How politics pushed the HPV vaccine

Ilena Rose

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 10:21:55 AM1/8/08

to

How politics pushed the HPV vaccine ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070811.whpv11/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
ANDRÉ PICARD

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

August 11, 2007 at 1:10 AM EDT

Not since the Salk vaccine was triumphantly unveiled in 1955 as the
miracle drug that would end the scourge of polio has there been as
much hoopla surrounding a vaccine as there is today about one that is
being touted for having the potential to eradicate cervical cancer.

Nor has there been in the ensuing five decades a vaccine that has been
such a lightning rod for social controversy and political
grandstanding.

Unlike polio, where children were dying and crippled in large numbers
and immunization stopped an epidemic in its tracks, cervical cancer
develops slowly and the positive or negative effects of a vaccine for
human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cancer of the cervix, will
not be seen for decades.

There remain many unanswered questions about the vaccine: Will it
actually prevent cervical cancer or just prevent infection with some
strains of the virus? Will it confer long-term protection or will
booster shots be required? Should boys be vaccinated?

Myrl

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 10:56:24 AM1/8/08

to

It has been estimated that between 250,000 - 290,000 women die of
Cervical Cancer each year. It is also estimated that approximately
70% of these cancers are caused by the HPV virus, which could be
prevented with Gardasil.

Anti-vac proponents tout "7" UNPROVEN associated deaths to the
vaccine, against the hundreds of thousands that die each year from
Cervical Cancer globally.

They mention a few thousand adverse reactions to Gardasil (inluding
fainting spells), but fail to mention the millions who are diagnosed
each year with HPV, and the subsequent health issues of Genital Warts,
Oral Cancers, Cervical Cancers, which often require costly, prolonged,
and traumatic treatment.

Myrl
http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm

On Jan 8, 7:21 am, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
> How politics pushed the HPV vaccine ...
>

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070811.whpv11/BN...

> How many doses are needed - three, or just two? And will the arrival

> of a competitor to the Gardasil vaccine, called Cervarix, bring down
> prices?
>
> Scientists have hailed Gardasil as everything from the greatest
> advance in women's health since the pill to a monstrous experiment on

> a generation of young girls. Conservative politicians - despite claims

> from their core constituency that the vaccine will encourage

> licentious teen sex - have embraced the drug as a means of bolstering

> their street cred, and winning women's votes. The more liberal

> politicians - traditional supporters of public health measures like
> immunization - have railed about a Big Pharma conspiracy to ram

> - immunization against a cancer," said Joan Murphy, past president of

> the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada and a member of the
> cervical screening collaborative group at Cancer Care Ontario.
>
> Provincial officials are similarly torn. Generally, they are
> enthusiastic about the vaccine but miffed at Ottawa's intrusion and
> dismayed at their inability to review and judge Gardasil like any
> other new drug vying for funding.
>
> But, again, no one wants to raise seemingly bureaucratic arguments
> when discussing a vaccine that may prevent a nasty form of cancer.
>
> Yet, there are real effects from the politicization of the process.
>
> Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and
> Ontario will begin vaccinating girls against HPV this fall. British
> Columbia and Quebec will likely do so beginning in the fall of 2008,
> and other provinces and territories have not yet decided.
>
> "There are troubling inequities," said Karen Pielak, past chair of the
> Canadian Nursing Coalition for Immunization. And worse yet, the entire

> system designed to avert those inequities - children receiving
> vaccines in one province but not another - was circumvented.

Ilena Rose

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 11:05:10 AM1/8/08

to

Myrl Jeffcoat is repeating the lies of Merck for them here ... yet
again.

Much like she lied that her Gardasil Drug would "return them to
health" for those infected with HPV ... fact is that studies showed
that those already infected with HPV would fare far worse after their
profitable drug. Is there anything this Vac Shill won't lie about?????

http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode=source

"Given a choice between saving lives of 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000
women who die, vs. 7 UNPROVEN associated deaths. . .I don't think
there is any choice, for most logically thinking people.

But, the Gardasil vaccine, can save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And, it will save millions and millions more, from lengthy, traumatic,
expensive treatment, to return them to health after contracting the
HPV virus."
Vaccination Lie by Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
Part 1 - The Trail of Evidence
A NewsTarget Special Report by Mike
Adams http://www.newstarget.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_1.html
This story begins at a company called HiFi DNA Tech, LLC
(http://www.hifidna.com) a company involved in the manufacture of
portable HPV testing devices based on DNA sequencing analysis. HiFi
DNA
Tech has been pushing to get the FDA to classify its HPV detection
technology as a "Class II" virology testing device. To understand why
this is a big deal, you have to understand the differences between
"Class II" and "Class III" virology testing devices.
Based on FDA rules, a Class III virology testing device is one that is
considered by the FDA to have "premarket approval," meaning that it
cannot yet be sold to the public. In order for such a device to be
marketed to the public, it must be downgraded to Class II status,
which
is considered a "special controls" status. Class II devices are,
"...those devices for which the general controls by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but for which there is sufficient information to
establish special controls to provide such assurance, including
performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries,
development and dissemination of guidelines, recommendations, and any
other appropriate actions the agency deems necessary."
In other words, a Class II device may or may not actually be safe, but
the FDA considers is safe enough to release to the public.
HiFi DNA Tech has been trying to get its HPV detection device
downgraded
to a Class II device based on the following arguments:
For more than 20 years, the FDA had regulated the HPV test as a "test
for cervical cancer."
But since at least 2003, the FDA has changed its position on the
relationship between Human Papilloma Virus and cervical cancer,
stating
that the HPV strain is "not associated with cervical cancer."
Accordingly, HiFi DNA Tech is arguing that the HPV test it has
developed is no longer a test for cervical cancer, but is merely a
test
for the presence of Human Papilloma Viruses -- a shift that makes the
test far more reliable in its primary purpose. In other words, the
test
is merely detecting the presence of a virus, not making a diagnosis of
a
disease (which would be a much higher standard to meet).
On October 12, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech sued the Food and Drug
Administration
in an attempt to force it to downgrade its HPV detection technology to
Class II (see http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180 ). Earlier in the
year -- on March 7, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech filed the HPV PCR test
reclassification petition with the FDA. It is the information in this
petition document that led us to the FDA's knowledge that HPV is not
linked to cervical cancer.
Got all that? This is a somewhat complex story to follow, so here it
is
again in summary:
A company that manufacturers a DNA testing device that can detect the
presence of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is petitioning the FDA (and
suing the FDA) to get it to reclassify its medical device as a "Class
II" device based on the revelation that the FDA has already adopted
the
position that HPV infections do not directly cause cervical cancer.
This would mean that the FDA has been aware for years that HPV does
not cause cervical cancer, which means that the FDA's approval of the
Gardasil vaccine -- as well as the national push for Gardasil
vaccinations -- is based on a grand medical hoax that, not
surprisingly,
appears to be designed to exploit the fear of cancer to sell vaccines.
The victims in all this, of course, are the young girls who are
apparently being subjected to a medically useless (and potentially
dangerous) vaccine.
None of this information was apparently known during the more recent
debates over the safety and efficacy of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine now
in
use. This means that the public debate over mandatory HPV vaccinations
lacked key elements that now seem essential to reaching rational,
evidence-based conclusions over the safety and efficacy of such
vaccines.
Next, we reveal the FDA's statement that HPV is "not associated with
cervical cancer."
The Reclassification Petition, dated March 7, 2007, is still posted on
the FDA's website:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-...
In case the FDA removes this document (as it has been known to do),
we've posted a backup copy of the document on our own servers:
http://www.NewsTarget.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf
This document reveals the following text:
The FDA news release of March 31, 2003 acknowledges that "most
infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical
cancer", in recognition of the advances in medical science and
technology since 1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff
of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease
when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the
regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification
scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for
cervical
cancer in regulating the industry.
NewsTarget sought to verify the existence of the FDA news release
referenced by this petition reclassification document and found that,
indeed, the FDA news release exists. In fact, it's still posted on the
FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html
In it, the FDA says, "The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute
for
regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who
have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this
group
is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with
cervical cancer." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the FDA knew in 2003 that HPV infections are not
associated with cervical cancer.
Furthermore, the FDA states, in the same press release, "Most women
who
become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no
apparent long-term consequences to their health."
In other words, HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer! Remember,
the entire push for mandatory HPV vaccinations of young girls across
the
country has been the urgent call to "save" these young girls from
cervical cancer. The vaccine push has been about "savings lives." But
as
these documents clearly reveal, HPV is no threat to the lives of young
girls. In fact, as you will see below, HPV infections are naturally
self-limiting!
HPV Infections Resolve Themselves, Without Vaccines As the
reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally
self-limiting -- meaning that they are controlled naturally, without
requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines. It is not the HPV virus
itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of
ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to
persistent infections.
As the petition states:
"Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years,
it
is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does
not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for
cervical cancer . Most acute infections caused by HPV are
self-limiting
[1, 4-7]. ...Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when
caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated with
high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor
of
cervical cancer.
A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on
repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV
infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing
precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the
persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk."
The FDA agrees with this assessment of the relationship between HPV
and
cervical cancer, as evidenced by its 2003 news release quoted above.
Next, we reveal evidence that HPV vaccines actually cause precancerous
lesions in women.
The reclassification petition cited above also reveals that Gardasil
vaccines may increase the risk of developing precancerous lesions by
44.6 percent in some groups of women. This is found in a quote
referencing a document mentioned in the petition, which states:
"PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV
genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with
Gardasil
of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for
vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk
of
developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an
FDA
VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May
18,
2006 VRBPAC Meeting.
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf"
NewsTarget tracked down the correct URL of the document referenced
above
and found it in the FDA docket archives. We have placed a safe backup
copy at: http://www.NewsTarget.com/downloads/FDA-Gardasil.pdf
Sure enough, this document reveals startling information about the
extreme dangers apparently posed by Gardasil vaccinations. On page 13,
this document states:
"Concerns Regarding Primary Endpoint Analyses among Subgroups
There were two important concerns that were identified during the
course
of the efficacy review of this BLA. One was the potential for Gardasil
to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of
persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline. The
other concern was the observations of CIN 2/3 or worse cases due to
HPV
types not contained in the vaccine. These cases of disease due to
other
HPV types have the potential to counter the efficacy results of
Gardasil
for the HPV types contained in the vaccine.
1. Evaluation of the potential of GardasilT to enhance cervical
disease
in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with
vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination. The results of
exploratory subgroup analyses for study 013 suggested a concern that
subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the
vaccine-relevant
HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases as
demonstrated
in the following table:
Observed Efficacy
- 44.6%
It appeared that subjects in this subgroup of study 013 who received
GardasilT might have had enhanced risk factors for development of CIN
2/3 or worse compared to placebo recipients."
Revealing the Dangers of Gardasil
This revelation should be quite shocking to anyone who has been
following the debate over Gardasil and mandatory vaccinations of
teenage
girls. First, it reveals that Gardasil appears to increase disease by
44.6 percent in certain people -- namely, those who were already
carriers of the same HPV strains used in the vaccine.
In other words, it appears that if the vaccine is given to a young
woman
who already carries HPV in a "harmless" state, it may "activate" the
infection and directly cause precancerous lesions to appear. The
vaccine, in other words, may accelerate the development of
precancerous
lesions in women.
This is information that has simply not been made available in the
debate over Gardasil vaccination policies. The pro-vaccination
rhetoric
has always been about "saving lives" and it carried the implied
statement that Gardasil is perfectly safe for all women, posing
absolutely no increased risk of cancer. What these documents reveal,
however, is that Gardasil may, in fact, pose a serious increase in the
risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine.
Next: Will health authorities "interrogate" young virgins over their
sexual
activity (or lack thereof)? What are the bioethical ramifications of
this vaccine being mandated to all teenage girls?
The FDA directly admits the vaccine is utterly useless in these women,
stating in the same document, "Finally, there is compelling evidence
that the vaccine lacks therapeutic efficacy among women who have had
prior exposure to HPV and have not cleared previous infection (PCR
positive and seropositive)."
What this essentially means is that the "safe" administering of the
Gardasil vaccine requires that it be administered only to virgins
(because virtually all women who are sexually active carry HPV
strains).
That, of course, would require the direct questioning of the sexual
habits of all young girls before administering the vaccine.
Is this what the Governor of Texas really had in mind when he mandated
such vaccinations for all young girls in Texas? ... a male doctor with
a
vaccination needle in his hand and a thirteen-year-old girl sitting in
a
private clinic room behind closed doors, with the male doctor asking
her, "Have you ever had sex?"
Clearly, this kind of patient questioning crosses all kinds of ethical
barriers when such vaccinations are made mandatory (as they have been
made in Texas). It puts the State in the positioning of ascertaining
the
sexual habits of very young teenage girls and then potentially causing
them harm. It's not hard to suppose that most sexually active teenage
girls would claim to still be virgins (especially if their parents
were
present), creating a situation where vaccines would be routinely
administered to precisely the HPV carrier subgroups for which it has
been demonstrated to greatly increase the risk of precancerous
lesions.
In other words, under a mandatory Gardasil vaccination scenario like
what exists in Texas today, a sexually-active young teenage girl has
to
make a tough choice:
1) She can lie to her doctor, claim to be a virgin, receive the
vaccine
and thereby potentially increase her risk of cervical cancer.
2) She can tell her doctor she's sexually active, thereby surrendering
her privacy and possibly subjecting herself to various consequences
from
her sexual status being learned by her parents or guardians. (One
would
hope, of course, that such sexual habits were not secrets, but alas,
we
live in the real world where many teenage girls do indeed have sex at
a
very early age...)
Furthermore, the young girl is unlikely to be given accurate
information
about the health risks associated with the vaccine, since virtually
all
health authorities are heavily involved in promoting pro-vaccination
propaganda, routinely ignoring scientific evidence that might give
reasonable people pause.
Naturally, the better scenario here is that the young girl is not
sexually active to begin with, but in a society where 8th and 9th
graders are already routinely engaged in sexual activities -- almost
always unbeknownst to their parents -- it seems naive to expect that
such girls would suddenly honor pledges of celibacy in order to
protect
themselves from possible future dangers posed by a present-day vaccine
(especially when doctors blindly claim the vaccine is harmless).
There are also serious questions about the safety of the vaccine for
non-sexually-active young women. Yet even if the vaccine poses no
increased risk of cervical cancer for non-sexually-active young girls,
there's still the more serious question of: Does the vaccine work?
Does
it really prevent cervical cancer in the first place? And that
question
has already been clearly answered by the FDA's own admission that HPV
infections are not the cause of cervical cancer in the first place.
When considering the safety and effectiveness of Gardasil vaccinations
on young teens, there are essentially four quadrants to consider, as
shown in the table below:
Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active
No Gardasil Vaccine Quadrant II:
Non-Sexually Active Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Quadrant III: Sexually Active
No Gardasil Vaccine Quadrant IV:
Sexually Active Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the
likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:
Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine Outcome: No risk
of
cervical cancer.
Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine Outcome:
No
medical benefit from vaccine.
Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine Outcome: HPV
presence
is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer.
Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine Outcome: 44.6%
Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in cancer risk.
In other words, Gardasil adds no benefits to any quadrant! There is no
subgroup that actually benefits from a Gardasil vaccination. But there
is at least one quadrant in which Gardasil achieves an increased risk
of
disease. Put another way, Gardasil helps no one, but it harms some.
This is hardly a position from which to mandate the vaccine for
everyone, especially since the vaccine has been widely prescribed as
"completely safe" for everyone. It is widely claimed by medical
authorities that the vaccine has no downside: No health risks, no
increased risk of disease and no potential to cause harm in women.
Clearly, these assumptions have no basis in scientific fact.
Keep in mind, too, that Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has
publicly suggested that young boys should receive Gardasil
vaccinations!
Why? Because they might engage in oral sex with girls who carry the
virus. Therefore, the story goes, young boys should be vaccinated
against this virus that they claim causes cervical cancer! (Never mind
the fact that boys don't have a cervix...) There is no end, it seems,
to
the pseudoscientific nonsense that will be spouted in an effort to
sell
more Garsasil vaccines to people who don't need them.
Next: New clinical study shows Gardasil to be medically useless.
To further investigate this conclusion, NewsTarget took a closer look
at
research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(August, 2007), entitled, "Effect of Human Papillomavirus 16/18 L1
Viruslike Particle Vaccine Among Young Women With Preexisting
Infection"
This research sought to determine the usefulness of the HPV vaccine
among women who already carry HPV (which includes virtually all women
who are sexually active, regardless of their age).
This document can currently be found at a University of Louisville
document archive reprinted from JAMA. Click here to read the PDF
yourself.
Just in case that copy disappears, we've also hosted the PDF here:
http://www.newstarget.com/downloads/HPV-Vaccine-Effects.pdf
This document reveals startling information about the ineffectiveness
of
the Gardasil vaccine. It reveals that the HPV vaccine often caused an
increase in the presence of HPV strains while utterly failing to clear
the viruses in most women.
These shocking results caused the study authors to publish this
sobering
conclusion, printed in JAMA:
"No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed
in
analyses restricted to women who received all doses of vaccine or
those
with evidence of single HPV infections at entry (Table2). We observed
no
evidence of vaccine effects when we stratified the analysis on
selected
study entry characteristics reflective of [various parameters]
(TABLE3).
Similarly, no evidence of vaccine effects was observed in analyses
stratified by other study entry parameters thought to potentially
influence clearance rates and efficacy of the vaccine, including time
since sexual initiation, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking,
and
concomitant infection with C trachomatis or N gonorrhoeae (Table 3)."
In other words, the authors found no evidence that the vaccine worked
at
all. This observation led the authors to offer this damning conclusion
that appears to render Gardasil nothing more than a grand medical
hoax:
"... rates of viral clearance over a 12-month period are not
influenced
by vaccination."
The study goes on to state words that should cause every doctor,
Governor and health authority across the United States (and around the
world) to rethink Gardasil vaccination policies:
"...given that viral clearance rates did not differ by treatment group
and that persistent viral infection is the best established predictor
of
risk of progression, it is unlikely that vaccination could have a
significant beneficial impact on rate of lesion progression.1,17
Results from our community-based study provide strong evidence that
there is little, if any, therapeutic benefit from the vaccine in the
population we studied. Furthermore, we see no reason to believe that
there is therapeutic benefit of the vaccine elsewhere because the
biological effect of vaccination among already infected women is not
expected to vary by population.
In other words, the vaccines didn't work on the population studied,
and
there is no reason to believe that those same vaccines would magically
work on other populations, since the biology of women and HPV is so
similar across various populations.
Next: Is Gardasil a grand medical hoax?
It is difficult to take an honest look at this scientific evidence and
the statements made by the FDA and not come to the conclusion that
mandatory Gardasil vaccination policies being pushed across U.S.
states
right now are based on something other than science.
There are many theories exploring the motivation for such vaccination
policies. Possible theories include:
Financial benefit: Big Pharma is pushing mandatory Gardasil
vaccination
policies so that it can profit from selling more vaccines to the
states.
This idea is at least partially supported by the fact that the first
state Governor to mandate such vaccines (Texas Gov. Rick Perry) had
undisclosed ties to Big Pharma. (A top official in Perry's
administration worked directly for Merck, the manufacturer of
Gardasil.)
Conspiracy to poison the people: This theory, which may stretch the
bounds of belief in some readers, proposes that such mandatory
vaccines
are put in place in order to create future disease by poisoning the
people with dangerous chemicals and DNA fragments that are knowingly
added to vaccines. The poisoning of the people, it is said, will pay
off
in future profits for Big Pharma when those people develop other
serious
diseases requiring "treatment" with medications. Many people who
support
this theory currently believe, for example, that AIDS was engineered
by
human scientists and then administered to the gay population in New
York
in the late 1980's through vaccines.
Control the sheeple: This theory supposes that the main purpose of
mandatory vaccines is to train the American public to get used to
submitting to compulsory medicines. Once a certain segment of the
population is targeted and effectively injected with mandatory
medicines, these policies can be extended to other groups and,
eventually, can encompass the entire population.
The first theory -- Financial Benefit -- is the simplest and easiest
theory to believe. It requires nothing more than simple greed on the
part of Big Pharma, along with the usual level of corruption at the
FDA.
NewsTarget believes this is the most likely explanation for events
surrounding Gardasil vaccination policies, but we do not rule out
other
possible explanations, either.
Profits at Any Cost
What's clear in all this is that mandatory HPV vaccination programs
are
not based on anything resembling good science. They seem to be based
on
a carefully planted meme -- an idea that, coincidentally, spreads from
one person's mind to the next much like a virus, gaining momentum as
the
mainstream media (MSM), health authorities, FDA and drug company reps
repeat the meme on a regular basis. And what is that meme? That HPV
causes cervical cancer, and, therefore, HPV vaccinations could halt
cervical cancer and save lives.
This meme appears to have no real scientific basis. It is more of an
urban legend than anything resembling scientific fact. Furthermore, it
appears to have been conjured by those in a position to financially
benefit from the adoption of that meme (the drug companies who
manufacture, sell, and profit from the sale of HPV vaccines). In this
case, that drug company is Merck, a powerful corporation with a
dubious
history rife with charges of price fixing, large-scale tax avoidance
(it
set up offshore accounts to avoid billions in U.S. taxes), widespread
biopiracy, conspiring with the FDA to discredit its critics, burying
negative evidence about its drugs (see the history of Vioxx at
www.NewsTarget.com/vioxx.html ) and numerous other actions that many
consider to be criminal in nature.
There is no question that Merck has the lack of ethics, the
willingness
and the means to commit medical fraud on an unprecedented scale. Based
on the information revealed in this report, the mandatory vaccination
of
young girls with Gardasil appears to be the boldest medical hoax yet
perpetrated by the company. You can read the true history about Merck
and its crimes at: http://www.newstarget.com/Merck.html
NewsTarget believes Merck is currently engaged in a massive medical
fraud, and that it has influenced, corrupted or otherwise recruited
FDA
officials and state health authorities in a grand scheme to sell
vaccines that are at best medically worthless, and at worst medically
dangerous. Halting cervical cancer seems to have nothing to do with
the
marketing and prescribing of Gardasil. The entire campaign push for
mandatory HPV vaccinations seems to be based entirely in the realm of
sales and marketing.
The "marketing" of HPV vaccines involves classic disease mongering --
spreading fear about a disease as a way of corralling patients into
begging for the "solution" that just happens to be readily available
from the same pharmaceutical company that promoted the disease in the
first place. The hype over cervical cancer and Gardasil seems to be
nothing more than a classic case of fear-based marketing designed to
create such consumer fear over cervical cancer that a massive public
outcry would result in legislation mandating the vaccines.
Please share this article with others.
Permission is granted to reprint this article in its entirety, for any
non-commercial purpose, as long as full credit is given to the author
(Mike Adams) and a clearly visible clickable link is placed back to
this
URL at NewsTarget.com. You may also freely quote from this article
with
proper citation.
Next: Sources cited (with links).
HiFi DNA Tech files lawsuit against FDA
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180
Reclassification Petition - Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection Device (K063649 )
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-...
FDA Approves Expanded Use of HPV Test
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html
VRBPAC Background Document, GardasilT HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine, May
18,
2006 VRBPAC Meeting
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
Effect of Human Papillomavirus 16/18 L1 Viruslike Particle Vaccine
Among
Young Women With Preexisting Infection
Journal of the American Medical Association, August, 2007

Researcher blasts HPV marketing
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2007/03/14/online_features/hpv_vaccin...

BY CINDY BEVINGTON
LEBANON, N.H. -- A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the
vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for
younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it
for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in
younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9
may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario,
instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25
years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to
go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment,"
said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the
director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the
Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New
Hampshire

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls There
also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that
safety is not an issue."

Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been
studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100
strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life............

Thanks Vince

Myrl

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 12:22:38 PM1/8/08

to

I have never proclaimed Gardasil would "return anyone to health" as
Ilena Rosenthal has stated. My statement was in reference to her
absence of mentioning the millions of people (men and women) that
require being "returned to health" from contracting the HPV virus once
contracted.

Gardasil is a prevention to disease - and is not a cure for those
already infected. Which is why it is recommended for girls before
they are usually capable of contracting HPV.

It has been estimated that between 250,000 - 290,000 women die of
Cervical Cancer each year. It is also estimated that approximately
70% of these cancers are caused by the HPV virus, which could be
prevented with Gardasil.

Anti-vac proponents tout "7" UNPROVEN associated deaths to the
vaccine, against the hundreds of thousands that die each year from
Cervical Cancer globally.

They mention a few thousand adverse reactions to Gardasil (inluding

redness at the site of injection and fainting spells), but fail to

mention the millions who are diagnosed each year with HPV, and the
subsequent health issues of Genital Warts, Oral Cancers, Cervical
Cancers, which often require costly, prolonged, and traumatic
treatment.

Myrl
http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm

On Jan 8, 8:05 am, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
> Myrl Jeffcoat is repeating the lies of Merck for them here ... yet
> again.
>
> Much like she lied that her Gardasil Drug would "return them to
> health" for those infected with HPV ... fact is that studies showed
> that those already infected with HPV would fare far worse after their
> profitable drug. Is there anything this Vac Shill won't lie about?????
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode...

> Class II (seehttp://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180). Earlier in the

> FDA website athttp://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html

> extreme dangers ...
>
> read more »

Ilena Rose

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 1:29:37 PM1/8/08

to

Myrl Jeffcoat Lie of today ...

" ... have never proclaimed Gardasil would "return anyone to health"
as Ilena Rosenthal has stated." Myrl Jeffcoat 1/8/2008

Yet here is her quote from 9/13/2007 making this Vaccination Lie ...
amongst her other advertisements for this dangerous, unproven drug.

Like the other Vac Flacks ... when caught in their lies ... they
shuffle around and repeat more Vaccination propaganda.

http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode=source

But, the Gardasil vaccine, can save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And, it will save millions and millions more, from lengthy, traumatic,
expensive treatment, to return them to health after contracting the
HPV virus."
Vaccination Lie by Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat

on 9/13/2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Class II (see http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180 ). Earlier in the

FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html

Myrl

unread,

Jan 8, 2008, 3:18:50 PM1/8/08

to

On Jan 8, 10:29 am, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
> Myrl Jeffcoat Lie of today ...
>
> " ... have never proclaimed Gardasil would "return anyone to health"
> as Ilena Rosenthal has stated." Myrl Jeffcoat 1/8/2008
>
> Yet here is her quote from 9/13/2007 making this Vaccination Lie ...
> amongst her other advertisements for this dangerous, unproven drug.
>
> Like the other Vac Flacks ... when caught in their lies ... they
> shuffle around and repeat more Vaccination propaganda.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode...

>
> But, the Gardasil vaccine, can save hundreds of thousands of lives.
> And, it will save millions and millions more, from lengthy, traumatic,
> expensive treatment, to return them to health after contracting the
> HPV virus."

And once again Ilena, thank you for quoting me verbatim. And again
what I have stated remains as true today, as the day I originally said
it.

With the Gardasil vaccine comes prevention for HPV which will save
hundreds of thousands of lives, and those protected by the vaccine,
will not join the millions and millions, who were never protected from
HPV and subsequently required lengthy, traumatic, expensive treatment,

to return them to health after contracting the HPV virus.

As one woman said to me earlier today, "Ilena Rosenthal's only method
of argument regarding this vaccine is to misrepresent and take out of
context what others have said."

Ilena Rose

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 5:46:16 PM1/9/08

to

Myrl Jeffcoat seems to be listening to the voices in her head ... I
did NOT, as she lied, take her quote "out of context" ... In fact, I
posted a link to her own words.

As she is doing her typical shuffle about her Merck lies ... I will
repost her lie in context.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Myrl Jeffcoat is repeating the lies of Merck for them here ... yet
again.

Much like she lied that her Gardasil Drug would "return them to
health" for those infected with HPV ... fact is that studies showed
that those already infected with HPV would fare far worse after their
profitable drug. Is there anything this Vac Shill won't lie about?????

http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode=source

"Given a choice between saving lives of 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000
women who die, vs. 7 UNPROVEN associated deaths. . .I don't think
there is any choice, for most logically thinking people.

But, the Gardasil vaccine, can save hundreds of thousands of lives.

And, it will save millions and millions more, from lengthy, traumatic,
expensive treatment, to return them to health after contracting the
HPV virus."

Vaccination Lie by Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Myrl

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 7:15:20 PM1/9/08

to

And once again Ilena, thank you for quoting me verbatim. And again
what I have stated remains as true today, as the day I originally said
it.

With the Gardasil vaccine comes prevention for HPV which will save
hundreds of thousands of lives, and those protected by the vaccine,
will not join the millions and millions, who were never protected from

HPV and subsequently required lengthy, traumatic, expensive treatment,

to return them to health after contracting the HPV virus.

As one woman said to me earlier today, "Ilena Rosenthal's only method

of argument regarding this vaccine is to misrepresent and take out of
context what others have said."

On Jan 9, 2:46 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
> Myrl Jeffcoat seems to be listening to the voices in her head ... I
> did NOT, as she lied, take her quote "out of context" ... In fact, I
> posted a link to her own words.
>
> As she is doing her typical shuffle about her Merck lies ... I will
> repost her lie in context.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Myrl Jeffcoat is repeating the lies of Merck for them here ... yet
> again.
>
> Much like she lied that her Gardasil Drug would "return them to
> health" for those infected with HPV ... fact is that studies showed
> that those already infected with HPV would fare far worse after their
> profitable drug. Is there anything this Vac Shill won't lie about?????
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/ca.politics/msg/3143e801a10978f2?dmode...

> Class II (seehttp://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180). Earlier in the

> FDA website athttp://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html

> 2006 VRBPAC Meeting.www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf" ...
>
> read more »

drce...@insightbb.com

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 7:46:49 PM1/9/08

to

On Jan 8, 10:56 am, Myrl <wisgroup_lea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It has been estimated that between 250,000 - 290,000 women die of
> Cervical Cancer each year. It is also estimated that approximately
> 70% of these cancers are caused by the HPV virus, which could be
> prevented with Gardasil.
>
> Anti-vac proponents tout "7" UNPROVEN associated deaths to the
> vaccine, against the hundreds of thousands that die each year from
> Cervical Cancer globally.

HPV may be ASSOCIATED with a small percentage of cervical cancers.
Where is the data to PROVE that HPV causes cancer?

Where is the data to show that the vaccine can PREVENT cancer?

None of the above data exists. The claims are all smoke and mirrors
preying upon the fears of women.

DrCee

Ilena Rose

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 7:46:43 PM1/9/08

to

"Given a choice between saving lives of 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000
women who die, vs. 7 UNPROVEN associated deaths. . .I don't think
there is any choice, for most logically thinking people. "

Myrl Jeffcoat

Bravo for Myrl Jeffcoat ... in one swell foop she uses several of the
Vaccination Lobby / Quackwatch Propaganda tactics in two sentences.

She uses the typical industry scare tactics with her pharma claims
that their Gardasil has been proven to be able to save "250,000 -
290,000" women's lives ... absolutely false and unproven ... wishful
Merck disinformation to sell more of their expensive vaccine.

And then parrots Barrett perfectly as she minimizes and tries to cast
doubt about some of the deaths associated with Gardasil.

Her coup de grace is a Probert Quackwatch technique ... implying that
she represents "logically thinking people" and to disagree with their
Vaccination Propganda means you are not "logically thinking."

Only in Quacklandia is this true.

Myrl ... you ... and Quackwatch and Merck are wrong about Merck ...

and you are wrong about me. For any who wish to follow Myrl's voices
... here are some:

Myrl Jeffcoat on comparing "9" post Merck's Gardasil related deaths in
the United States and 250,000 (estimated number of women worldwide who
are said to die from cervical cancer):

Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/...
Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat tossing out her muddled and confused
accusations against me ... she has been widely claiming that this is a
"simple math" question ... here's Myrl's math:

MyrlSpeak (Ilena is the "she's" Myrl is insulting)
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!

Myrl

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 9:05:32 PM1/9/08

to

Well Ilena - It has been you that has touted your "7" UNPROVEN
associated deaths to the vaccine. You fail to mention or acknowledge
the number of women dying each year globally from Cervical Cancer.
And you are mum about the millions and millions each year that must be
treated for HPV related disease and illness.

What would you like to say to them, while you are jumping up and down
like you have some alien bug up your butt???

And yes, 250,000 (the low end of the estimate of women dying from
Cervical Cancer) minus your "7" touted UNPROVEN associated deaths from
the vaccine, computes to 249,993.

Ilena, you really ought to save some of that hot air you are expending
while spinning for Quack Medicine. I suspect you will need it in a
few days to blow out the candles on your 60 year birthday cake!

Your lack of logic, makes you look more the fool every day!

Myrl

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 9:08:14 PM1/9/08

to

Dr. Cee - The data is all over the place in the scientific community.
I have posted a good deal of it on this newsgroup. I won't try to
convince you against your will. I suggest if you are truly
interested, you research it yourself, or search the archives of this
newsgroups for past articles.

Peter Bowditch

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 9:28:17 PM1/9/08

to

Myrl <wisgrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You're wasting your time, Myrl. Why would someone who thinks that all
diseases are caused by dirt and that bacteria and viruses do not cause
infection want to look for evidence of the effects of HPV? The kook
denies that any virus can cause anything, so obviously HPV can't cause
cancer.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Myrl

unread,

Jan 9, 2008, 9:45:23 PM1/9/08

to

On Jan 9, 6:28 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:

> The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles

> Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au

> Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Which is precisely, why I told Dr. Cee to look it up his/her self!

Jan Drew

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 12:51:33 AM1/10/08

to

"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> Myrl <wisgrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're wasting your time

Speaking of wasting time.
KACHING, was not only wasting time, it was a waste of bandwidth.

> Peter Bowditch

Mark Probert

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 7:49:50 AM1/10/08

to

Myrl wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:46 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 10:56 am, Myrl <wisgroup_lea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It has been estimated that between 250,000 - 290,000 women die of
>>> Cervical Cancer each year. It is also estimated that approximately
>>> 70% of these cancers are caused by the HPV virus, which could be
>>> prevented with Gardasil.
>>> Anti-vac proponents tout "7" UNPROVEN associated deaths to the
>>> vaccine, against the hundreds of thousands that die each year from
>>> Cervical Cancer globally.
>> HPV may be ASSOCIATED with a small percentage of cervical cancers.
>> Where is the data to PROVE that HPV causes cancer?
>>
>> Where is the data to show that the vaccine can PREVENT cancer?
>>
>> None of the above data exists. The claims are all smoke and mirrors
>> preying upon the fears of women.
>>
>> DrCee
>
>
> Dr. Cee -

Please do not call him "Dr." as he has no doctorate in anything.

drce...@insightbb.com

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 1:35:01 PM1/10/08

to

> newsgroups for past articles.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I have worked in and published in the area of cancer research. The
data does not exist in the scientific community, only in the minds of
psuedo-scientific medical gods.

DrCee

Peter Bowditch

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 5:13:18 PM1/10/08

to

drce...@insightbb.com wrote:

>I have worked in and published in the area of cancer research.

Then you will have no difficulty citing specific publications, will
you?

My foot is tapping ...

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243

The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au

Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au

Jan Drew

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 8:11:11 PM1/10/08

to

Disbarred "Mark Probert" <markp...@lymbercartel.com> wrote

vernon O

unread,

Jan 10, 2008, 8:39:13 PM1/10/08

to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Pmzhj.35515$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

>
> Disbarred "Mark Probert" <markp...@lymbercartel.com> wrote

And your qualifications to even exist on any medical News group are????
Personally attach others?????

he he h eh eh eh ehe he

There is actually only one thing worse than a disbarred lawyer, an active
one.
And that has what to do in your simple little hate filled mind with medical
problems??????

Jan Drew

unread,

Jan 11, 2008, 12:50:12 AM1/11/08

to

"vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote in message
news:4786c8bc$0$26891$7836...@newsrazor.net...

>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Pmzhj.35515$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> Disbarred "Mark Probert" <markp...@lymbercartel.com> wrote
>
> And your qualifications to even exist on any medical News group are????

I don't need qualifications to post in any health newsgroup. Read the MHA
charter.

> Personally attach others?????

Unheard of in mha.

Of course you and Mark S Probert never attack
others....................................

>
>
> he he h eh eh eh ehe he
>
> There is actually only one thing worse than a disbarred lawyer, an active
> one.

Really? What was Mark S Probert disbarred for? Why has he continually lied
about that FACT?

> And that has what to do in your simple little hate filled mind with
> medical problems??????

Oh, my I do believe that was an attack.

vernon O

unread,

Jan 11, 2008, 10:35:32 AM1/11/08

to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:osDhj.61863$eY.2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

>
> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote in message
> news:4786c8bc$0$26891$7836...@newsrazor.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:Pmzhj.35515$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> Disbarred "Mark Probert" <markp...@lymbercartel.com> wrote
>>
>> And your qualifications to even exist on any medical News group are????
>
> I don't need qualifications to post in any health newsgroup. Read the MHA
> charter.
>
>> Personally attach others?????
>
> Unheard of in mha.
>
> Of course you and Mark S Probert never attack
> others....................................

Hate filled obsession is different

Mark Probert

unread,

Jan 12, 2008, 10:20:34 AM1/12/08

to

That would be mopping the floors and making up signs saying "WET FLOOR".