Merck Dr. Exposes Gardasil Scandal: Ineffective, Deadly, Very Profitable

More big problems for big drug company Merck.

Something is being exposed by a Doctor who worked for Merck and he is blowing the whistles about the controversial drug Gardasil.

He has details and yes, the Obama Administration is involved because they have been giving money for the promotion of this possible killer drug.

A controversial government-backed cervical cancer vaccine is ineffective, has deadly side effects and serves no other purpose than to generate profit for its manufacturer, according to a physician who worked at the major pharmaceutical company that’s made huge profits selling it to girls and young women.

It marks the most disturbing inside information exposed about the vaccine, Gardasil, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck. The vaccine was scandalously fast-tracked by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been ardently promoted by the Obama administration as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Instead it’s been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government’s own daunting statistics. Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths. Based on the records JW published a special report in 2008 detailing Gardasil’s approval process, side effects, safety concerns and marketing practices. Undoubtedly, it illustrates a large-scale public health experiment.

Main Story;
Merck Dr. Exposes Gardasil Scandal: Ineffective, Deadly, Very Profitable


Related Story;
$47 Mil to Get More Adolescents on Gardasil


Horrible.

The abuse of the medical field for financial gain is getting out of hand. The cost of the vaccine, one which is not even proven to work correctly, is way too high. I see a lot of people being paid off or being promised good jobs. I think these companies should return to hell where they belong. Too bad I couldn't debuke a whole company, or can I.

Sad indeed, and I really felt Gardasil was going to cause problems after watching a good documentary called The Greater Good. It is not a hype anti-vaccination doc, but rather a more balanced examination of the issue. There are cases in this vid that left me certain about the potential detrimental reactions to Gardasil specifically. I would never have my child endure the risk, and I am not an anti vaccine person, but am not in favor of the increased number of vaccinations recommended by whatever entities. I highly recommend this doc.


Ben Swann did an article on vaccine court aka Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, that shows how a specific Federal Claim's Court was set up to handle vaccine liability.

That is because it was in 1986 when the U.S. Congress created National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Now that alone is worthy of a story, because what most Americans don’t know is that a family who has child injured by a vaccine, cannot simply sue the vaccine maker. Under this 1986 law, Congress took that power away from families and instead created a “vaccine court” if you will.

In 1986 when the VICP was first created vaccine makers were protected from lawsuit by the public. The VICP insulates vaccine manufacturers from liability and requires that petitioners bring their petitions solely against HHS. They may not sue manufacturers or healthcare practitioners. The rationale for this industry and professional protection was to ensure a stable childhood vaccine supply and to keep prices affordable.

The 1986 Law also permits the vaccine makers the right to not disclose known risks
to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Based on something called the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated.

In exchange for being subject to the vaccine court, families of those injured would be compensated through an administrative process based on a table of presumptive vaccine injuries.

At its outset, 90% of claims were “on table.” But almost 30 years later, things are very different. Today, the vaccine schedule, meaning the list of vaccines offered to children has tripled, but the table of injuries has become much more restrictive, forcing 90% of petitioners into “off-table” litigation. And it gets worse. Because for families who believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, there are enormous roadblocks to overcome when seeking compensation for those injuries.

So there is that

The fact that this administration provides such 'boosts' is unsettling. I wonder if Obama and his staff even care or wonder about potential ill effects of vaccines? Most people it seems accept doctors word as end all. I also wonder if their kids will be getting Gardasil, as part of this "large scale experiment????"

This is another example of profits over people, and I hope some class action suits develop.

Well . . . I wonder where this is going in the long run.

The document goes on to chastise an “indecent campaign” of lobbying and aggressive advertising to promote Gardasil in Europe by playing on the fears of guilt among mothers. “Protect your daughter, this is what is more natural for a mother,” the French announcement says, revealing that one of the commercials has been banned by a medical agency for “lack of objectivity.”

In the United States the government has heavily pushed the vaccine while covering up its debilitating side effects. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for girls starting at age 9 and just a few months ago distributed a 13-minute DVD claiming the side effects are limited to a “little pain and discomfort” and “dizziness and stomach aches.” The video was designed to reach “underserved areas” and “minority populations.”

Fear mongering has been empirically shown to generate more vaccinations then actually informing folks as has been outlined in the various other vaccination threads.

Social engineering is really hitting its stride now with the wide acceptance of online social networks and legions of social "scientists." The coming years will really be a canary in the coal mine as to whether these folks will pursue truth or fall into the pattern of Goebbels. I don't have much faith in them after my own experiences so I sure hope I am wrong.

-FBB

PS
Everyone should watch this film and be reminded of what big pharma is really like. Hint: they are not the altruistic saviors dopes on internet portray them to be.

I really hope this gets more attention. Won't be the first exposure of the last of it, but it's often ignored.

"The Lead Vaccine Developer Comes Clean: Gardasil and Cervarix Don't Work, Are Dangerous, and Weren't"

Her speech was supposed to promote the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, but she instead turned on her corporate bosses in a very public way. When questioned about the presentation, audience members remarked that they came away feeling that the vaccines should not be used.

"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." -- Joan Robinson
Source

Dr. Dalbergue claims that Garasil is "useless". Interesting, but there doesn't seem to be any source for the data he used to reach that conclusion.

On the other hand:

Data from two large, long term follow-up studies continue to show that vaccination with Gardasil offers a long duration of protection from human papillomavirus (HPV) diseases related to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18. HPV-related diseases include cervical cancer and genital warts.

www.prnewswire.co.uk...

Terrible side effects? No, not so much:

One hundred eighty-nine thousand six hundred twenty-nine females received at least 1 dose and 44 001 received 3 HPV4 doses. Fifty categories had significantly elevated ORs during at least 1 risk interval. Medical record review revealed that most diagnoses were present before vaccination or diagnostic workups were initiated at the vaccine visit. Only skin infections during days 1 to 14 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4) and syncope on day of vaccination (OR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.9-9.2) were noted by an independent Safety Review Committee as likely associations with HPV4.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A total of 600,558 HPV4 doses were administered during the study period. We found no statistically significant increased risk for the outcomes studied. However, a non-statistically significant relative risk (RR) for VTE ICD-9 codes following HPV4 vaccination of 1.98 was detected among females age 9-17 years. Medical record review of all 8 vaccinated potential VTE cases in this age group revealed that 5 met the standard case definition for VTE. All 5 confirmed cases had known risk factors for VTE (oral contraceptive use, coagulation disorders, smoking, obesity or prolonged hospitalization).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

to bad about the other hundred hpvs the vaccine doesn't cover
they're the ones you would have got anyway
eta ooops....make that one hundred fourty five hpvs

also
if they can't tell which hpvs are present hpw can they decide which ones are actualy the high risk ones?
www.cancer.gov...

a reply to: Danbones

How many are known to pose serious heath risks?
How many are known to cause cancer?

I suppose, since a single vaccine cannot protect against all strains, it's pointless. Right?
I suppose since that vaccine is effective only against several of the most dangerous strains, there's no point. Right?

a reply to: Phage
I agree with the pointless part

Gardasil is becoming a living hell for many young women
As of today, December 10, 2007 this is what has been reported. I added together HPV and HPV4.

4306 reported incidents + 2141 (newly found) = 6447 (see chart below)
71 were considered life threatening
173 were hospitalized
730 had not recovered at the time of the report
93 are disabled at the time of the report
10 have died

As I have done in the past articles I get my stats from the National Vaccine Information Center — MedAlerts.

www.medalerts.org...

looks a little risky to me

not to mention cancer seems to be a side effect of birthcontrol...
i wonder when they are going to come out with a vaccine for that?

Other factors may increase the risk of developing cancer following a high-risk HPV infection (5). These other factors include the following:

Smoking
Having a weakened immune system
Having many children (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
Long-term oral contraceptive use (for increased risk of cervical cancer)
Poor oral hygiene (for increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer)
Chronic inflammation

www.cancer.gov...

a reply to: xuenchen
Med alert home page
www.medalerts.org...
med alert search for guardesil
www.medalerts.org...

the med alert page is very interesting for searching for the noted reactions to vaccines in general

a reply to: Phage

The researchers say there are approximately 14 high-risk types of HPV that cause invasive cervical cancer - the two most common types are 16 and 18, which have different viral genetic patterns."

The researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say their systematic review and meta-analysis found that persistent HPV infections could be an indication for a increased risk of cervical cancer.

er.

Persistent infections and precancer are established, typically within 5—10 years, from less than 10% of new infections. Invasive cancer arises over many years, even decades, in a minority of women with precancer

link to UNC study presser

from the Gardasil package insert: 2.3% of girls 9-26 had "Systemic Autoimmune disorders" This is considered safe. BTW the disorder rates are equivalent to just the aluminum adjuvant given as a control. Go figure. Someone else can resolve the numbers but what is mortality rate from cancers proven to be caused by HPV strains in the vaccine? Much lower the 2% I believe, but that's a loose inference.

"Pointless" also meaning no net benefit. Also meaning benefits are not significant vs. side effects.

I'm not convinced medical science fully understands the causal chain between HPV and full blown cancer. I don't think medical science understands cancer that well to begin with. Too many assumptions, arrogance and profit motive. I'm a skeptic though.

a reply to: Danbones

looks a little risky to me

How many doses have been dispensed? How many of the incidents can be related to the vaccine?

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

vaers.hhs.gov...
Someone can report a stubbed toe as a "reaction" to a vaccination.

i wonder when they are going to come out with a vaccine for that?

Maybe when they come out with one for having many children. Oh, wait.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

from the Gardasil package insert: 2.3% of girls 9-26 had "Systemic Autoimmune disorders" This is considered safe. BTW the disorder rates are equivalent to just the aluminum adjuvant given as a control.

No. The insert does not say that girls "had Systemic Autoimmune disorders". This is what it says:

Summary of Girls and Women 9 Through 26 Years of Age Who Reported an Incident Condition Potentially Indicative of a Systemic Autoimmune Disorder After Enrollment in Clinical Trials of GARDASIL, Regardless of Causality

In other words, body aches, a runny nose maybe. A rash.

BTW, the placebo was "AAHS or Saline." And yes the rate of occurance was the same. But about that causality thing:

One in 12 women and one in 20 men in the U.S. will develop some sort of autoimmune disease in their lifetime, according to new estimates.

www.webmd.com...

That's 8% of women. And you want to imply that a 2.3% occurrence was caused by the vaccine? Sounds pretty normal to me, considering the age group.

One more thing about those numbers:

The same individual may appear in different categories.

So,that 2.3% is possibly a bit high.

www.fda.gov...

Much lower the 2% I believe, but that's a loose inference.

Quite loose. One would question from whence you pulled it. In any case, the actual numbers of cervical cancer associated with HPV are rather high.

HPV is associated with 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 250,000 cervical cancer deaths worldwide each year. Oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18 are responsible for a majority of cervical cancers and can also cause low- and high-grade cervical lesions (CIN 1, 2, 3) as well as high-grade vulvar or vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN or VaIN 2/3).

www.hu.ufsc.br...

"Pointless" also meaning no net benefit. Also meaning benefits are not significant vs. side effects.

The word the doctor used was "useless" but sure, preventing cancer (and those other rather unpleasant things) is not worth a headache or a fever, the main side effects of the vaccine.

Within 4 years of vaccine introduction, the vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased among females aged 14–19 years despite low vaccine uptake. The estimated vaccine effectiveness was high.

jid.oxfordjournals.org...
Even though use of the vaccine was (thanks in part to articles like the one in the OP), the vaccine is so effective in those who received it that it resulted in an overall decline in infection rates.

Never see this reported on MSM ,even on the this forum ,not many people care about this.