“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” – (source) Marica Angell. She is a physician and author, along with being the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine – regarded as one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Merck & Co.’s Gardasil vaccine in 2006, it has been surrounded by tremendous amounts of information, controversy and misinformation. This controversy has garnered much attention as people become more aware of the importance of paying attention to what goes into their bodies. It’s imperative that one examines a large body of evidence before believing what is seen on TV or stated on a radio advertisement, and people are slowly starting to wake up to this fact.
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – (Taken from the ONE MORE GIRL DOCUMENTARY) – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
Gardasil, also known as the Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, is given as a series of three shots over 6 months to protect against HPV infection and its associated health problems. Two vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) are said to protect against cervical cancers in women. Gardasil is also said to protect against genital warts and cancers of the anus, vagina and vulva. Both vaccines are available for females, while only Gardasil is available for males.
The Centers For Disease Control (CDC) claims that the HPV vaccine offers the best protection to girls and boys who receive all three vaccine doses and have time to develop an immune response before being sexually active. This is why it is recommended for children who have reached the age of 11 or 12.
There is a long list of educated people speaking out about this vaccine. This time around, it’s Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck who has started to raise his voice against the HPV vaccine, along with the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. He joins a long list of experts from within the industry who have slammed the rampant manipulation and control of clinical research done by the pharmaceutical industry.
This quote is taken from an interview that happened in April of 2014, from an issue of the French magazine Principes de Santé (Health Principles):
“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” (source) – Dr. Bernard Dalbergue
Dr. Dalbergue has also recently released a book titled “Omerta dans les labos pharmaceutiques: Confessions d’un medicine,” which goes into more detail about corruption in the medical/pharmaceutical industry. He also recently made an appearance on a popular radio show in France, you can watch here. Althought it’s in French, it’s nice to put a face to the name so that you can see he is real.
Scandal, misinformation, and data manipulation have become part and parcel of clinical research and pharmaceutical drug development. It is important that we realize this as fact and not hearsay; apart from whistle-blowers, there are numerous documents that illustrate this reality. One of the best examples (out of many) comes from Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia. In 2011 she obtained documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about the multiple dangers associated with vaccines but have chosen to withhold them from the public. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. You can read those documents here.
Here’s what she had to say about Gardasil:
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s very unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved, it is a credit to her character for doing so. It also says a lot that she agreed to participate in the ONE MORE GIRL documentary, which implies (I believe) there is a chance she resonates with the other information that’s stated in the documentary that she has not said publicly.
ONE MORE GIRL is an answer to Merck & Co’s One Less Girl marketing campaign for the HPV vaccine Gardasil. The parents who encouraged their daughters to get the HPV vaccine did so on the advice of their doctors, their government, and their belief in pharmaceutical industry. They were not “anti-vaccine,” they played by the rules, and now they are paying the price. It’s a documentary that has several experts from the industry, various doctors, and university researchers speaking out about the vaccine.
“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated” – Dr Diane Harper (source)
The above quote was taken from the film, and here is an excerpt of her raising some important things to consider regarding the vaccine.
If we are talking about recent research regarding the HPV vaccine, a new review was just published in the journal Autoimmunity Reviews titled, “On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune disease.”
The authors of this study came to the same conclusion as Dr. Harper, a doctor that was directly involved with the clinical trials for the approval of the vaccine (mentioned earlier in the article). They concluded that:
“The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.” (If you are interested you can access the paper here)
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases which include: Multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, primary ovarian failure, and more.
The 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil reports that 73.3% of the ‘healthy’ girls who participated in the clinical trials developed ‘New Medical Conditions. The list below highlights some of the ‘New Medical Conditions’ reported in the 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil. (source)
Blood & Lymphatic System Disorders 2.9% = 1 in 34
Gastrointestinal Disorders 13.4% = 1 in 7
General & Administration Site Conditions 3.8% = 1 in 33
Immune System Disorders 2.4% =1 in 50
Infections & Infestations 52.9% = 1 in 2
Injury, Poisoning, & Procedural Complications 8.0% =1 in 12
Investigations 11.8% =1 in 9
Musculoskeletal & Connective Tissue Disorders 6.8% =1 in 14
Nervous System Disorders 9.4% = 1 in 10
Pregnancy, Puerperium & Perinatal Conditions 2.0% = 1 in 50
Psychiatric Disorders 4.4% =1 in 22
Renal Disorders 2.7% =1 in 37
Reproductive & Brest Disorders 24.8 % = 1 in 14
Respiratory, Thoracic & Mediastinal Disorders 5.5% = 1 in 18
Skin & Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders 7.4% = 1 in 13
Surgical Procedures = Appendectomy 10.2% = 1 in 10
A year ago the vaccine was taken off the recommended vaccine schedule in Japan due to it’s adverse effects. What’s even more concerning is the fact that today’s vaccine has twice the amount of aluminum in it.
Related CE Article:
This is what can happen to children who receive aluminum containing vaccines.
Another groundbreaking article titled “Quantifying the possible cross-reactivity risk of an HPV16 vaccine, published in the Journal of Experimental Therapeutics and Oncology concluded that:
“The number of viral matches and their locations make the occurrence of side autoimmune cross-reactions in the human host following HPV16-based vaccination almost unavoidable.” (source)
The list is literally endless, and for the sake of not turning this article into an essay, I’ll stop here. Hopefully I’ve provided you with enough information to further your research if interested. If you want to look at more scientific data, you can check out:
Giant Database of Studies Regarding The Gardasil Vaccine.
I am going to end this article with another important video:
All other sources are linked throughout the article.
Giant Database of Studies Regarding The Gardasil Vaccine.
Раскрыта загадка вакцин от хламидиоза - в 60-е ими экспериментально прививали, как скромно пишут в прессе, детей в развивающихся странах. В этих массовых экспериментах привитые младенцы и дошкольники систематически заболевали трахомой (хламидийное поражение глаз) чаще, чем непривитые.
Оказалось(!), что при введении убитых хламидий наивная (в научном смысле) иммунная система развивает тормозящий иммунный ответ (дескать, все уже сдохли, ничего не надо). Поэтому при инфицировании реальными хламидиями инфекция развивается чаще и протекает с большими осложнениями.
Кроме того, выяснилось, что при подкожном введении бактериальных антигенов обученные лимфоциты собираются в соответствующих региональных лимфоузлах, и ничем не помогают при инфекции слизистых.
Но новые, новые вакцины будут лишены всех недостатков (тяжелый, тяжелый сарказм).
Vaccines in the '60s made people more likely to develop chlamydia — and now we know why
Chlamydia researchers just solved a 50-year-old mystery, handing us the keys to a potential vaccine
Chlamydia researchers may have solved a 50-year-old scientific mystery. And in doing so, they designed what looks like the most promising candidate for a chlamydia vaccine that we've seen in a long time.
Chlamydia is the most widespread bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the world. In the US, over 1 million chlamydial infections were reported to CDC in 2013. Most people clear the infection on their own, but in some cases, it can cause infertility in women, ectopic pregnancies, pneumonia, and pelvic inflammatory disease. And when the infection occurs in the eyes, chlamydia can lead to blindness. In fact, it's the most common cause of preventable blindness. That's why a vaccine for this particular STI is so dearly needed. Most people don't seek treatment because they don't show any visible signs of infection — and then they pass it on.
CHLAMYDIA VACCINE STUDIES IN THE 1960S DIDN'T GO VERY WELL
Unfortunately, research on chlamydia vaccines hasn't gone all that well, historically. In the 1960s, scientists designed a number of chlamydia vaccines that they then tested on humans — including very young children — in developing countries. But the vaccine didn't always have the desired effect; in some cases, people who were vaccinated became more likely to develop chlamydia than people who weren't. The result was puzzling, especially given that other studies showed that people who had previously been infected with chlamydia tended to show an attenuated response to subsequent infections. Chlamydia vaccine research in humans became less popular after that period, and researchers never figured out why their vaccines had this less than desirable effect.
Now, writing in Science, a group of researchers think they might have figured it out. Their research shows that killed Chlamydia bacteria — the kind you might use to make a vaccine — activates our immune systems in a way that makes us more tolerant to the infection. And what's even more exciting is that the finding has helped scientists develop a nano-particle-based vaccine that can redirect our immune systems in a far more favorable direction.
Back to the basics
First, the researchers recreated the results of the 1960s studies — in mice. To do that, scientists gave mice a dose of either live or dead Chlamydia bacteria. Later, they observed how the mice reacted to a second dose of live bacteria. As with the human trials, the animals that were given killed Chlamydia were far more likely to be infected than those that were given live Chlamydia the first time around. Then the researchers' task was to figure out why.
A specific type of white blood cell, called a T lymphocyte, was responsive to Chlamydia, an immune system analysis showed. Live and dead bacteria elicited different immune responses from the T lymphocytes. T cells can become cells that fight the infection — protective T cells — or regulatory T cells, which protect Chlamydia, explains Ulrich von Andrian, an immunologist at Harvard University and co-author of the study. Dead Chlamydia exposure created regulatory T cells, making the infection more effective in the mice.
"When they're stimulated by Chlamydia, they can sort of make different career decisions," von Andrian says. Regulatory T cells are anti-inflammatory and they prevent other parts of the immune system from becoming fully active against an allergen. This is what happens with killed Chlamydia. And it's the reason the vaccines in the 1960s made everything worse.
This was actually very good news for the researchers. It meant that the killed Chlamydia weren't being ignored by the immune system. This was something the researchers could use.
"We thought, perhaps we can exploit the fact that this killed Chlamydia is actually seen by the immune system and attach a message to this killed Chlamydia such that the response becomes a desired one," von Andrian recalls.
To do that, the scientists tried to mix the vaccine with "adjuvants" — substances that are used in vaccines to boost body's immune response. The attempt failed miserably; the T cells reacted just as they had before.
As it turns out, if you mix killed Chlamydia with adjuvant particles that are about the same size, you just end up with two particles floating around. And having them mixed together doesn't change the T cells' "career decision" to regulate instead of protect. So, the researchers turned to nano-particle science.
Nano-particles to the rescue
Surgeons use tiny bio-degradable plastic materials, called nano-particles, to do things like make dissolvable sutures. So the researchers adapted the technology to attach the adjuvants directly to the vaccine.
To do this, the researchers took advantage of a little-known fact. All living cells — including dead bacterial cells, for that matter — carry a negative charge on their surface. And a negative charge attracts a positive one. So, the scientists made nanoparticles with a positive charge. This time, the adjuvants stuck to the vaccine, and the T cells chose more wisely.
"We got protection that is as good as, and perhaps even a little bit better than if we infected mice with live Chlamydia and let them develop natural immunity," von Andrian says.
Now, here's where things get even geekier (read: awesome). The vaccine the scientists made works really well as a nasal spray. To understand why that is, you have to delve deep into immune system science. But here's a quick and dirty break down: If a doctor immunizes a patient by "the classical route," where a doctor gives them a vaccine through the skin, their lymphocytes become "educated" to this vaccine. This essentially means that their lymph nodes — the place where lymphocytes are formed — get imprinted with a message that tells the T cells which tissues they should travel to.
PROTECTION THAT'S "A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN IF WE INFECTED MICE WITH LIVE CHLAMYDIA."
So, when a doctor injects someone with a vaccine through their arm, lymphocytes that are formed at these nodes learn to migrate to the skin. But a uterus isn't covered in skin — it's covered in mucosa, the same moist tissue lining that's inside your mouth and nose. And lymphocytes that are educated to migrate to the skin, don't migrate to mucosa. That's one of the main reasons that making vaccines that protect against STIs is so complex.
Fortunately, it is possible to teach lymphocytes to travel to the mucosa, instead of to the skin. Scientists can do that by giving a vaccine through the mouth, for instance. That's how oral vaccines trigger T cells that travel to the intestines, which are also lined with mucosa. And in the case of this chlamydia vaccine, a nasal spray could do the trick, von Andrian says. "The [T cells] go to the naval cavity and to other mucosal surfaces and then they set up shop," he says. "There are local signals that we don't understand yet in the tissues that allow these cells to become very long-lived."
When the researchers gave a nasal vaccine to the mice, they found that it was protective against chlamydia six months after the treatment. Vaccines that target T cells can't prevent an infection from occurring — but they can shorten the length of the infection and lessen its severity.
But protecting mice against chlamydia isn't the same as protecting humans. So the scientists tried the vaccine on mice with human immune systems. These "humanized mice" are created by grafting human immune cells inside their bodies. Each mouse costs $1,000, so this part of the study didn't come cheap — but it paid off. The vaccine worked as well in these expensive mice as it did in conventional mice.
"That is really, I think, very encouraging that the human immune system even in this rather foreign environment of the body can respond to this vaccine and protect against this Chlamydia as well as the mouse immune system," von Andrian says.
The study "presents an excellent insight" into the requirements for designing an efficacious chlamydia vaccine, says Joseph Igietseme, a chlamydia researcher at the CDC. This has been the subject of "intense research investigation for over five decades."
THE RAMIFICATIONS GO BEYOND A CHLAMYDIA VACCINE
But Igietseme says the most important part of the study is the new delivery system used to target Chlamydia — and he'd like to see more information on how it works, because it may aid in more than just chlamydia vaccines. It could be used against other infections that target the mucosa, or to design vaccines against diseases that aren't spread by infection.
Now that the study has been published, a pharmaceutical company by the name of Selecta Biosciences will move ahead with the work. They'll be in charge of conducting a human trial in a few years. When that happens, the nasal spray could really come in handy; asking someone to use a spray is a lot easier than asking them to let researchers introduce a chlamydia vaccine inside their uterus.
And the study published today will be central in getting a human trial through the regulatory process; von Andrian knows that the legacy of the 1960s studies will be hard to shake. "There will definitely be questions," he says. "Regulatory agencies wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask about this."
Lead HPV vaccine developer admits Gardasil, Cervarix are unscientific scams with deadly consequences for children
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) One of the foremost researchers whose work led to the development of the two existing human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, now warns that as currently used, those vaccines have not been proven safe or effective.
"About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have HPV at some stage of their life," said researcher Diane Harper of the University of Louisville. "Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn't, and isn't treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer."
But for women in the Western world with access to cervical cancer screening via yearly Pap smears, the risks of the vaccine are likely to outweigh the benefits, Harper warns.
Vaccine as risky as the cancer
The key factor, according to Harper, is that cervical cancer rates in the United States and other Western countries tend to be very low to begin with. Even if the HPV vaccine does prevent cervical cancer, and not just HPV infection – an outcome that has never been proven – this is unlikely to have much effect on cancer rates. In addition, cervical cancer is highly treatable if detected early, via a yearly Pap smear.
In contrast, Harper says, the rate of serious side effects for the HPV vaccine is relatively high. One key study, conducted by CDC researcher Barbara Slade, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found 3.4 serious adverse events – including death – per 100,000 doses. Yet this article under-reported the risks of the vaccines by as much as five-fold, Harper says.
"Parents and women must know that deaths occurred," Harper said. "Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade's work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil."
The combination of a relatively high vaccine risk, and a relatively non-dangerous cancer, mean that in Western countries, the risk of the HPV vaccine is very similar to the risk of the cancer that it claims to prevent, Harper has said.
These warnings do not apply, she has said, in poor countries where women do not have access to regular Pap smear tests and to high-quality cancer treatment.
Untested vaccine used on children
Harper has expressed particular concern about moves to make HPV vaccination compulsory for children. She notes that no safety or effectiveness tests have been performed on children younger than 15, yet the vaccine is being recommended for girls as young as nine.
She also opposes vaccinating younger children, because there is no evidence yet of how long the vaccine's protection lasts. This means that it may wear off before a woman even becomes sexually active.
"If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last ... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit," Harper said. "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated."
Harper also emphasizes that even women who have been vaccinated still need to get yearly Pap smears, as the vaccine does not protect against all cancer-causing HPV strains. In addition, a woman already infected will gain no benefit from the vaccine.
Thus, the widespread misconception that the vaccine makes women immune to cervical cancer may actually lead to falling screening rates, and an ultimate rise in cervical cancer deaths.