalist, also, one of the six women who gave the presentation to the FDA.
The webinar Global Backlash Against HPV Vaccines
which can still be accessed through the archive, cleared up many myths surrounding the HPV vaccines. More importantly everything that was said can be backed up with medical evidence. Something that the drug companies who manufacture these vaccines have not made accessible to the public.
No longer do the public have to rely on what the Governments, the medical profession or the drug companies who make money from these vaccines tell us but we can hear for the first time the truth about the issues that affect our children.
The most important and fundamental issue surrounding the HPV vaccine, is that the HPV virus, portrayed to both the public and our Governments by GSK and Merck as an STD, is, not only an STD. In other words, the virus can also be caught through vertical transmission and hand to hand contact. This means that many girls who have never had a sexual relationship can already have the virus. In fact, many are born with it. As no screening takes place prior to vaccination, no one knows if the child has already contracted the HPV virus, this of course includes children who have been sexually abused. If a child who is HPV positive then goes on to have the HPV vaccine, they may still develop Cervical Cancer. This means that there is no certainty that the HPV vaccine will work in a subject who already has the virus.
Other facts raised, were:-
Many previously healthy children have become sick after the HPV vaccine.
Many children are getting flu like symptoms and paralysis after the vaccine.
60% of subjects who suffer an adverse reaction will suffer this within 16 days of the vaccine.
A staggering 71.3% of girls do not finish the course of three vaccines due to adverse reactions.
Of all the vaccines on the market where children had suffered a life threatening event, the majority of those who had a life threatening event suffered it after after a HPV vaccine.
Botha proved without a doubt, hormones and women 's menstrual cycles, play a key role in adverse events after the HPV vaccines. She said the women that she had studied that had had adverse reactions, generally fell into three sub sections.
3.Women who were due to menstruate.
Botha says that this is mainly due to the testosterone levels in their blood, this is she says because the hormone testosterone, absorbs heavy metals. The HPV vaccines have aluminium in them which is classified as a heavy metal. She also states that anyone who has a hormone imbalance could react badly to the HPV vaccine. She explained that many young girls having this vaccine are in the early stages of puberty and therefore have irregular cycles with hormone imbalances. She points out that where a women or young girl is, in her cycle, is crucial to how they react to this vaccine. For example, before menstruating, a women's immune system is low, due to her hormones, this is why she feels tired and irritable, having a vaccine at this time can cause her she says to react adversely to the vaccine.
Janak explained how the 'Gardasil girls', as they are now called, are, through their symptoms giving the children who suffer vaccine induced Autism, a voice. Many of the girls who have been adversely affected by Gardasil or Cervarix are experiencing severe migraines and many Autistic children bang their heads. She says it could be that these Autistic children are also experiencing severe migraines but because of their lack of language skills, cannot tell adults that their heads hurt. Many Gardasil and Cervarix victims complain of severe leg cramps and numbness. Again Janak explained how many Autistic children are known to rub their legs.
Botha said that many of the woman and children adversely affected by the HPV vaccines have died suddenly. She said "girls are just dropping dead". Janak explained this is due to the fact that many are experiencing heart problems brought on by these vaccines. She explained this by reading out parts of autopsy reports on some of the dead girls.
To listen to the webinar in full and see the powerpoint presentations please link to Global Backlash Against HPV Vaccines
or go to the website The Truth About Gardasil
Janny Stokvis another member of the group made this moving video
about the evidence she has found on both Gardasil and Cervarix.
A big thank you must be said to the six women who took a risk to help others. They will go down is history as six of the great. They are Freda Birrell, Leslie C Botha, Cynthia Janak, Rosemary Mathis, Karen Maynor, Janny Stokvis
IS IMMUNISATION ADVISORY CENTRE CORRUPTED BY VACCINE COY SPONSORSHIP
By Katherine Smith (Associate Editor, UNCENSORED Magazine)
The Immunisation Advisory Centre (IMAC) which describes itself as a source of independent and scientific advice about vaccination for the NZ government as well as media and public and is "based at the University of Auckland".
Its spokesperson, Dr Nikki Turner, is frequently asked to comment on issues related to vaccination in mainstream media.
Her advice is sought and widely broadcast on vaccines from the MMR and the MeNZB vaccines to, more recently, the controversial HPV vaccine "Gardasil".
According to IMAC's website:
"Our aim is to provide New Zealanders with a local source of independent, factual information including benefits and risks regarding immunisation, and vaccine-preventable disease. The information we provide is based on international and New Zealand medical research and is supported by a large network of health professionals."
However, IMAC may not be the independent organisation that it would have you believe.
One of its major sponsors is the Ministry of Health an ostensibly "public good" source of funding.
However, the other major sponsors that IMAC acknowledges on its website are: CSL Biotherapies; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD); Sanofi Aventis and Wyeth Vaccines.
All of these companies are directly involved in the manufacture and distribution of vaccines.
With this in mind, how can we be assured that IMAC, and by inference, the NZ Ministry of Health, is being objective in recommending the various vaccines they do? What role, if any, does vaccine manufacturer sponsorship have in influencing Dr Turner and others at IMAC to play down the risks and indeed the often reported side effects of the vaccines in question?
Recently Nikki Turner appeared on TV, defending the HPV vaccine "Gardasil", despite the death of 18 year old New Zealander Jasmine Renata, who developed symptoms consistent with neurological disease following vaccination with "Gardasil" and died in her sleep in September 2009. [refs]
Gardasil is manufactured by Merck.
Think about who sponsors IMAC if you read the information intended for parents about measles on IMAC's website that categorically denies any connection between the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine and autism.
Here is the quote:"Can the MMR vaccine cause autism? NO. Extensive research shows there is no evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism or any other behavioral or neurological disorder." (Original emphasis.)
The MMR vaccine used in NZ is manufactured by Merck.
NB: To read some of the scientific evidence linking the MMR to the development of autism in previously healthy children who were developing normally prior to being vaccinated with the MMR, go here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez (Search "PMID": 12145534)
Think about who sponsors IMAC if you read the section for parents about Pneumococcal disease on IMAC's website
"Is the vaccine safe? No serious reactions have been associated with pneumococcal vaccines."
While the manufacturer's datasheet on Medsafe's website states:
"As with other paediatric vaccines, there have been spontaneous reports of apnoea in temporal association with the administration of Prevenar..."
As a parent, I would consider apnoea (temporary cessation of breathing) in a young baby a very serious reaction to a vaccine, wouldn't you?
IMAC obviously disagrees.
Think about who sponsors IMAC when you read the following link at which Nikki Turner dismisses any link between influenza vaccination and miscarriage as coincidental, even though a top Chinese infectious disease specialist recommended against pregnant women being vaccinated during the first trimester due to stillbirths in recently-vaccinated pregnant women in Hong Kong.
(The pregnant women in Hong Kong are not the only ones who have experienced stillbirth or miscarriage following influenza vaccination as the stories on the following links indicate:)
Unfortunately, none of the influenza vaccines on the NZ market appear to have been tested in clinical trials to ascertain how safe (or unsafe) they may be in pregnancy, so the risks of influenza vaccines are impossible to quantify. For example:
"The safety of CELVAPAN [a single antigen A/H1N1 influenza vaccine] in pregnancy and lactation has not been assessed in
For the seasonal flu vaccine "Intanza" the manufacturer admits: "no clinical data on exposed pregnancies are available"
The seasonal flu vaccine "Influvac" has not even been tested in pregnant animals, so it could be a mistake to assume that it is safe for use during pregnancy.
According to the manufacturer of another seasonal flu vaccine, Vaxigrip:
"Safety of use during pregnancy has not been established."
The manufacturer of "Fluvax" surprisingly recommends its product during pregnancy even though it is categorised as a "B2" medication; essentially meaning that its safety in pregnancy is unproven.
(The definition of the category "B2" is:
"Drugs which have been taken by only a limited number of pregnant women and women of childbearing age, without an increase in the frequency of malformation or other direct or indirect harmful effects on the human fetus having been observed. Studies in animals are inadequate or may be lacking, but available data show no evidence of an increased occurrence of fetal damage".)
IMAC does not mention the fact that there have not been clinical trials of the influenza vaccines on the NZ market in pregnant women on the relevant page of its website.
In NZ, the subsidisation of influenza vaccines has recently been expanded. In previous years influenza vaccines were subsidised only for people over the age of sixty-five years and those with chronic illnesses. For 2010, pregnant women can now receive the vaccine "free" (with taxpayer dollars, of course). About 60,000 babies are born in NZ each year, so this means that there are potentially 60,000 more doses of influenza vaccine that could be sold to the government for injection into expectant mothers.
Moreover, influenza vaccination is now "free" for some babies and children aged 6 months to five years. Maori, Pasifika and children from low income families will be offered the vaccine. About twenty percent of the NZ childhood population is estimated to live in poverty, and around 60,000 babies are born each year. This means that there will be about 270,000 children in NZ between the age of six months and five years. Targeting at least twenty percent of these children for influenza vaccination could mean manufacturers could benefit from the sales of influenza vaccine for another 54,000 people. It is recommended that children get two doses of influenza vaccine so this could easily amount to more than 100,000 extra influenza vaccine sales.
The Ministry of Health has endorsed all of the influenza vaccines on the NZ market for use in babies and children, despite the fact that one of them "Intanza" is "not recommended" for people below the age of 18 "due to insufficient data on safety and efficacy".
You might expect IMAC as a source of "independent advice" to make some effort to communicate this fact to parents and health professionals who might not bother to read the datasheet, given the Ministry of Health blanket endorsement of all influenza vaccines. However, IMAC has been strangely silent on this issue.
These are the brands of seasonal (trivalent) influenza vaccine on the NZ market:
"Intanza" is manufactured Sanofi Pasteur and distributed in NZ by Sanofi Aventis (NZ) Ltd
"Fluarix" is distributed in NZ by GlaxoSmithKline.
"Vaxigrip" is manufactured Sanofi Pasteur SA (France)and distributed in NZ by Sanofi Aventis (NZ) Ltd
"Fluvax" is manufactured by CSL Ltd (Australia) and CSL Biotherapies (New Zealand) Limited?
"Vaxigrip" is manufactured by Solvay Pharmaceuticals and distributed by Pharmacy Retailing (NZ) Led (trading as Healthcare Logistics)
If you think that the names Sanofi Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Biotherapies Ltd sound awfully familiar it's because they're IMAC's best buddies.
He who pays the piper is still calling the tune.
Don't the people and the health practitioners of New Zealand deserve to have the truth about the vaccines we're buying with our tax dollars?
TIME FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT GARDASIL - DR MERCOLA
It is indeed suspicious that the FDA put Gardasil on a fast-tracked approval process. What many people fail to appreciate is that the human papilloma virus is a sexually transmitted disease, not a virus you can get by shaking someone’s hand.