"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.

[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.