July 05, 2009
We have always suspected it and now they admit it,GSK are using young girls (as young as 9 in some areas) as human Guinea Pigs in HPV vaccine Cervarix trials. This was only discovered after reading a document that was meant for ‘Scientific Background and Informational Purposes only’
Cervarix GlaxoSmithKlineÃ‚Â´s Cervical Cancer Candicate Vaccine Mandate. Media Backgrounder makes very disturbing reading as it states exactly what trials are to be carried out, with one particular very interesting line
“Phase III Trials Phase III studies are underway in 37 countries with more than 39,000 subjects planned.”
So this appears to prove that all our children are part of one big experiment to enable the drug companies to line their pockets whilst they sit back and watch what happens to our children.
Whilst trawling the Internet a fellow member of ICAP also came up with this gem of a document which also appears to prove that our children are part of trials.
The document is the Presentation of advisory report Vaccination against cervical cancer from the health Council of the Netherlands to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport
This is an official political document. It is called ‘Vaccination against Cervical Cancer’ and it was accompanied with a letter addressed to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport in the Netherlands, from the Health Council. Interestingly the report outlines some very alarming points. The report discusses the differences between the two HPV vaccinations Cervarix and Gardasil.
“Both vaccines are designed to provide immunity against HPV-16 and 18: the two types of the virus responsible for about 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases. Gardasil also provides protection against HPV-6 and 11, which together cause nearly all genital warts. Broader-spectrum vaccines capable of protecting against hrHPVs other than HPV-16 and 18 may become available in due course. The vaccines differ from one another in terms of the adjuvants (vaccine-aiding agents) they utilise. Gardasil uses the well-established adjuvant aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate, while Cervarix uses the equally widely employed aluminium hydroxide, but in combination with monophosphoryl lipid A, a chemically modified lipopolysaccharide, that influences the innate immune system. The latter complex is known as ASO4. Cervarix stimulates higher levels of antibody production, but the significance of this phenomenon for its protective effect is not known.“
The report states that there is no real knowledge to how long the vaccine lasts or if a booster will be needed or if in fact it does protect against cervical cancer.
Vaccination protects against persistent infection and the precursors of cervical cancer
The initial effect of vaccination is favourable: vaccination leads to the formation of antibodies against the target hrHPVs and thus to protection against infection by those hrHPVs. This in turn brings about a major short-term reduction in the incidence of the precursors of cervical cancer. It is known that the development of such precursors is a prerequisite for the subsequent development of the cancer. Vaccination against cervical cancer itself. However, whether vaccination does in fact protect against cervical cancer will not be known for many years to come.”
Lovely isn’t it? Then it states:-
“It is not yet clear whether booster vaccinations will be needed
The duration of the protection afforded by vaccination has yet to be determined.It is known, however, that high antibody levels persist for at least five years and that immunological memory is created. Protection is required, however, for several decades. The possibility that re-vaccination will be needed in order to provide such prolonged protection cannot be excluded at the present time.”
It carries on
“Although the available data provide an incomplete picture of the effectiveness of HPV vaccination, they are sufficient to support the expectation of significant health benefit: vaccination leads to fewer infections and thus to a reduced incidence of the precursors of cervical cancer. We may therefore move on to the next criterion. Thus, this chapter of the report considers whether vaccination might have any adverse effects that offset the attainable health benefit.
Although the trials so far conducted have involved the administration of HPV vaccine to thousands of women (nearly 12,000 have been given Gardasil and more than 16,000 Cervarix),the numbers are small compared with those that would be involved in general vaccination.If vaccination were made available to all twelve-year-old girls in the Netherlands,that would mean treating roughly 100,000 young people a year. Certainty regarding the vaccineÃ‚Â´s safety and insight into any rare side-effects that it might have are therefore very important.”
For me however, the hightlight of whole report and letter is in the Executive Summary at the beginning where it states quite clearly:-
“With regard to safety, the third assessment criterion, there is currently no reason to suppose that the vaccine has any adverse events that might preclude its inclusion in the NIP. Nevertheless, the possibility cannot be excluded that, if it were administered to large numbers of people, relatively uncommon adverse events might come to light in due course. This underlines the importance of careful monitoring following the introduction of this form of vaccination.”
I would particularly like to draw your attention to this phrase “relatively uncommon adverse events might come to light in due course” In other words the more they vaccinate the more likely it is that a serious adverse reaction will show up. That is really great news to all parents out there with children about to be vaccinated with Cervarix or Gardasil. Your children are part of a nationwide test but it is OK because if your child gets very bad reaction it will help determine the safety of the vaccine. I am sure that will be a great comfort to mothers of children like Ashleigh Cave who is still in hospital after a Cervarix vaccination. She has now been in hospital for 9 months, is just beginning to be able to put a very small amount of weight on her legs, cannot stand unaided and has recently lost bladder control at 13.
The news gets better for all you parents out there because Suzanne Garland who is the director of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the Royal Woman’s Hospital in Melbourne has decided she wants to include babies in the HPV vaccine trials. She is on the advisory boards for both rival companies Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline and has proposed to test cervical cancer vaccines in babies, with a view to adding the vaccine to the infant immunisation program. This is according to The India Times in 2007
Suzanne Garland has a special interest in the management of herpes in the pregnant woman and the neonate. She is an advisor to World Health Organisation in the area of sexually transmitted infection diagnosis and the prophylactic HPV vaccine Obs-Gyne Exhibition & Congress Speakers Tackle Cervical Cancer Vaccine Issues And Encourage Advocacy
So she has no real conflicts of interest there then does she? Not only is she on both boards of advisers for Merck and GSK but she is an advisor to WHO! It appears that no matter who advises Governments on vaccinations whether it is WHO or the JCVI,the members have strong links and alliances to the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines, therefore, how can the general public trust the people who tell us the vaccines are safe? As we have seen we are all just human Guinea Pigs to them, of course they are safe!