Merck’s Former Doctor Predicts Gardasil To Become The Greatest Medical Scandal Of All Time!

“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.

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 aluminium in it.

Full story here. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

And people wonder why I promote a healthy diet over the use of big pharma medication. Anyone remember how the 'board members' at the forum formally known as the ETYM forum ripped me to shreds for highlighting the skulduggery of big pharma? It was all in my head they told me, they conveniently forgot big pharma had been fined $billions for fraud, lying and bribery and corruption.

sounds like a beat up, I just read the ‘New Medical Conditions’ reported in the 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil. (source)
http://holyhormones.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/gardasil091108-Closing-Statement.pdf

j wrote:sounds like a beat up, I just read the ‘New Medical Conditions’ reported in the 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil. (source)
http://holyhormones.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/gardasil091108-Closing-Statement.pdf

Hi 'j' I'm probably showing my age here
But what is a 'beat up' something corrupt / bad ? Am I right is this what you mean - can you or someone elaborate please ?

Many thanks  

Jan

the author of the article overstated the positions 'beat up' ...overall the symptoms are similar to the control group and occurs in the normal population.
other than getting pregnant within 30 days of injection.

page 151
Conclusions from Safety Data
•
The rates of deaths were comparable between the Gardasil group and the control group, and none appeared to be related to receipt of study material.
•
The rates of serious adverse were comparable between the Gardasil group and control group.
•
The rates of subjects who discontinued due to an adverse event were comparable in the Gardasil group as compared to the control group.
•
The updated pregnancy outcomes demonstrate a comparable rate of spontaneous abortions within each treatment group (18.2% Gardasil, 19.5% control). These rates were similar for the groups with an estimated date of conception within 30 days of vaccination (18.3% Gardasil, 21.0% control).
•
Regarding congenital anomalies, there was a higher number of subjects in the Gardasil group who delivered a child with a congenital anomaly (40 total) as compared to the control group (30 total). Four of the infants in the Gardasil group and three infants in the control group were diagnosed with inherited defects, so the totals are 36 for Gardasil and 27 for control subjects. In pregnancies in which the estimated date of conception was within 30 days of vaccination, there were 5 congenital anomalies in infants born to mothers who received Gardasil and 1 in an infant born to a mother who received control. In an expert review of these anomalies provided by the sponsor (5 experts), none of the expert teratologists assessed any of the congenital anomalies as related to study material (both in a blinded and unblinded assessment). Gardasil is not recommended for routine use during pregnancy, and the subjects in the clinical trials who became unintentionally pregnant were all followed for outcomes. The congenital anomalies which developed were varied in nature. A post-marketing commitment includes a pregnancy registry to follow subjects who may become pregnant after vaccination with Gardasil.
•
In subjects who were pregnant after vaccination with Gardasil, the comparative rates of systemic and injection site adverse event rates were similar to those seen in the general study population, i.e., there was a higher rate of injections site adverse events in the Gardasil group as compared to control group, but a similar proportion of subjects with a systemic adverse event in each of the two treatment groups.
•
The proportions of infants born to mothers participating in the studies with serious adverse events were similar in each of the two treatment groups, both in the neonatal period and outside the neonatal period.
•
The proportion of infants with an adverse event born to a mother who was breastfeeding was slightly higher in the Gardasil group (1.9%) as compared to infants born to mothers who received control (0.8%). The imbalance was primarily due to an imbalance in the proportion of infants with a respiratory disorder (17 Gardasil
151
compared to 4 control). This imbalance was noted at the time of the original licensure, although the number of events was smaller at the original licensing action. The majority of the additional events which occurred in the Gardasil group since the time of original licensure occurred at an interval between vaccination and event that was >10 months. The number of infants with respiratory events which occurred within 30 days of vaccination is 6 in the Gardasil group and 2 in the control group. In an earlier review of the original cases, there was no recurrence of a similar event after revaccination of the mother, and the events occurred at varying times after each dose.
•
The most common systemic adverse events in the 15 days after vaccination are headache, pyrexia, abdominal pain or discomfort, and nasopharyngitis, and the rates are comparable in each treatment group.
•
The most common injection site adverse events in the 5 days after receipt of Gardasil was pain, erythema, and swelling, and these occurred at higher rates in the Gardasil group as compared to the control group. The majority of these injection site adverse events were rated as mild in each treatment group.
•
There was a slightly higher rate of fever (most <102 ºF) in the 5 days after receipt of Gardasil (10.2%) as compared to the alum control or saline placebo (8.9%).
•
Although not found to be statistically significantly different in a meta-analysis across all studies, there was a higher number of subjects with a new diagnosis of Rheumatoid arthritis/Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in the Gardasil group (7) as compared to the control group (2). These cases occurred at varying times after vaccination. In addition, there was a higher number of cases of autoimmune thyroiditis in the Gardasil group (6) as compared to the control group (1), which was also not found to be statistically significant in a meta-analysis across all studies. In a recent cohort study of adolescent girls and young women conducted in a large HMO in the year before Gardasil was licensed, autoimmune events such as these occurred in approximately 10% of females in this age group who sought medical attention. The overall proportion of subjects with a potentially autoimmune event were similar between the two treatment groups (2.3% Gardasil, 2.4% control). These data are being provided in the updated package insert. A post-marketing safety surveillance study in the --------------------(b)(4)---------------- is underway in 44,000 subjects, and this study is near completion. This study may help identify if the rates of such autoimmune events are increased as compared to the rate expected in the vaccinated population.
•
In the post-marketing period, several serious adverse events have been reported, including transverse myelitis, primary motor atrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, pancreatitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, anaphylaxis, and death. Some of the deaths were ascribed to other causes, and some could not be confirmed, while several were still being reviewed (VAERS and CDC). The review has included comparison to expected rates of such events in the population, and to date, none have exceeded these rates, although analyses continue to be conducted.

page 185
12. Conclusions – Overall
Available data support the efficacy of Gardasil in prevention of vulvar and vaginal cancer related to HPV 16 and/or 18 if the subject is naïve for the relevant vaccine HPV type. It is important to understand that not all cases of vulvar and vaginal cancer are related to HPV infection, and that cases of vulvar and vaginal cancer are rare. The prevention is believed to be related to prevention of the dysplastic lesions, VIN 2/3 or VaIN 2/3 related to HPV 16 and/or 18 if the subject is naïve for the relevant vaccine HPV type.
Available data support the continued safety and efficacy of Gardasil in females 9-26 years of age who are naïve to the specific vaccine HPV type. The conclusion regarding efficacy in prevention of vaccine related CIN, AIS, and external genital lesions in females 16-26 years of age is based on 4 efficacy trials which utilized histopathololgical endpoints which included identification of the vaccine HPV type within the same specimen. Efficacy was inferred in the 9-15 year old female group because of immune responses that were non-inferior to those seen in the 16-23 year old female population. Females who are naïve to vaccine HPV types are expected to derive the most benefit from the vaccine in prevention of vaccine related HPV disease.
185
In the close out data, efficacy was maintained and point estimates of efficacy increased slightly, and 95% CIs narrowed. In the close-out data, efficacy was not demonstrated in prevention of histopathological events (CIN 2/3) related to a non-vaccine HPV type, even if the subject was naïve for the non-vaccine HPV type. Any possible benefit appeared to be associated with protection of CIN 2/3 related to a vaccine HPV type for which the subject was also naïve.
There was no apparent evidence of benefit in prevention of CIN 2/3 related to a vaccine or non-vaccine HPV type for which a subject was already infected.
Safety issues have been discussed in the Safety conclusions above, and other clinical issues also discussed within the overall sections on efficacy and immunogenicity.

Many thanks for posting this 'j' .....

All the best Jan