"Gardasil never tested in girls under 15 years old" says whistleblower Diane Harper

[LimeSlice]

From American Chronicle

Gardasil has never been tested in young girls under 15 years old, says whistleblower Diane Harper
Christina England

October 26, 2009

Once again our children are being used as 'pharmaceutical laboratory rats' while Merck rake in the dollars. The Bulletin ? Gardasil Researcher Drops a Bombshell ? Susan Brinkman reports that the leading expert Diane Harper dropped a huge bombshell on her stunned audience at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, which took place in Regston, Virginia a few days ago, when she said that not only had there been NO efficiency trials of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, in young girls under 15 she also revealed that 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves in less than year 'without treatment' and 90% in less than 2 years, leaving her audience seriously doubting that if there was any real need for young women to be vaccinated for HPV at all. She said that Gardasil will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates. When asked, why she was now speaking out, Dr Harper said:-

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

This is not the first time that this brave professional has spoken out against the HPV vaccinations Gardasil and Cervarix. Only a few weeks ago Lucy Johnston a UK journalist reported her saying similar to her when she spoke to her on the Cervarix HPV vaccine. In her article HPV Vaccine 'as deadly as the cancer' she wrote:-

"Dr Diane Harper, who was involved in the clinical trials of the controversial drug Cervarix, said the jab was being "over-marketed" and parents should be properly warned about the potential side effects.

Authorities in the UK should be on the alert because its sister vaccine, Gardasil, used in America, has already been associated with 32 deaths, she said."

In an article Hide Your Daughters ? Worst Vaccine Bill Ever ? The Health Sciences Institute Diane Harper was reported to have said:-

"Even if everyone was vaccinated, we would still have cervical cancer. I don?t want people to be lulled into thinking this will prevent cancer."

In the article Could the Gardasil vaccine actually help increase cervical cancer rates -The Health Sciences Institute again it is reported that Diane Harper said:-

"Another gray area is the duration. It appears to remain effective for at least five years, but we have no idea how long it will last in the real world. And that could mean that girls vaccinated at 11 or 12 actually lose protection when they?ll need it most ? but it?s impossible to know that until after large numbers of vaccinated girls contract the virus"


This means that no one really knows if the vaccine works or how long it works for and even worse is the fact that no one will know the answer to either of these questions until a large number of VACCINATED girls begin to contract the virus and possibly die from cervical cancer.

So far Diane Harper has stated these facts:-

FACT 90% of HPV infections resolve themselves in less than two years.

FACT There has been no testing of the HPV vaccine in girls under the age of 15

FACT Parents are not being warned of the side effects of either Cervarix or Gardasil

FACT No one knows how long these vaccines work for

FACT There have been over 32 deaths associated with Gardasil

This is very clear evidence from the mouth of an expert reported in several newspapers, journals and conferences confirming that not only are young girls being used as 'laboratory rats' by the drug companies we are putting our faith into but also by the Governments who are recommending these vaccines.

A few months ago I wrote the article Girls used as Guinea Pigs in HPV Trials Admits GSK where I gave links to paper work which backs up what this expert says in reference to the HPV vaccines. The paperwork said:-

"The initial effect of vaccination is favourable: vaccination leads to the formation of antibodies against the target hrHPVs and thus to protection against infection by those hrHPVs. This in turn brings about a major short-term reduction in the incidence of the precursors of cervical cancer. It is known that the development of such precursors is a prerequisite for the subsequent development of the cancer. Vaccination against cervical cancer itself. However, whether vaccination does in fact protect against cervical cancer will not be known for many years to come."

The Child Health Safety website asked the very important question a few days ago, they asked-

"Do you really want to trust the safety of your children to drugs and vaccines from a company which behaves like this?"

This was in an article they wrote entitled More Fraud By Drug Giant Merck ? US $650 Million when they wrote of the latest Merck Misdemeanour's.

Based on the evidence I have recently seen my answer to the above question is an resounding no.

[Pretty Butterfly]

Great article, thanks for posting. My DD is coming up to the age where they will push for me to have her done.... I wasn't getting her done, and articles like these just reinforce my point of view....

How on earth can they get away with vaccinating millions of girls with NO TRIALS DONE???????

[sas85]

I'm pretty sure you have to voluntarily choose to be part of a medical trial which means age of consent is 16 - of course people under 15 haven't been part of clinical trials - they test these on older people first and once deemed safe they give to the younger population.

Why do 12 year olds need the vaccine anyhow? I won't be giving it to my DD - If she wants it she can choose to do it herself before she gets married etc.

[Glamourcide]

The thing that gets me is that everyone seems to think it's a 'cancer' vaccine. It's not. It's a HERPES vaccine, and herpes is not responsible for 100% of cervical cancers, so personally I see no point in it. You can't 'catch' cancer from sleeping with someone, but you sure can catch herpes or any number of infections/diseases. I'll let my girls make an informed choice when they're old enough to have done the research and can choose what's best for them, but I still think the smarter option is to a) have as few sexual partners as possible and b) when you do sleep with someone, use protection! (Although I do know that condoms won't 100% prevent genital herpes, but it's a good start.)

[sas85]

I thought it wad HPV Human Papiloma Virus not herpes?? Are they related

[Glamourcide]

^ They're the same thing, or very close to, as far as I know. There are different strains of HPV, the one this vaccine is aimed at preventing is the genital herpes one, which has been linked with cervical cancer.

[Eenee]

HPV is genital warts and is a totally different thing to herpes. Genital herpes is realted to the chicken pox and cold sore virus.

The vaccine only works against the HPV- and to be truthful no vaccines are tested properly on humans before they are released. The reason for this is it takes to long to release the vaccine, because to be tested to be totally safe they have to see the long term effects, which they don't do. Which is what aggravates me about all vaccines- none are safe.

[Glamourcide]

^ Ah, warts. Yes. My bad Cheers for the correction!

[Eenee]

Glamourcide: no worries

[HotI]

The thing that gets me is that everyone seems to think it's a 'cancer' vaccine. It's not. It's a HERPES vaccine, and herpes is not responsible for 100% of cervical cancers, so personally I see no point in it. You can't 'catch' cancer from sleeping with someone, but you sure can catch herpes or any number of infections/diseases. I'll let my girls make an informed choice when they're old enough to have done the research and can choose what's best for them, but I still think the smarter option is to a) have as few sexual partners as possible and b) when you do sleep with someone, use protection! (Although I do know that condoms won't 100% prevent genital herpes, but it's a good start.)

However, they do know that cancer in some people is caused by the strains of HPV that the vaccine is targetted to. So, if you have the vaccine, and it works for you, you are protected against a certain % of cervical cancers. If this is proven, i think this is better than no protection.

Your plan for your kids is great in theory, and hopefully they will use protection every time (and their partner is tested before they stop using protection), but reality is that not every young person uses protection every time. And it only takes one exposure to the HPV to then be at risk of cervical cancer.

I don't know if this vaccine is the answer, but the idea is a good one. I feel that even though it can't cover all causes of cervical cancer, it can reduce the risks.

[tenar]

Vaccines are not totally safe.

They are, however, a whole lot safer than the diseases they are used to protect against.

It's like seatbelts. Seatbelts are not totally safe. You can be injured by a seatbelt. You can be injured by an airbag, too. But we all understand that these things actually make cars safer because there is much much more chance of being injured because you weren't wearing a seatbelt than of being injured because you were wearing one. Ditto with airbags. So we all, I'm sure, belt in our children and would buy cars with airbags if we could. Because it makes us safer. Even though there is a risk associated with using those safety devices.

Now, someone might argue that they will never crash their car. But we all understand that even if one person is a perfect driver, not everyone is. So you can't be totally protected from car accidents unless you never use a road at all, not even to cross it walking. It's like that with diseases. We would all like to think that our children won't be exposed to diseases, but the fact is that we can't protect them from exposure entirely. It's impossible. All we can do is to reduce the risk for them if they are exposed. Like we reduce the risk for them if they are in a car accident. So we vaccinate. Or we use seatbelts. Same idea entirely.

Now, the odd thing is, as far as I'm concerned, is that it is illegal not to use seatbelts in cars. But it is not illegal not to vaccinate your kids (or yourself). There is community consensus that matches the research. But there is obviously not community consensus about vaccinations, even though the research supporting them is just as strong as that supporting seatbelts. (Actually it's probably stronger - vaccination is getting an awful lot of research these days, and scientifically there is as much consensus as you ever get from scientists about anything at all). My guess is that this is because car accidents are somehow more concrete, so the risks about those are easier for people in general to understand. So the laws about seatbelts got passed a generation ago, and everyone understands why we use them, and everyone agrees on the need for them, to reduce the risks.

[Glamourcide]

So, if you have the vaccine, and it works for you, you are protected against a certain % of cervical cancers. If this is proven, i think this is better than no protection.

I suppose this is pretty much the heart of the matter for me - it's not protecting women against 100% of cervical cancers, only the ones caused by that particular strain of HPV. But the way the media's carrying on, you'd think this one little needle was the be-all and end-all as far as cancer cures are concerned, which obviously is untrue. FWIW, I vaccinate my kids according to the schedule, because the schedule is protecting against contagious and infectious diseases that can kill or severely disable a child. So the Gardasil vaccine is something I would prefer to do more research on in order to decide whether or not to get it done, because it's not really a 'life-or-death' matter, kwim? At least I have a good decade or so before my girls are eligible for the vaccine so I hope by then that there is much more information and research into this particular vaccine available.

You are right though about people not being smart 100% of the time about the choices they make, and it probably came off like I was being quite arrogant about it Which wasn't intended! I just want my girls to know that this vaccine is only going to prevent a certain percentage of cervical cancers, not all of them, and that while they're protected from one strain of HPV as a result of the vaccine, it doesn't mean they're protected against any other sexually transmitted disease or infection (some of which can be really nasty and cause infertility etc), so if they're going to have the vaccine, it's not really protecting them against much of anything, kwim? They still have to be sensible and careful about their choices.

[Pretty Butterfly]

There is not a chance in hell that my daughter will get a vaccine that been linked with 32 deaths. No way. I dont find that safer than not getting the vaccine.

Just the act of putting on a seat belt wont kill you. But getting this jab into your child could kill them. Having a crash without a belt practically ensures you will be harmed. Not getting this vac does not ensure you will get cancer.

The small risk of actually getting the type of strain the vac is for, weighed up against the damage it can do just doesn't sit well with me at all.

There definatly isn't a concensus on the safety of vaccinations. Actually just the opposite. For all the reasearch done on how wonderful they are, there is more and more research on how damaging they can be, and every parent needs to work out which risk they want to take with their own child. Vaccinations have never claimed to be safe, and the full list of side effects and complications is a very very long one.

[sas85]

32 deaths possibly linked compared to how many people actually vaccinated - the amount of girls in America who have received this must be astronomical - I would be more interested in the actual percentage.

I understand your reasoning PB because we all have that fear, but it comes with every medication not just vaccinations. Ie- If Dr prescribes my daughter antibiotics because of an ear infection I know there is a much higher risk of her having a lethal allergic reaction to it then to most of the immunisations - but compared to the risk of leaving the infection it's a risk I would take - I think most of us who have immunized our children use the same reasoning, other than the social responsibility - we weigh up the risk of a serious side effect compared to the risk of the disease it's immunized against. Plus some of that depends on your background. Ie- I went to school with two kids who were both deaf and one retarded as a result of measles meningitis. I think though even those of us who do choose to immunize on this reasoning still have the what if fear though.

When it comes to this vaccine though being protection against a predominantly Sexually transmitted strain of HPB, I will raise my daughter with the same religious beliefs I was raised with, if she chooses not to follow them (we do not baptize babies, they make their own choice) than she can choose to have this vaccine - but it's not really in teh same ball park to me as whooping cough or measles, think I follow your reasoning there a bit glamourcide.

(As for seatbelts - 10 years ago my 16 year old friend had her spleen, pancreas, and duodenum ruptured BECAUSE of a seat belt injury in a car accident - but they save more injuries and lives than problems they cause - Tenar makes a valid point.

[LimeSlice]

Vaccines are not totally safe.

They are, however, a whole lot safer than the diseases they are used to protect against.
.

That is not actuallythe case at all - this is the issue. There are MANY illnesses that are NOT as dangerous as the vaccine can be for you. Chicken Pox is the glaring example of this.

But this is not supposed to be a Vax Dabate.
It is purely about the testing and targeting issues of vaccines - the Cervical Cancer Vaccine in particular.

And without the appropriate testing there is no way for anyone to categorically say that they are safe.

The fact that they have even called it a "Cervical Cancer Vaccine" is the most miseading piece of propaganda I have ever heard!
It is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine!!

But the fact that they are giving it to children they havent tested it on is a disgrace.
I have heard the argument that it is "unethical" to test on chicldren, pregnant women...
Well what are you doing when you are giving them en masse an UNtested intravenous injection of chemicals and drugs?? How is that more ethical?
I just don;t understand why we are so desperate to find a magical cure for something that we would put more lives at risk.

[BellyBelly]

I'm not willing to risk a vaccine on my children which we have absolutely no idea what it might do to their bodies - short or long term. What is in the vaccine is a problem, as is the fact they're telling us to give this to our children without even knowing how it could affect them... this is not good. We are giving something to them which we have no idea what it could do so how can they call it safe?

Was it acceptable for them to induce VBAC women with what they said was 'safe' misoprostol in the 1990's? How come it took them almost a decade to work out that it was the cause for many ruptured uteruses and dead babies? Everyone needs to start questioning safe - by whose standards? Certainly not a simple assurance from the pharmaceutical company making the drug as well as millions of dollars along with it. Where is the proof of this safety? Why are lead researchers all coming out one by one blowing the whistle?

Blindly accepting an untested vaccine is asking for trouble - it's no wonder disasters happen.... many many drugs and vaccines are not tested or not tested properly. It's just not a risk I want to take.

[Eenee]

well said Kelly!

Before I was before I was educated on vaccines i used to get them, now i know better.

[kawazuki]

before a vax can be given in australia it has to go through so much testing. its has to be approved by the therapuetic goods act, and a few other agencies that deem it safe for use. its the same as any medication.

it is then monitored closely and any reaction is listed on a database.
if you want true AUSTRALIAN statistics go the department fo health or beuro of statistics it will give u the number of deaths, reactions etc per people immunised.

also the vax used in america is slightly different to here.

nothing in life is 100% safe this we must remember.

also the programme is a school based programme and free. the 16-26 programme has finished, if you havent had your first jab yet you have to pay and i can tell you its around $300 per shot that you pay for out of your pocket. this is the incentive either get it at 13-16 for free or pay $900 later in your life.

the immunisations are tested on the age group they are aimed at. the australian government and Theraputiuc goods act requires this, where as in america it is a requirement. so in australia yes it has been tested on people of the same age as those recieving it as part of the programmes.