In yet another unbelievable story, a vaccine attributed to many deaths and cancers, a researcher from Merck admits the vaccination does nothing.
So why did Texas Governor Order this vaccination for all school kids?
Why is Guardisil, something supposed to prevent cancer in the Cervix, also being given t young men?
Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing
On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an
audience of mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane
Harper, the leading international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a
sales pitch for Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine
that is supposed to confer protection against four strains of the
sexually transmitted Human Papillomavirus (HPV).
Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on
Vaccination to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own
presentation left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own
admission, Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a 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.
As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass
vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper
explained, 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.
Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns
in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical
cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to
the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the
developing world.) Indeed, she 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.”
If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the
murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same
thought had occurred to them.
In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.
1
Moreover, it 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 women.
2
The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992,
the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death
rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”
3
At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably
wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials
funded by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case
for the vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed
us 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.”
It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of
all, it is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population
will continue to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with
annual PAP smears. And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after
60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences”
of cervical cancer.
But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s
do the math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death
continues, in 60 years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical
cancer death just from current cancer monitoring and treatment.
Comparing this rate of decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal”
reduction in the rate of cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in
60 years, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost
nothing for the health of American women.
Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and
aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1
June 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in
the U.S.
4
With hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the
pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded
U.S. medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and
13.
5
As CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young
women, quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to
aggressive marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get
the vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.”
6
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.”
But it turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil
vaccination until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper
only emphasized to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil
booster shots, because it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity
lasts. More booster shots mean more money for Merck, obviously.
I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to
stop cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she
had largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have
officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include
Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain
inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been
44 reported deaths.
7
Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped
another in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate
of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical
cancer.”
8 This
being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer,
especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while
the possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.
In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either
Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who
received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the
Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a
saline placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 who received
Gardasil in the study died.
9, see p. 8 The cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per year.
10
The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly
underestimates. Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News 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.”
11
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.
12
Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I
definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when
she dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”
Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration
of the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not
been studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that
Polysorbate 80, an ingredient in the vaccine,
13, see p. 12 has been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in rats.
14 Is this an additional concern? Time will tell.
I do 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.
To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when
weighed against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil
campaign. Should millions of girls in the United States, many as young
as 9, be put at risk, so that sexually active adults can have less
“relationship tension” about false positive HPV results? Is the current
rate of death, sterility and serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil
worth the potential that in 60 years a minimal amount of a cervical
disease (that is already decreasing on its own) may perhaps be reduced?
But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing
such a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they
could make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately
explained by the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human
Services bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to
women? What motivates them?
I (Steve) 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.
http://www.pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
