Blood Donations are Potential Biohazard from Those Vaccinated with Gardasil

Gardasil may contaminate

DNA was discovered to be contaminating the Gardasil vaccine.

The huge wave of serious adverse conditions after Gardasil vaccination has caused deep concern across the world. However, the suffering may not only be limited to those who are vaccinated. Blood donated from individuals vaccinated with Gardasil may have horrific consequences for the recipients’ health.

HPV was found in a girl’s blood two years after vaccination. It should not be present!

Normally the virus does not survive in the blood stream for long. Why was the human papilloma virus present instead of the antibodies? A shocking discovery was made when an independent lab analyzed vials of Gardasil. [1]

Samples of Gardasil showed the presence of genetically modified HPV DNA, a potential biohazard. Vials of Gardasil from 13 different lot numbers were analyzed by an independent lab contracted by the SANE Vax team. All the samples were found to be contaminated with viral HPV DNA residues, firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.

“All recombinant or genetically engineered DNAs are considered potential biohazards if injected intramuscularly into the body … Gardasil is the first vaccine found to be contaminated by a genetically engineered DNA used to manufacture virus-like particle proteins for the vaccine.” [2]

Foreign DNA Fragments Discovered in Post-Mortem Samples

Merck’s Gardasil patient product insert originally stated that there was no viral DNA in the vaccine. After viral DNA was discovered by an independent lab, the statement mysteriously disappeared from US product inserts in April 2011. SANE Vax, Inc., believes the FDA and Merck should have tested, evaluated and quantified the risk of the residual recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil before vaccine approval.

SANE Vax Inc. also believes that both the FDA and Merck were at least negligent and perhaps fraudulent when claiming there was ‘no HPV (viral) DNA’ in the Gardasil vaccine.

Dr. Lee, a pathologist on the medical staff at Connecticut’s Milford Hospital, testified:

“The finding of these foreign DNA fragments in the post-mortem samples six months after vaccination indicates that some of the residual DNA fragments from the viral gene or plasmid injected with Gardasil may have been protected from degradation in the form of DNA-aluminum complexes in the macrophages; or via integration into the human genome.

Undegraded viral and plasmid DNA fragments are known to activate macrophages, causing them to release tumor necrosis factor, a myocardial depressant which can induce lethal shock in animals and humans.

Based on medical literature and some of the FDA/Merck’s own publications, adventitious (coming from an outside source) DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies.” [3]

If the Gardasil-vaccinated donate blood, these unanswered questions may apply both to the donors and to the recipients:

  • Is the aluminium bound recombinant (genetically modified) HPV DNA a new chemical compound with untested toxicity?
  • Does binding with aluminium prolong survival of the recombinant HPV DNA in the blood stream?
  • If recombinant HPV DNA attached to aluminum adjuvant enters a person’s blood, how long will it remain there?
  • Which autoimmune-related disorders could result from this contamination?
  • Which genetic changes (mutagenesis) could occur should the residual HPV DNA enter and begin reproducing in a human cell?
  • Is it possible that the contamination will initiate gene mutations which may lead to cancer?

Blood Donation: How is the Blood Tested?

Information from the the UK National Health Service (NHS) explains that after your blood has been collected for donation, it is sent for testing in a laboratory. Here, it is screened for viruses and infections such as HIV and hepatitis.

If the blood passes this screening, it will usually be separated into different components. This means your blood donation can be used to help several different patients.

Once the blood has been separated, it is distributed to hospitals all over the country. [4]

From this information, we may definitely deduce that blood will not be tested for genetically modified (recombinant) aluminium-bound HPV DNA. Blood from several donors may be mixed or pooled. Elements in blood from a Gardasil-vaccinated donor may be given to several recipients.

In some poor regions of the world the blood is not tested at all. The human consequences may be devastating. [5]

Health Authorities and Blood Donation Units Ignore the Presence of the Potential Biohazard in the Blood of Gardasil-Vaccinated Donors

Guidelines for assessing blood donor suitability do not contain special restrictions regarding blood donation from Gardasil vaccinated.

Here are some official guidelines from well-known organizations on assessing donor suitability for blood donation:


On page 64, a list of vaccines is given, including the HPV vaccine, followed by:

“These vaccines pose no risk to the recipients of blood; donors may be accepted provided they are well.” [6]

Australian Red Cross Blood Service

“Question: How long after I’ve had a vaccination (or flu shot, etc) can I donate?

Answer: Those made from ‘killed/inactivated/recombinant’ material generally do not affect eligibility. These include diphtheria, influenza (both seasonal flu and H1N1 or ‘swine’ flu), hepatitis A, meningococcus, pertussis (whooping cough), pneumococcus, Q fever, tetanus, human papillomavirus (Gardasil) and others.” [7]

UK National Health Service (NHS)

“People who cannot donate blood: You may not be able to donate blood if you have had certain immunizations within the last four weeks.” [8]

This statement was followed up by sending a polite email message to Dr. David Salisbury, Director of Immunization, Department of Health:

Dear Dr. Salisbury,

I understand that blood transfusion units maintain that blood donated from Gardasil-vaccinated poses no risk to the blood recipients. I found these guidelines. [9]

However, I have now read that fragments of gene-modified HPV DNA bound to aluminum have been found post-mortem from a girl who had been vaccinated with Gardasil six months previously.

My question is whether there may be harmful health consequences for the recipient of blood from a donor who has been vaccinated with Gardasil?

I will be most grateful for your opinion.

Best wishes,
 Ms. Sandy Lunoe

Only a few hours later this rather impolite response was received from Dr. Salisbury:

Dear Ms. Lunoe,

I fully endorse the advice of blood transfusion units to ignore receipt of Gardasil in blood donors as it poses no risk to recipients. The report of fragments of HPV DNA from a post-mortem specimen has been the subject of considerable criticism that I am sure you can find for yourself.

Yours sincerely,
Professor David Salisbury

Dr. Salisbury did not refer to any evidence or studies to support his statement “… poses no risk to recipients.”

The same question was sent to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Here is their prompt answer:

Thanks for your inquiry.  Vaccination with Gardasil provides no known risk to the blood recipients or the blood donor.  The presence of DNA fragments is expected in Gardasil and not evidence of contamination. Based on the scientific information available to FDA, Gardasil continues to be safe and effective. FDA recently addressed the question of DNA fragments with the following information: [10]

Eileen F. Dunne MD, MPH
Re: Andrew Kroger, M.D., M.P.H, Medical Officer, Immunization Services Division, CDC

No evidence was given to support the statement: “Vaccination with Gardasil provides no known risk to the blood recipients or the blood donor.”


It is the responsibility of health authorities to present evidence that blood donation from Gardasil vaccinated is safe for the recipients. If the authorities do not do this they may well have blood on their hands, possibly a tragic pun.



[contentbox headline=”References” type=”normal”]

1. http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-announces-the-discovery-of-viral-hpv-dna-contaminant-in-gardasil/

2. http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-discovers-potential-bio-hazard…

3. http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-hpv-dna-discovered-in-post-mortem-samples/

4. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-donation/Pages/What-is-it-used-for.aspx

5. http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/healthcare_donors.shtml

6. http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/publications/guide_selection_assessing_suitability.pdf

7. http://www.donateblood.com.au/who-can-give/faq

8. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-donation/Pages/Who-can-use-it.aspx

9. http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/publications/guide_selection_assessing_suitability.pdf

10. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm276859.htm



Photo Credit

Sandy Lunoe

  • little green bag

    Wow what a discovery! I never thought of this. I guess the possible damage these vacines can do is endless. HPV in particular, could quite possibly be a pandora’s box! A very thought provoking article. Thanks Sandy.

  • Simon

    Seriously sick of all the speculation surrounding vaccines..there is always a risk with a vaccine, just as there is with taking any medication. The risk is extremely small, but to expect to do ANYTHING in life without even the fraction of a chance of a negative reaction then you are living in a dream land. People need to stop scaremongering. Sometimes people have negative reactions to vaccines. That does not mean vaccination is wrong. Sometimes people have bad reactions to penicillin, and probably more often, and yet I don’t see you all clamboring all over each other to get people to stop taking antibiotics. So you may get the residue of a vaccination if you receive blood. Pick then? Either you die without the blood transfusion (as they don’t offer them just cos) or you accept there could be risks. Simple. Stop making a big drama out of it. Those idiotic people that think vaccines have no risk of a reaction whatsoever, and then claim vaccines kill us all slowly..honestly. There are risks with everything you do, every medicine you take.

  • concernedparent5

    girls should be taught to keep their legs closed til marriage.. problem solved..

  • Wish13

    Sorry, but I think you are misinformed – it is now quite well documented how vaccines are now being used as part of the worldwide population control agenda. Big Pharma are not interested in finding ‘cures’ as there is no money in it. Far better for them to just deal with symptoms – or even introduce other hazards that will need ‘treatment’ later.

  • Suzy

    Now that they’ve contaminated our food, water and air, they might as well contaminate the blood supply. Buyer beware!! Take care of your own health and stay away from the medical system.

  • Simon,

    Here is the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

    Every medicine we take (penicillin, anti-depressants, etc.) are not mandated by law that everyone take them. Furthermore, manufacturers of vaccines are protected by law so they are not responsible for ANY damages that happen to the unsuspecting victim.

    You are simply parroting the industry line, which is essentially, “…reactions and risks are minimal, just shut up and get your damn vaccine.”

  • Brook

    Simon, if you think vaccines are awesome then why are you on a website like this? Do you work for Merck?

  • Barry Richards

    *Simple*Simon, is it?

  • Catherine Maio

    I completely agree, Simon- no reward without some type of risk. I would rather take the infinitesimal risk that my son *might* be harmed by a medication/vaccination rather than the larger risk that my son might become ill from one of the diseases that are commonly prevented by vaccinations. I have no quarrel with those who choose not to vaccinate except in cases where the unvaccinated child causes others to become ill because they’ve caught something vile that’s easily spread. As far as I know, Gardasil is not a required vaccination. If you’re not comfortable with receiving it, don’t. As a frequent blood donor, I am more concerned with people getting the blood/blood products they need rather than worrying about something that is not a proven health risk- people needing blood are grateful for it. I’ll bet you anyone who has received a necessary blood transfusion will tell you they are happy someone donated the blood they needed and are not worried over perhaps receiving blood that may have come from a Gardasil vaccinated person, again, something that has not proved to be a health risk. For all you frighteners out there, if you know you are having upcoming surgery, you can donate blood to yourself which will be used exclusively during your procedure, blood can also be donated for you by people you consider ‘safe’ (unvaccinated family members with compatible blood types). In an emergency, I would bet 99.9% of people needing a blood transfusion would get one, fear of being ‘contaminated’ by someone’s Gardasil vaccinated blood would most certainly be low priority in the face of imminent death.

  • Free People

    Why don’t you just take 10,000 vaccines in one sitting (like Quack Paul Offit suggests)… what a flaming troll.

  • Free People

    Another flaming troll.

  • Free People

    Thanks for this information; I’ll certainly be spreading this far and wide. Never would have accepted a blood transfusion anyway, and would vehemently demand only blood from one of my own children or relatives who I know don’t vaccinate, would ever be acceptable. Give me death or clean blood only.
    The Medical Cartel is the most dangerous mafia in the world.

  • Lee Etta Pershing Hooper

    maybe boys should also be taught to keep their pants zipped until marriage

  • Lee Etta Pershing Hooper

    the risk is extremely small unless it happens to you or your family then it’s extremely HUGE

  • Tiffaney

    Vaccines are NOT required at this time… Unless you live in WV or MS, then you only have medical exemptions, which are hard to get. But in any of the other 48 states, you are allowed to use a religious exemption, and in 18 states you can use the philosophical exemption. Vaccines are NOT required for school. You EITHER give the vaccine record OR you give the notarized exemption form for your state.

  • Dr. Alan Woods

    Simon, if you are seriously “sick of speculation” I’m sure they will make a vaccine for that. They could if their was a market and plenty of $$$. If girls kept their knees together and the boys kept their zippers up, we would not need toxic hiv vaccine. That should be the goal. But don’t think for one minute that doing harmful things to the people of America is beneath our corporations and/or our government. Vaccinations and blood transfusions under the umbrella of helping human existence is and will always be a wonderful concept and should not be bastardized. I am a retired physician and an ordained Christian Minister and I am telling everyone that vaccines are not what you are being told, and yes, diseases and contaminants can and are being spread through vaccination. Too many vaccines in too short a period of time; over 40 vaccines in 60 months, or 5 years of age. This is not healthy, period!
    Rev. Dr. Al

  • courageandhope

    It may be better to investigate each vaccine you are considering rather than to make a blanket statement, “I always get all vaccinations because all vaccinations are better than the risks of all diseases.” We ought to think for ourselves. Google “FDA approved vaccines” to look up each vaccine and read the package inserts which tell of the studies, adverse reactions, ingredients, and warnings. Gardasil scares me big-time.

    But, as for risk of blood contamination, even before reading this article, I was concerned with all the risks of contamination of blood used for transfusions, from reading this from the FDA: Guidance for Industry, Circular of Information for the Use of Blood and Blood Components, dated 8/09/2013 http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Blood/ucm364565.htm

    We’ve seen how Dr. Salisbury is dismissive of vaccine risks from the part he played in Dr. Wakefield’s story. See Dr. Wakefield’s challenges to Dr. Salisbury at TheAutismChannel, (4 recent videos).

  • elnura

    Webpage of Cynthia A. Janak at:

    In my last article about Gardasil I quoted a document that I found on
    the FDA website called the “Reclassification Petition for Human
    Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA, Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
    Detection” published March 7, 2007.


    What I have done is read all 68 pages of this document. What I am going to show you is that the FDA knew back in 2003 that a HPV is not the actual cause of cervical cancer. The actual cause is a “persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11].

    I want you to take note of “persistent HPV infection” and “self-limiting.” These terms are stated throughout the document and very important to what I am going to show you. Here are the definitions. At the end of the document I will have further definitions of some of the terms that are used in this document.

    Persistent-Function: adjective Etymology: Latin persistent-, persistens, present participle of persistere Date: 1826, 1: existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a: retained beyond the usual period persistent leaf>

    Self-limiting-Function: adjective Date: 1863, : limiting oneself or itself; especially of a disease : SELF-LIMITED Function: adjective Date: 1845, : limited by one’s or its own nature; specifically : running a definite and limited course self — limited disease>

    What I am going to do is quote segments of this document and highlight what I consider is important to the average person. I know this is going to be long but to summarize would be an injustice to the authors of this document.

    VI. Statement of the basis for disagreement with the present classification status

    [21 CFR § 860.123(a)(5) ]

    The basis of this reclassification request is that the present regulatory classification of HPV DNA tests as devices intended for use in identifying and typing HPV infection to stratify women at risk for cervical cancer, thus assigned to class III, requiring submission and approval of PMAs [2], is no longer appropriate because continued designation of low-to-moderate risk HPV DNA test devices as class III
    devices contradicts the current understanding of HPV infection and its relationship to the development of cervical cancer. 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]. It is
    the persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11]. Identifying and typing HPV is an important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. 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 has accepted the above interpretation of current medical science, as reflected in its March 31, 2003 announcement on approval of the Digene HC2 High-Risk HPV DNA Test while making the following public statements on record [I] :

    “The FDA today approved expanded use of a laboratory test to detect the
    presence in women of human papillomavirus (HPV), one of the most common
    sexually transmitted infections .”

    “The HPV DNA test does not test for cancer, but for the HPV viruses that can cause cell changes in the cervix . If left untreated, these changes can eventually lead to cancer in some women.”

    “Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus
    and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health . But a
    few women develop a persistent infection that can eventually lead to
    pre-cancerous changes in the cervix.”

    “. . .most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.”

    Read remainder of paper at link to website and read the actual report at the FDA link. After go on to read:

    FDA and HPV: when did they know — follow up : http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/071220

    Cervical cancer continues to be rated as one of the lowest rated cancer to develop. To put it into perspective, more women (young & old) die at greater numbers from heart attacks, breast cancer and malnutrition than cervical cancer. The average age of a cervical cancer patient is 50-55. The literature states that the effectiveness of the vaccine will not be known for 20 plus years. Also, the CDC or vaccine makers have not answered questions concerning booster shots. The effectiveness has not been proven so if a 9 year old starts this process how long will the effects last if at all? Will an individual need to have boosters every 4-5 years? No one will answer that question. If it’s still in the bloodstream after 2 years what are the implications for continual damage from the vaccine ingredients. Also, Merck has stated they didn’t know exactly what was in the Gardasil vaccine so what’s that about?

    Prior to the launch of Gardasil there were medical studies stating that HPV was not an exclusively sexually transmitted disease that it could be passed from mother to child during childbirth. So what are the implications for a child who may have contracted HPV via their mother and are unaware of it and they take the vaccine? If HPV is sexually transmitted disease than taking this shot will subject an individual to being inject with 4 strains of a sexually transmitted disease for a minimum of 3 shots the first time and than boosters, which I”m sure will come into play. Vaccines mutate, which is a big problem with all vaccines. What will be the consequences of a mutated HPV vaccine?

    In addition, in a recent JAMA editorial, Charlotte Haug, MD, PhD, emphasized:
    “The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system. In a few women, the HPV infection persists, and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why. Likewise, it is impossible to predict exactly what effect vaccination of young girls and women will have on the incidence of cervical cancer 20 to 40 years from now.”
    Haug C. The risks and benefits of HPV vaccination. JAMA 2009;302(7):795-6

    Couple of more questions. Will the individuals who take the injections understand that they still need to have regular Pap Smears which may be more important than ever? The shot is no substitute.

    Also, do people understand even though Merck is promoting Gardasil as a Cancer Vaccine-IT IS NOT. HPV has not even been proven to cause cervical cancer.

  • Bonzai

    Wrong. I’m married to someone who required over 30 transfusions several years ago. He was immediately concerned about possible contamination. As anyone with a modicum of sense would be. If they don’t know, they should err on the side of caution, rather than trying to protect the vaccine program at any cost. Denying any chance of an issue.could have a huge cost, but they clearly are refusing to even look at it.

  • Notice – I said they are mandated. By this very nature, if they were not mandated, you would not need an exemption (philosophical / religious / medical).


  • Lone Ranger

    In the state I live (NJ) the religious exemption requires you to state, in a letter, exactly what is it in your religious teachings (e.g., bible passage) that requires you to not get vaccinated….. you can’t simply say that it’s against your religion, rather you need a good rationale. In previous years it was enough for you to say that it’s against your religion, but now they are more strict, and in years to come, who knows. I attempted to enroll my kids into a Catholic school, and they would not except my religious exemption as their bishop stated that there’s nothing in their teachings to exempt us. I didn’t want a confrontation, so I did not have my kids enroll…. they went to a public school & I wrote a religious exemption letter.

  • VaccineRisks

    The issue of potential problems and unanswered questions in connection with transference of recombinant HPV DNA by blood transfusion was published in this excellent press release in November 2011:

    ”Millions could be left wondering what will happen to them as the genetically engineered viral DNA (rDNA) possibly infects more and more host cells in the body. Will they fall victim to a multitude of autoimmune disorders caused by the marauding viral contaminants eroding their immune system? Will their bodies become riddled with “cancerous” cells? How will the presence of rDNA affect their fertility or the health of future generations?”

    None of the many questions posed have yet been answered by the health authorities.

  • Ma

    I agree with Lee that the issue of sex is a major concern globally as our boys growing to men have role models of dire nature ie porn and the media celebration of sex as the fast food diet of the grave of souls. It a global issue as children are being disaffected as a result of the nurture for so long. this has happened in the hands of the ruling scums. The vaccination issue and what it does to the host body and soul is a big issue and in good time will be challenged on THE INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM OF BIG ISSUES.

  • Jim Bob

    No disrespect intended. But scientifically speaking, the risk remains extremely small even if it happens to your family.

  • Jim Bob

    Proof of conspiracy?

  • quicksilver

    Hi Simon

    As a man and without the need to take that infinestimal risk of harm from this vaccine for women I might suggest you seem very happy to take the risk on behalf of the other sex?

    The only good thing I see in this vaccine is given the immense harm it does to fit, healthy, teenage girls, it is therefore simple, even for simple minded people to extrapolate the risks for people ten times less strong, ten times less heavy and taking ten times as many vaccines.

    And the result for USA in 2013 of poorer health and shorter lives is confirmed from the very highest scientific authorities of that country.

  • quicksilver

    Scientifically speaking you are talking out of your backside.

    Possibly the reason of a vaccine adverse effect being small may be due to the 99.99 per cent refusal to recognise that harm from the regulators, industry and government when it does 100 per cent strike them down as sick or worse.

    Harm from any vaccine is always 100 per cent but for 999 out of a 1 000 that harm is fobbed off as the normal reaction; just get over it.

    A bit different to the confidence boosting chat BEFORE you venture down the road to DECEIT, LIES and COVER UP.

  • quicksilver

    Something vile thats easily spread.

    You are talking about vaccines of course?

    And that risk to your son is really infinitesimal but not zero as in this real world they might just shoot your son with a vaccine for girls if they get confused and believe me in the vaccine world they are VERY VERY VERY confused.

  • quicksilver

    Hi Catherine

    Did you even read this article?

    The risk is that expressed by those in the mainstream of modern science and not from some amteur person who studies these things one evening by listening to some SDF spout off in the street late at night.

    When GMO was first invented it was described as the worlds most dangerous experiment by Robert Pollack and was followed by two international conferences to discuss the biohazards.

    Today we ignore the possible origins of AIDS and many other retroviruses for which we have no explanation as to cause except they post-date the worlds most dangerous experiment.

  • quicksilver

    The PROBLEM is that some vaccines are good and are NEEDED but you are not allowed to have those necessary to protect you AND society and ignore the DROSS.

    All of nothing is like all or nothing policies all risks and nothing good comes from them.

  • quicksilver

    And if they were truly optional you could opt in to the good ones and opt out of the bad ones.

  • quicksilver


    Think of the JEWS needing to go to the promised land.

    That was a MANDATED policy too!

    And in those days you could just as easily ask :


    Then as now there are plenty of people who believe FORCE is necessary and good for us.

    Just look at what they did to Andrew Wakefield once a respected doctor who had a simple query about whether single vaccines for measles should be maintained.

    Today you need to get two additional live viruses in a measles vaccine when you might just be worried about MEASLES prophylaxis ONLY.

    And those vaccines tested against other vaccines often result in deaths but then get passed as SAFE as they KILL fewer people per thousand than some other vaccine previously passed as SAFE by the same process that is called HONEST SCIENCE as opposed to that of Wakefield who studied CAREFULLY just a handful of cases only and reported each one to the best of the ability of doctors in a top ranking hospital over that of industry trained doctors that increase their salaries only by OBEYING ORDERS from ABOVE.

  • quicksilver

    And when strange new illnesses arrive, it will be like AIDS. We dont know where it came from and we are NOT INTERESTED in knowing the ORIGIN.

  • quicksilver


    If we take the replies from the USA and UK together; we can paraphrase them as follows:




    But we knew that already didnt we?

  • mark

    So if you were bleeding out and needed blood immediately you would just die? At least natural selection is working…

  • mark

    How does taking an extra vaccine that is optional increase the risk of disease by 10? Also, size and weight don’t matter because vaccines are designed to not overwhelm. Also, the point Simon is making is that yes, sometimes a small percentage of the population has an adverse reaction to a vaccine, but the people it saves FAR outweigh the ones it doesn’t. Also, what scientific authorities are you referencing. If you actually do a little research they all agree that getting vaccines is a good idea.

  • How about providing any scientific evidence that has been tested as a basis in which you formed your opinion? Thanks.

  • quicksilver

    Hi Mark

    Not sure how deeply you study toxicology or even bother to look at the vaccine load for a baby from 0 to 6 months of age?

    My vaccine load for the past 20 years is zero.

    A typical baby gets 4 lots of vaccines before 6 months.

    If you look at risk from vaccines to me and for a small baby then a figure of ten times seems more than under-estimating their risk.

    In fact you could easily double that to 20 if you like?

    Size and weight dont matter? I am not in total agreement with the current standards of toxicology but do agree with them on size and weight and there is no dispute here. If you give a 2kg baby 0.5g mix of chemicals that are toxic then that is the same as giving a 100kg man 25ml of a vaccine.

    This is ablsoute basic, elementary and childish state of current toxicology, yes?

    If you were to offer me 25ml of a MMR vaccine then I might just lose my cool with you!

    A small percentage have an adverse reaction – we totally agree here and my beef here is that when that happens then DENIAL comes into play so we under-estimate the dangers of vaccines by an unacceptable amount. We should if necessary ACCEPT any reasonable complaint as GENUINE or do we want to fulfill the wild claims of people who talk of population reduction, exterminations, sterilisations et al which is for me STUPID?

    We have been at the cross roads of disbelief with vaccines for 30 years and with the elmination of people with proper grievances eg Andrew Wakefield and hundreds of other SERIOS scientists excluding me of course who sits and has to prick myself to see if this is a real event unfurling or a monstrous DREAM.

    As I look from my viewpoint I see and know people who have had vaccines and died, become autistic, become diabetic and at present get put in prison on research I wish to flag as FRAUD.

  • Jim Bob

    With such great Youtube videos, how could you be wrong?

  • Jim Bob

    Wakefield manufactured a controversy for his own financial gain. Its time to pull your head out of your rectum and acknowledge that lest your name be changed to “slowsilver”.
    Let me spell it out:
    1) Wakefield was developing his own measles vaccine and then suddenly he came up with his own research that suggested that the MMR wasn’t working. He wanted the government to use the vaccine he was developing instead so he could profit from it.
    2) Moreover, he was being paid by lawyers of sick children find a causal link between MMR and autism. This was a conflict of interest he didn’t disclose because he knew it was wrong but he pocketed the money anyway.
    3) His methodology for his case study has been debunked and his research found to be manipulated in a case of gross fraud for financial benefit.
    4) Wakefield’s hypothesis: Measles cause gut inflammation, gut inflammation causes ?, ? causes development issues. These findings have not been replicated anywhere.

  • quicksilver

    I cant be can I? (wrong about vaccines harming SOME people – check with CDC, Merck, GSK and US and UK government etcetcetc for more proof of vaccine harm)

    But I detect a lack of any interest or concern from you in people SUFFERING from their vaccine belief.

    Remember these people were ONCE 100 per cent behind the vaccine schedule.

    They are not like me supporters for 50 years against all criticism only now to find you have been LIED too, for 50 years.

    And I bet you havent even watched those videos all the way through!

  • quicksilver

    Have you forgotten the last time the blood supply got contaminated?

  • quicksilver

    I think your comments are provably incorrect Jim lad!

    You quote the hackneyed comments that have been repeated ten thousand fold already but only really is one or four criticisms of Andrew Wakefield.

    What about the finding of METHYLMALONIC ACID at unusual levels?

    What about the two of the three who have been reinstated by the high courts et al?

    In fact the research centres on two of the MMR vaccines that had already been superceded when the research was published.

    Did you know that?

    And the many people who claimed vaccine harm were never allowed to go to court – is this justice?

    And it is the normal action in the UK.

    Send the complainants to a crooked or dodgy lawyer who probably gets money from Big Pharma or the government so you contain the problem.

    Throw some money out to the only experts who can prove or disprove vaccine harm and then kick them out of the profession.

    If I was in the medical profession working you wouldnt hear a squeak from me.

    330 000 pounds or dollars a year does buy loyalty you know and damn those harmed!

    Notice the tale changes when people do not need that money and the truth comes to the forefront.

    One such vaccine expert retired and published a book showing the benefits of vaccines in his retirement.

    The title had to be changed to vaccine harm when he did his research.

    And he admits he did not see all the evidence for much has been lost.

    But the one adverse event in a million looks dodgy when some trials kill 6 per cent of those tested but dont worry the placebo killed 10 per cent so its SAFE!

  • Jim Bob

    To sum up your comments, “I’m willing to overlook Wakefield’s corruption because I think there is larger corruption occurring but I lack the evidence showing as such. But I can read between the lines. Down with the man!”

  • quicksilver

    People in glasshouses must not throw stones Jim.

    Nobody is perfect!

    I initially did not like this work when it came out as it opposed my notion that the harm came from the first vaccines given with delayed actions that came temporally with the MMR vaccine which on the scale of things is about 10 times LESS harmful than a DTP vaccines which is so dangerous it doesnt EXIST in 2013.

    Of course in the corrupt world the DTP was safe and any suggestion of harm was wrong.

    But the UK government itself admitted DTP caused:





    Professor G T Stewart got ripped apart from the vaccine industry of that era and the government went back on its report when it terminated any court claims for DTP harm.

    But when the DTaP came along it was to get a safer vaccine onto the market.

    You may note that ther eis the lear hint of the future increase in AUTISM from vaccines given in an insane manner today.

    But today Andrew Wakefield recognises many more things than MMR are at work in the current health decline and rise in AUTOIMMUNE conditions and we are still learning if you keep an open mind.

    But what is important about Andrew Wakefield and why he was destroyed is that he gave a very public voice AGAIN that maybe, possibly or probably we need when examining a health problem to ALWAYS consider the FULL VACCINE EXPOSURE for any sick person as part of the possible causes.

    And this idea of thinking VACCINES when examining a sick person is something that is by continuous drip feed being expunged from any medical stduy ONCE AGAIN.

  • quicksilver

    Quite right

    Every intelligent country has its own unintelligent vaccine schedule.

    And in France the only one that we need is TETANUS

    And we know how to get unacceptable adverse reactions from even this:

    Three is more than enough.

    Six is more than enough to get VERY SERIOUS adverse reactions.

    And most countries would think just six vaccines is NOT ENOUGH.

    But it is more than ENOUGH to have:

    TEN MILLION AUTISM folk around.

    AND still RISING!

  • Jim Bob

    Putting aside the fact that your post above is really incoherent, I have to take issue with one statement you made that was incorrect. Andrew Wakefield was not destroyed because he made a controversial statement. He was destroyed because he manufactured evidence to support a controversial statement for personal financial gain. He deliberately manipulated data in his study to support firstly, a vaccine he was developing and secondly, expert testimony for a plaintiff in a vaccine case.
    I have to question your judgement if you think that this behaviour is okay just because his “work” supports your argument.
    Moreover, all you have implied is a temporal association with vaccines. Have you seen the gentleman that showed that autism rates have steadily increased with the increased consumption of organic foods and increased internet usage?
    I was wondering why that isn’t considered. Moreover, you (and others here) completely ignore all recent evidence showing the strong genetic component of ASD.

  • quicksilver

    Yes, I have strayed too far off the topic which is the harm from engineered whatever in our environments.

    We can certainly agree that we differ over our own interpretation of whether Andrew Wakfield is helping the health of children or not can we?

    Having got that complete agreement, can we move on to the pros and cons of letting loose the equivalent of a Chernobyl or Fukushima every 20 minutes in the biological world that we live in?

    I for one think we are MAD.

    In UK London they want to build a high technical biological centre in thousands of acres of land right in the heart of LONDON!

    Something we learned was not always a good idea in Birmingham when some fool let out an ancient unengineered from of life called SMALLPOX.

  • Jim Bob

    I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on the issue of the ethical conduct of Wakefield. Clearly you feel he acted ethically and I disagree.
    As for the rest of your post, I’m lost as to what you’re talking about.

  • And you agree with the ethical conduct of Saul Krugman, Jonas Salk, Hilary Koprowski, etc, etc… with testing vaccines on handicapped children?

  • Jim Bob

    Medical testing on those who can’t give consent is ethically wrong. Period.
    But do their transgressions somehow taint the overwhelmingly large body of scientific research (conducted by others) supporting the safety of the vaccines they created?
    The answer is no.
    More to the point, I’m surprised you didn’t include Wakefield in the list since he was drawing blood samples from children at a birthday party without obtaining proper consent.

  • quicksilver

    As a rule of thumb if he is OK now then the worst risks must be over?

    In France they have a good system where for some cases and every case if possible you give your OWN blood and then that is used for you alone in your operation.

    Something they do NOT do in the UK or anywhere else I know of.

    And something that is inherently SIMPLE except to most medical experts it seems?

  • AussieMum

    Jim Bob (or are you Argus), you fail to mention that Professor John Walker-Smith was completely exonerated after his High Court appeal when the GMC found him guilty of “so-called” unethical conduct and he was part of the same group with Dr Wakefield who didn’t appeal because his insurance wouldn’t cover him.
    How we have short memories!

  • Jennifer Symonds

    Although not sure how if thretened with severe injury during a rape

  • Jennifer Symonds

    Good idea that, presumably in UK you’d have to go private & give you’re own blood; unfortunately I can’t give blood as mine is slow in clotting anyway ( though not as bad as it used to be)

  • quicksilver

    Hi Jennifer

    Thanks for the comment and thanks for being positive too.

    If one country can operate the system of the person giving his own blood then surely all countries should do this?

    The problem with AIDS contamination was a death knell to nearly every person who needed blood products due to illness such as hemophilia which affects very powerful people (blue blood et al).

    But is just one of a very long line of such blood related problems.

    My father got a blood transfusion before they knew about the Rhesus Factor and obviously couldnt spot coagulating blood when mixed either!

    Some transfusion have led to dementia in patients.

    Hence it seems that a system geared to helping people rather than maximising profits and damn the patient might be in order?

    Personally I try to take my own life in my own hands and have been known to run a mile when they try to tell you you have cancer.

    How many people have been given this diagnosis been cured and think how marvellous when perhaps they NEVEr had cancer.

    It has happened twice to me and I hope both times they were mistaken.

    Brain cancer possiblity given for me15 years ago and it simply proves iif you feel well and brain fit then perhaps its the doctors that needed a head transplant?

    My own sister followed a cancer treatment that I suggested would keep her alive for two years only and got that wrong. Dead in a year and a half.

    So my current opinions of the medical sector are POOR and NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH.

    Here in France we get through 48 boxes of drugs EVERY year, up from 47 last year!

    But somebody must be getting my 47 or 48 boxes as well!

    If you get this far exactly why is your clotting time LONG as this is not a good sign is it?

  • Jim Bob

    No, I am not Argus. If I did somehow manage to occupy the same physical space at the same time as Argus, would it matter?
    This seems to be a case of selective reading. His appeal was granted based on the fact that the council failed to provide adequate reasoning showing his intentions were for research as opposed to providing necessary medical treatment to the children in question. The ethics of the research were not in question.
    The council did NOT exonerate the research. In fact, the judge who granted the appeal clearly stated the ruling does not re-open the autism/mmr debate. He goes on to say that “no respectable body of opinion supports Wakefield’s hypothesis”.
    So Wakefield didn’t have the money to launch an appeal but some how comes up with the money to launch a lawsuit against Brian Deer? – Does anyone else smell something funny? Its something putrid…almost like BS.

  • It is interesting that in the vaccine truth seminars I used to attend, that it was stated that there had been a doctor who had been in disbelief of vaccine harm and in disagreement with giving those seminars; that, until his own child was severely harmed by vaccines and developed ASD. Then he came to the seminar and at the end in tears he apologized for the attitude he once had, and stated, please keep doing what you are doing. It has to hit home, and then they get it. I have heard so many endless accounts of parents detailing their healthy child’s demise from vaccines, I couldn’t count them all. Much of that through personal contact and reading what people are stating on my friends list on facebook. As well there have been many accounts of Gardasil unrecovered from outcomes, which clearly have a basis in the neurological and immunological harm done. It is long past time that society and as well the CDC and FDA start taking this very seriously.

  • And you Jim Bob would then believe as well that the extended contract that Andrew Wakefield had with the University of Pittsburgh at the time, and to do vaccine related primate studies, had nothing to do with what happened at the GMC? Being he had already one study in a considered high impact journal, you do not think that the intentional witch hunt by Brian Deer of all unqualified people and his eventual discrediation, was gone after and fabricated to prevent any other journal from publishing his new findings in the primate studies?

    September 19, 2013
    New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again

    Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right – MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease


    Callous Disregard Research

    Dr Andrew Wakefield – MMR Vaccine – Truth and Reality

  • The parents sure think he acted ethically. Actually youtube is at times a great tool to get the point across.

    Brian Deer and The GMC, Selective Hearing. BMJ Journalist


  • You are NOT helping anyone by telling them to investigate vaccines by going to the FDA information only. You seem to be talking out of both sides of the debate here, which leaves me wondering about your actual and real agenda. To investigate vaccines you need to as well compare that FDA and CDC information to the independent and unbiased information; and which there is a load of it available, if you realize it. You can not leave that said necessity of balanced information out of and off of the to do list. If you just went to the FDA site you would be and remain clueless about the reality of the clearly far more risk than benefit of vaccines. Here below is on example of actually verifiable and unbiased information.

    Disinformed Consent ~ by Shawn Siegel

  • Let me ask you this, Jim Bob, and lets get back on track with the subject matter of this article. If you have or had a daughter, and given the content of information in this article, would you yet honestly encourage and allow you daughter to get the 3 shots of Gardasil. Would you do that realizing the actual lack of proof of effectiveness in the independent evaluation of this vaccine, and in light as well of the now numerous adverse reactions and as well major amounts of neurological and obvious immunological damage and as well the resulting and existing unrecovered from out comes that many of these young women have been left with? And to answer this, even in light of all that, would you in honesty still allow the Gardasil, and if so, why?

    Oncology Dietitian Exposes Fraud in CDC’s HPV Vaccine Effectiveness Study

    Excerpt: All in all, one can conclude that there were serious design flaws involved in this study—whether intentional or not—leading the researchers to erroneously conclude that the vaccine effectiveness was “high.” Clearly the effectiveness of the vaccine was anything but high, since the unvaccinated group fared far better across the board.

    Read more:

    Scientists Point Out Corruption in Vaccine’s Promotion-Gardasil.

  • courageandhope

    In my experience, Lowell, the CDC vaccine information I have read minimizes and glosses over vaccine risks and does not provide the detail that FDA package inserts and clinical trials information does. The CDC is selling the vaccine program. But thank you for the link to Shawn Siegel’s article, just the same.

  • Wakefield was not developing a vaccine but a rather a treatment for the intestinal/bowel disease and believed resulting ASD caused by the MMR vaccine.

    There was no fraud in the Wakefield study, as the MMR vaccine can clearly cause intestinal/bowel disease and resulting ASD. There is as well an effective through diet changes and as well biomedical treatment that has healed the digestive tract and detoxified the child, resulting in a near normal return of the child from at times a hopeless state of ASD. These are facts, and i did not believe them to be with solid evidence and conviction. As well the physiologically based scientific studies do exist to more than conclude that the ASD link to the MMR vaccine, clearly does exist. To not see that at this point, is nothing but and amounts to selective denial.

    To think that there is reason to believe that Wakefield intentionally conducted fraud in that 1998 study, is simply preposterous. And are you that willfully selective of the over-all information, that you refuse to consider that the man simply and clearly does not have it in him to take advantage of any such children for exclusively financial gain. To make such a libelous and false claim is as well simply and callously disregarding the thousands of children that have been harmed by the live MMR vaccine. He, Wakefield, may have made some poor choices and perhaps was in error as to not crossing all the T and dotting the I’s as to the set up of that study. However, one thing that remains is that the study in itself was clearly not in error, and not ever. What is important far more than rehashing the old Wakefield issues every time vaccines are brought up, and in the pro-vaccine element using him as whipping post example, (a false information example at that). The most important issue is not ignoring the vaccine connection, but in getting these children the help and the answers they need, and as well for the families. Are they getting that from the CDC: of course not; and they never will. What do you think would actually happen to the CDC if one day they as much as decided to accept all the existing independent studies, and if they started to do follow up studies that concluded that Wakefield and many others were right?

    There are now an estimated 2,000,000 million individuals in the US, with an ASD diagnosis. How about if one day they just said, we are not covering this up, any more. What would be the ramification of that, and for them at the CDC? Would they survive it? It would be disastrous, and they know that. Who would cover the liability, the taxpayer? And you actually trust the CDC for credible information and properly done epidemiological studies? The studies they funded and as well support, and that came from none other than sources that have a vested interest in not having any vaccine fail, due to the more harm than good it was causing. Why are there few to no physiological studies that have been done? Why does the CDC ignore the successes of biomedical treatment, which clearly indicates that is not only the MMR vaccine, but as well aluminum adjuvants, thimerosal, and in fact the overload of vaccines in general.

    Why as well has not the CDC addressed the individual and major variances in the ability of children to detoxify all the existing multiple vaccines. What about glutathione levels and the fact that multiple vaccines can lower an already inadequate level of glutathione in a child? Why is not the CDC doing any studies on mitochondrial disorder, and what actually triggers the physical break down of the children’s health and the resulting changes in which many end up with that now 1 in 50 diagnoses of ASD? It is long past time to stop calling everything only a coincidence and/or only a conspiracy theory, and actively and honestly look for the answers. That will never happen as long as the system investigating, refuses to even consider a vaccine causation.

  • Jim Bob

    1) Yes. He was developing a separate measles vaccine. He had applied for a patent for it.

    2) His fraud is clearly detailed in the court records and by Brian Deer. Moreover, no one can replicate his results. Hence, its either fraud or he’s a terrible doctor. It’s your choice, I’m going with both.

    3) Thanks for supporting your argument with a conspiracy that the CDC is covering something up. If you have any evidence backing up this claim I would be happy to here it. Moreover, the CDC isn’t the only health agency that believes in the safety record of vaccinations. Please review every health agency in the world and every infectious disease unit in every hospital. The only people who don’t believe it are keyboard warriors on the internet.

    4) At the end of your post, you put forward several untested hypotheses. To that end, I ask why the anti-vax movement hasn’t considered the genetic causes of autism and also provide an explanation why diagnoses of autism can be determined by some experts prior to any vaccinations being given and even possibly in utero. I also ask why the prevailing epidemiological data shows that the prevalance of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups is the same. Why hasn’t the anti-vax movement asked why autism rates continue to rise when vaccinations rates decrease?

  • Jim Bob

    I have two daughters. Both are fully vaccinated according to our local vaccination schedule. Both are autism-free. Next week, they will be getting their flu shot at our local health clinic. In grade eight, they’ll receive the free HPV vaccine.

  • Jim Bob

    1) Andrew Wakefield never had a contract with the University of Pittsburgh. He worked on a study with Laura Hewitson who was at the time, faculty at UofP. The same Laura Hewitson who was fired (or released or didn’t pass tenure review, we don’t know the full details) for her dubious and really, really terrible “monkey study”. Its dubious because again, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Hewitson was a plaintiff for a autism/vaccine lawsuit. Wakefield and Hewitson are really both cut from the same cloth. Undisclosed conflicts of interest and terrible studies.
    2) You can blame the fact that the Wakefield/Hewitson studies didn’t get published because of a “witchhunt”, but in reality, those students were absolutely terrible and not worth the paper they were written on. I can go into detail why if you want.
    3) In the past, you’ve harped on Offit working for the CDC and then working for pharma company which shows he’s been bought off. Well, here we have the exact same thing in reverse. Hewitson is now working at Thoughtful House. Have you asked yourself, how much Wakefield secretly paid Hewitson to put forward those shitty studies?

  • Jim Bob

    Everything you mentioned here is anecdotal. Not scientific.

  • Jim Bob

    Of course they would. They were all plaintiffs in the case Wakefield’s research was supposed to support.
    Though, the question isn’t about the parent’s opinion of Wakefield but rather did Wakefield conduct unnecessary tests in order to support his own research rather than the for the benefit of his patients. Given that the tests were deemed invasive, unnecessary and potentially harmful, combined with Wakefield’s undisclosed financial interests, the GMC determined his behaviour was unethical. And I have to agree.
    It boils down to the fact that he performed unnecessary tests on autistic children for his own financial gain. Completely unethical as mentioned by Jeffry below.

  • Still parrotting the same old false and misleading CDC propaganda there Jim Bob; imagine that. Didn’t you as well forget to add the phrase, “no credible evidence proves”? The problem is that no credible evidence is ever enough. Pubmed and other recognized journals have more than enough studies available to soundly conclude that vaccines do indeed cause ASD. Just because the CDC refuses to accept any existing data and as well independent scientific studies that do show the direct links beween vaccines and ASD, and actually a lot more; does not give you nor them to say and falsely claim to that all of the studies conclude no connection.

    What type of studies does the CDC have to reference to, and what type of study is the only type acceptable to as well the federal vaccine court? They are only those studies that the CDC and AAP approves and accepts. What are they? ell, for the most part they are only not physiologically based studies but instead they are only epidemiological (population) studies.

    Several of those only acceptable studies the CDC and AAP funded those studies themselves. When you really look at the whole picture here, the CDC actually has very little to go on, and especially when you are aware of the bulwark of independent studies that concluded anything but that vaccines do not cause autism. If you want to claim to any honesty here, you simply can not ignore these facts an as if they do not exist. If you have somehow a vested interest, (conflict of interest) in regard to a need to deny the truth, and in that you must not recognize any alternative information; then you have no business repeatedly reply posting on this sites articles. Why? Because far to many people to include parents come to this site looking for the actual truth. This site and its articles are intended to provide that truth, and they certainly have done a good job of and in doing that. You can make it all up as you go and keep on with your endless denial and denialism all you want. The truth will always be there and you will never run away from that no matter what.

    The site I created has numerous applicable scientific studies on many of the titled pages, and in you may notice that a majority of them are also published in Pubmed. I will give you a few pages with the listings of numerous applicable studies in regard to the said subject topic here. All for your corrective enlightenment, Jim Bob.

    Look at this. There is even a page on The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, and on The Real History of Medicine. Looks like we have been mislead about a lot more than just vaccines, there Jim Bob. Of course when you shilling for pharma, or whoever it is that you do, then it is your job to deny all this information as from top to bottom, as all only anecdotal and non scientific, is that not correct? Modern chemicalized so called medicine is just a marvelous creation in your mind, isn’t it? It turns out for you that those are all only false delusions; and in far to many cases that big monster and for profit Goliath, just simply is doing on far to many levels obviously more harm than good. Is the allopathic treated health of the population improving, or getting much worse? Is the overall health of the children improving, or getting much worse. The correct answer is that everything is getting much worse.If they had it right, that clearly would not be happening, and keep right on happening. But then I do not expect you to take anything seriously, and you clearly have continued to refused to. The error in your nonsense needs to be exposed for what it is; and here I am and more than happy to do that.

    The Vaccine Damage Science

    Aluminum Adjuvants – Lack of Safety Data – Lack of Aluminum Adjuvant Safety Studies

    The Unbiased Vaccine Science and Data

    Vaccine Contamination

    For Scientific Data: Homologous Recombination Study

    Vaccine Production With – Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)

    Glutathione, Tylenol, Vaccine Adverse Reactions, and ASD

    The False Theory of Vacine Derived Herd Immunity

  • Yes, I would agree with that. One thing that needs to be realized however is that the vaccine clinical trials done by pharma have become increasingly deceptive in that they are in regard to systemic adverse reactions, not comparing the vaccine to a true saline placebo. A person would wonder how and why the FDA is letting that happen.

    If a person is just looking for the vaccine ingredients and the inserts, those are available as well from a few other non FDA sources.

    This analysis in regard to Gardasil, by Cynthia Janak as well, does a good job of detailing the deceptive practices and as well in regard to the terminology used regarding the placebo types used in Merck’s clinical trials. This clear is adding a smoke screen to the findings where nothing can be accertained as to the true reactivity of the control/placebo that was used; and then in comparison to the true reactivity of the vaccine. This is some major deception, and they simply need to stop using other vaccines and variations of a carrier solution as comparison controls. Simply changing the names and putting it in a table as well that a non alum placebo was used without identifying what it actually was, simply does not boost the confidence factor at all. The use of an aluminum adjuvant containing control ( an actual neurotoxin) in many of the tables of the FDA’s 464 page document, without any explanation of the reason as well leaves some major questions unanswered.

    And now we have the highly reactive Gardasil that has been approved since 2006, and nothing can get done to have this vaccine removed from the market and the clinic shelves as it rightfully should be… and clearly should never have been approved to start with. But yet all we ever hear is that every vaccine is safe and effective, and with a whole battery of endlessly false fear mongering that always goes with it.

    July 23, 2008

    Gardasil clinical trials — Placebo

    By Cynthia Janak

    Excerpts: What I have before me is a 464 page document that was further brought to my attention by another researcher. This person made several comments as to the studies that made me further scrutinize this document.

    What I am going to do is show you the proof that Merck, in my opinion, intentionally mislead the public and the FDA with their reports and graphs by using something other than a saline placebo in their clinical trials.

    In this FDA document I want you to note that Study 018 is the only study where a saline placebo was used. All the other studies the placebo had ‘amophous aluminum hydroxide sulfate.

    Read more:

    Here is the correct FDA document, as the original link in the article has been moved by the FDA.

    September 19, 2011
    HPV reports to FDA — oversight, errors and/or omission. That is the question.

    December 8, 2008
    New Gardasil findings about clinical trials
    By Cynthia Janak

    December 4, 2008
    Gardasil trials update–“New Medical Conditions”

  • Well, we would clearly and actually all would be better off going to youtube and watching old reruns of Lassie and the Three Stooges, than to be going to and ever take any stock in the credibility of the information on the Centers For Disease and Controls, website. By the way there is a lot of information on vaccines in youtube videos that is seriously very informative and accurate information. But then again you demand and expect us to all remain as lied to and mislead sheeple; and just like you, Jim Bob. No, thank you.

  • courageandhope

    Good points, Lowell, and thank you for putting this information together in one place. I had heard of Cynthia Janak’s writing on Gardasil but had not read it.

  • Jennifer Symonds

    It’s called Von Willebrand’s Syndrome these days, tho’ once it was known as (wait for it!) “Slow blood clotting in women”; actually since I altered my dietary regime it’s not as bad as it was but no one seems to know why or how come (some sort of protein maybe). It was quite a problem at school & the only 2 ops. I’ve had thro’out my life. (Poor surgeon who did my knee had a bit of panic ( forgot to tell him, oops!!) he ended up using the contents of a large pack of cotton wool to help stop the bleeding) I’m not too bothered about it these days & maybe if I keep with the healthy eating in another 6 years the problem will disappear altogether. By the way I no longer look on my GP as some sort of “god” these days, & I wouldn’t go anywhere near a vaccine even if I was offered a VERY large sum of money.