• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worryabout answers.” – T.R. Pynchon (
Gravity’s Rainbow 
)
HPV VACCINE ACTIVISM IN CANADA
October 7, 2008Morgana, Tamsin [VC]Regional Immunisation Leader Communicable Disease ControlBritish Columbia, CanadaMs. Morgana . . .It's come to my attention that you will be launching the HPV vaccine into the community. As one who has just been marketed to, courtesy of the HPV package being distributed by schools, I feel it's onlyappropriate to reciprocate by sharing some observations and opinions with you.A VCH (Vancouver Coastal Health) newsletter submission by you stated that the "HPV vaccine is a safevaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection from four types of HPV that cause 70% of cervicalcancers and 90% of genital warts." [1] May I ask what your sources are? I can find no double-blindedstudies (
by disinterested third parties
) in support of your position. Studies are ongoing (see below), and,apparently, the jury will be out until, at the very least, September 30/2009 (again, see below). It is,therefore, by definition, an unproven vaccine - an experiment. On children. Our children.I'd like to bring your attention to the following quote:"If vaccines are safe, then why have there been over 5,000 adverse reactions [
as of Sep. /07 
] reportedfrom the Gardasil vaccine including 18 deaths of young girls, paralysis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome,etc.?" (Marcia Staggs Abbott, author of 
Shocking Discovery . . . What Have We Done to Our Children? 
)[2] [3] (N.B.: As of the 30
th
of June, 2008, that figure has risen to over 9,700 adverse reactions.)Needless to say you must be aware of the reactions, deaths, paralyses, etc. caused by the HPV vaccines.The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine-reporting statistics clearly illustrate it is not a provenvaccine. Your decision to partake in this campaign does not speak well for your agency: Either your organisation chooses to ignore the evidence - and risks being accused of malfeasance (and theramifications accompanying such an accusation) - or, just as questionable, you are unaware of the latestand most up-to-date information belying the use of the HPV vaccine. [4]Merck is one of the manufacturers currently under fire for aggressively and unethically marketing their product at the expense of the public's health (and pocket) and intellectual integrity of our health careproviders. No less than the Wall Street Journal[5],The New York Times [6]and ABC News[7]have expressed serious doubts about Merck’s intentions.There are those who would say that Merck’s history has shown a propensity for malfeasance or incompetence. Vioxx (MSNBC)[8],Zetia/Vytorin (The New York Times)[9]and Rofecoxib (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA])[10] are well documented scandals that had either been covered up or had allowed millions to be endangered. I would not be inclined to risk my professional career based onMerck’s "studies".Given the dramatic decline
 
in the number of deaths from cervical cancer - in spite of the promiscuity of the"love generation" - it would behoove your agency to rethink its rationale supporting the distribution of HPVvaccines. There simply is
no
rationale (other than Merck's) supporting the implementation of an HPVvaccine."The American Cancer Society estimates that deaths from cervical cancer 
declined 
[my emphasis]74% between 1955 and 1992, and that the rate continues to decrease by about 4% each year. Also,most cases occur in women in their forties.""The vaccine is still in the testing stages (final report due September 30, 2009), but it is already beingadministered to thousands of young girls and women." [11]
 
According to very recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), based onpeer-reviewed science, there are serious doubts as to the efficacy, economic justification, safety, andpromotional ethics of the HPV vaccine and its manufacturers.“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of aneffective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of theNorwegian Medical Association, wrote in a guest editorial in the NEJM. [12] [13]  As pointed out above, the epidemiological evidence simply does not support the use of the HPV vaccine.The numbers and target population have little bearing on the use of this unproven vaccine. The medicalprofession can't even rely on the old standby of the benefits outweighing the risks.The benefits are theoretical, the risks real.These data contradict your position and, as one who is responsible for public health, you certainly wouldnot wish to put yourself in the unenviable position of using corrupted data. There is simply bad scienceunderpinning unethical marketing by a corporate giant out of control.As an organisation that (I'm sure) considers itself at the cutting edge of science, you no doubt should beaware of your peers' growing resentment of having your belief systems sculpted by BigPharma:“Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealthand power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, theFDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.”
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It 
, from an article written by former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell[14] “ . . . an investigation
 
in Australia reveals sponsor involvement in the education of 
 
thousands of general practitioners.” British Medical Journal (BMJ)[15]“Reclaiming the ethics of medicine by removing conflicts of interest, and restoring the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship” American Medical Student Association (AMSA)[16]As one who has been marketed to by yourself, representing your agency, I resent the fact that those withthe power to positively affect society are, instead, choosing a path that puts not only families (mineincluded) at risk but allows medical professionals to be co-opted for the benefit of pharmaceuticalcompanies. Considering your 
CV 
[17],
 
you know full-well that the
raison d’être
of some of the moreunscrupulous medical marketers is to undermine medical education, integrity and, certainly, your intelligence all in the guise of "protecting the public".
Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher 
, Gwen Olsen(YouTube)[18] [19] ,
Pharma Not in Business of Health . . .,
Gwen Olsen (YouTube) [20]Gardasil, by way of example, contains aluminum (see below), which has proven to be a potent neurotoxinsecond only to mercury (Thimerosal). The company is being accused of marketing using bad science andthe existing evidence contraindicates the vaccine’s usage. Dr. Abby Lippman (PhD), an epidemiologistwith McGill University, tells us, in an article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ):
“There is no epidemic of cervical cancer in Canada to warrant the sense of urgency fora vaccination program initiated by the federal finance minister’s announcement.”[21]
So, the “sense of urgency” is totally artificial. Manufactured by Merck, ready for distribution by health careproviders. Bought by unknowing parents and politicians.And yet, your agency appears quite willing to support an untenable position that could endanger millionsand ruin families. The political fallout would be enormous.As well as the aluminum found in Gardasil, issues regarding the vaccine’s other side-effects (aside fromthe deaths, paralyses and spontaneous abortions) have arisen. A direct quote from Merck’s May 18, 2006,meeting with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) reveals:“[Gardasil] . . . has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity [i.e.: cancer] or genotoxicity.”[22]Outbreaks of warts (after the HPV vaccine) were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System(VAERS). The warts were not limited to the genitalia and appeared on the face and hands.It is unnerving that the HPV vaccine would also cause outbreaks of warts caused by other strains of thepapilloma virus, possibly causing cancer.
 
Lest you believe that the “experts-who-teach-the-experts” are the pillars of society and rational thinking,especially with regard to the scientific method, may I direct your attention to the following damning quotefrom neuroscientist Dr. Russell L. Blaylock’s paper entitled
The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up
:“If the public knew what was discussed [at the aluminum meeting] no one would ever get avaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.”It is a critique of a behind-closed-doors meeting (held in 2000) entitled
Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information
. The conclusions were deliberately kept secret – embargoed, if you will.[23]Tens of thousands of health practitioners such as yourself come by their beliefs honestly using heavilyskewed (i.e.: false) data from “respected” sources. You, and our elected politicians, innocently base your personal reputations, professional careers, and the lives of your own children and those of your patients ondata such as these. Your agency is one of many upon which our government relies for accurate and safemedical information. And yet, you are about to unwittingly (I hope) put Canadian governments at all levelsin the potentially humiliating position of having to explain to voters, the World Health Organization (WHO)and other world leaders, how they could have allowed our children to become guinea pigs. A made-in-Canada disaster.While you certainly cannot be blamed for believing in what you’ve been taught in medical school, you andyour organisation certainly must be held accountable for perpetuating the fiction that the HPV vaccines aresafe, especially given the evidence presented here. It is your responsibility to correctly advise our representatives in government. They and their families, as well as yourselves and millions of Canadians,have been misled by corporate interests in an aggressive attempt to gloss over what may be the nextThalidomide.As I have two daughters within the appropriate age range, I am very concerned and would like to knowwhat the sources of your information are. Please direct me to the publicly funded studies (conducted by
disinterested 
third parties) that . . .(a)prove the safety of the HPV vaccine(b)demonstrate the efficacy of the HPV vaccine(c)present epidemiological evidence in support of your organisation's position(d)support your agency’s justification for this campaign
in advance
of peer reviewedevaluation (ref.: Sep, 2009) – please provide references.Perhaps a review of this material from the National Geographic website[24]will provide some historicalcontext for what the Communicable Disease Control centre may be about to unleash upon society.Unlike the insurance and financial industries, full disclosure seems to take on a different meaning for your organisation. There appear to be no issues with violating the principles of rule of law.As is obvious from the promotional package my daughters received, full disclosure of the vaccine’shazards is not being permitted. They have been asked to be lab rats."A lot of our patients are collapsing after the shot is given. It happens with Gardasil more frequentlythan with any other vaccine we give."
Gardasil Vaccine: The Damage Continues
, Barbara LoeFisher, co-author of 
DPT: A Shot in the Dark 
(National Vaccine Information Center [NVIC])[25] [26] Your organisation’s poor interpretation of evidence-based medicine may result in one of the greatestheartaches humanity has ever faced.Before I make any decisions, I'd like to give you the opportunity to both put my mind at ease and providethe references that indicate you and your organisation have exercised due diligence.Sincerely,Rick Fontanahpvlabrat@telus.netVancouver, B.C.References:
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
Pseudopal

Hello Rick, I recently read your letter regarding Gardasil as I am researching it on behalf of my daughter. I found an article here, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery that discusses the Canadian governments acceptable amount of deaths due to vacination. Even though the deaths far exceed those due to other types of vacination. Also, you were right, there are no independent/ 3rd party research studies that to not involve some "paid" spokes person or representative of the drug makers and the university. Even the most resent study in 2009 involved several paid consultants from the makers and the University the drug was made in. This website is what I used when I was in the fielf of Biochemistry. Anyone in the medical, pharmacuticle, and scientific research field, all over the world, post, list, or links with this website. I am a firm believer that there are risk associated with every drug and vaccine. I am sure in the future we as a species are goign to regard vacination in our present form as inhumane. At this point it's all we have. I would rather make and educated decision than a blind one though. so I agree- full disclosure. By the way, due to the freedom of information act and the internet, you can now read the autopsy reports of most of the 9,700 deaths of little girls involving Gardasil. I would be curious to know if you ever received a response to your brilliantly written letter. Best regards, Pseudopal.

reply07 / 08 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...