The 12 Days of Skyhorse Publishing Day 11 The Setup: How Corporate Greed Damaged Thousands of Children and Censored Andrew Wakefield
GSK Advocates Gardasil for Boys and Cervarix for Girls in Confidential Communication to UK Vaccine Committee

Slate On Gardasil Inadequate Safety Testing (No It's Not April 1st)

Vioxx now gardasilWhen I was a 28 year old sales exec, my boss, mentor and dear friend taught me a phrase that I've used in all areas of my life, especially with my girls. "Don't punish progress,"  When there's a positive, don't poop on it with a qualification or indication that the progress isn't enough or worse with a negative.  So when I read this opening from, I had to pull back a bit. (Thanks Ginger Taylor for the heads up on this article.)

There’s no evidence that the HPV vaccine causes serious harm, but an investigation shows the trials weren’t designed to properly assess safety.

Oh, the heck with it. So, if the studies were not designed to properly assess safety OF COURSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HPV VACCINE CAUSES SERIOUS HARM!  This is exactly what happened at Simpsonwood regarding autism and vaccines. It's why Poul Thorsen is having tea with a mermaid in Denmark.  No harm? Sure, except for the plethora of severely paralyzed, injured and deceased victims.

Read Mark Blaxill's series on the CDC/Merck partnership that created Gardasil titled, "License to Kill."


On a sunny autumn day three years ago, when Kesia Lyng was 30, she had a visit from her youngest sister, Eva. The two were close, and as they sat at the kitchen table in Lyng’s apartment, Eva confronted her chronically ill sibling with a painful fact: “You almost can’t take care of your own kids,” she told her. “You can’t keep pushing yourself so hard.”

Lyng, who was living with her husband and their two children in a lusterless part of Copenhagen, Denmark, had been struggling for years with inexplicable health problems: joint and muscle pains that came and left, powerful headaches, and a crushing exhaustion that even copious amounts of sleep could not cure. She was working part-time in the kitchen of her daughter’s kindergarten, the latest in a string of odd jobs. But her sick days had begun to multiply again. Often she would call her husband at work, sobbing from weariness, and ask to be picked up. At home, she was drained, with no energy to clean or cook or tuck the kids in bed. In her medical records, which she shared with me, her doctor noted that she was “having a very difficult time” and that she worried about losing her job if she asked for a sick leave.

On bad days, Lyng’s symptoms were incapacitating. “Your body is so tired you almost can’t move. Everything hurts. It hurts just to stretch, it hurts to get up. Your feet feel like big blocks. There’s this burning sensation in your body and the feeling that your muscles are about to cramp. Even small things, like having to go and buy milk, can be completely overwhelming,” she told me recently. “I’ve been incredibly frustrated at my body, because it’s so limiting.”

The abrupt transformation baffled people around the teenager. They saw a gregarious tomboy turn into someone who kept breaking dates, spent much of her time in bed, and used painkillers nonstop. “We thought it was a depression,” her friend Nanna Voltolina recalled. “She couldn’t do the same things as the rest of us. It was difficult for me to understand.”

Just before Lyng got sick, she had signed up to participate in a clinical trial of a then-experimental vaccine: Merck’s Gardasil was supposed to prevent infection from human papillomavirus, or HPV, a sexually transmitted disease. The virus causes no harm in the vast majority of people. But some HPV types can lead to genital warts, and others have been found to play a role in nearly all cases of cervical cancer, a malignancy that will affect 6 in 1,000 U.S. women at some point during their life. Lyng’s grandmother had died of cervical cancer the year before, so when a letter arrived offering her $500 to take part in a crucial international test of Gardasil, the decision was easy. She got her first shot of the vaccine at Hvidovre Hospital in Copenhagen on Sept. 19, 2002.  READ MORE AT SLATE



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I watched The Pathological Optimist (available on youtube). In it Dr. Wakefield said that the reason he recommended the single measles vaccine over MMR was that he discovered that the safety studies of MMR were completely inadequate. I'd forgotten about that.

That's interesting, particularly in light of this Slate article.


@ John Stone - I would take it even further than your question about whether this is an indicator of some kind of controlled implosion. Due to the timing of the release of this article bumping up against the holidays, maybe we ought to be looking around for some other vaccine policy related shenanigans going on that we are meant to be not noticing as we are all gathered around Slate's water cooler? As periodically observed, it might not be solely about what's being said, but also about what's not being said.


The Slate article's presence, belated as it is, makes me wonder which vaccine-injured child of what influential person was the catalyst for its creation. Apparently not influential enough for full and honest revelations, if the major missed point Kim explains and the boilerplate “benefits outweigh risks” cop-out are any indication.

And I wonder how many people who take the vaccine loyalty pledge of "benefits outweigh risks" would be willing to ride in a car with pre-recall Takata airbags. After all, adverse reactions are extremely rare.

Angus Files

Untold misery for anyone who has it. We all know that. And for Slate to steal the narrative then do nothing - its what happens all the time,then they chuck in a cuck journo-shill such as Deer and then thats it job done in the MSM. The public suck it up - why wouldn't they.

In the real world the whole family is destroyed forever not just for the one day wonder non-news article.

Pharma For Prison



"We also have to consider that if a doctor reads in a medical journal that Gardasil has no bad side effects, and one of his patients falls gravely ill after receiving the vaccine, he will naturally conclude that this was a coincidence."

It would be interesting to find out at what point in history allopaths abandoned clinical observation to practice solely according to the little they read in journals and to poorly understood and researched standards handed down to them. At what point did they stop being professionals?

Jeannette Bishop

I don't see why there can't be a massive Gardasil fraud suit taken to the courts (I know the court system has a lot of fraudulent activity too, but) particularly with jury trials...I don't see how the NCVIA protects pharma from harm done using bogus "safety" testing methods and misleading ad campaigns.

Let Merck explain how they somehow thought a compound they've never demonstrated to be safe when injected and which they use as an active ingredient could be used in a placebo and results represented as safety data. Let them demonstrate they didn't have an inkling they might be doing harm to both arms of the trial with the vaccine and the "placebo," too. I think everyone in the trials, including currently in what amounts to post-marketing trials, should get compensation. I think those on the government committees that recommended this vaccine with this data should be taken to court also.

bob moffit

@ Johnathan

"So my question is: can Gardasil victims now sue both Merck and the governments that promoted this vaccine while hiding the adverse side effects?"

Again .. from Dr Moskowitz's book:

""...attorneys in Japan, India, Spain, Denmark, France and other nations have done what the US Supreme Court has enjoined their American counterparts from doing, namely, filing lawsuits for damages against HPV vaccine manufacturers on behalf of their victims.

In Spain, the suit names Merck and Sanofi-Pasteur for manipulating and falsifying data, as well as federal and provincial health authorities for ignoring widespread calls for moratorium on the vaccines until these issues are resolved"

(The full list of charges ... 1 through 10 .. are then listed .. each one a damning indictment of the vaccine and those who have recommended and approved it)

In Denmark, a documentary that aired on national television quoted a number of prominent Danish physicians who testified that, based on their experience, adverse reactions to Gardasil were several order of magnitude higher than they had been led to expect."

So, I guess the answer to your question .. can Merck and our government be sued for hiding the adverse side effects is no .. unless you live in a country with a more enlightened Supreme Court majority.

Jonathan Rose

Well, even if Slate doesn't apologize to Katie Couric, this article effectively admits that she was entirely right to raise questions about Gardasil. And let me pose a few more questions. The author and his editor say that, even in light of these discoveries, the benefits of Gardasil outweigh the risks. But if (as the author admits) we don't know how many adverse reactions the vaccine caused, and if (as the author doesn't admit) we don't know the long-term effectiveness of Gardasil, how can he reach that conclusion? How can you say a>b if you don't know the value of either?

We also have to consider that if a doctor reads in a medical journal that Gardasil has no bad side effects, and one of his patients falls gravely ill after receiving the vaccine, he will naturally conclude that this was a coincidence. So it becomes a self-perpetuating falsehood, resulting in gross underreporting of adverse effects.

Then there's also the question of informed consent, with the emphasis on informed. If a doctor recommends a risky medical procedure to a patient but fully informs him of the risk, and the patient decides to go ahead, and the procedure turns out badly, then the patient has no grounds for a lawsuit: he went in with his eyes open. But if the doctor failed to inform him of the risks, that's gross malpractice. So my question is: can Gardasil victims now sue both Merck and the governments that promoted this vaccine while hiding the adverse side effects? Or does the Brusewitz decision preclude lawsuits on those grounds in the US? Perhaps Mary Holland has the answer.

And a personal note. A few years ago the dean's office at my university invited me to participate in an open debate about vaccines. In my prepared remarks, I included some serious criticisms of Gardasil, based largely on Mark Blaxill's research. One of my opponents was the director of the university health services, and in her opening remarks she revealed what I had not previously known: that she had supervised early trials for Gardasil among students at our university, and was quite proud to have done so. That came as a shock, and forced me to think quickly. If I went ahead and said what I was prepared to say, might it be viewed as a personal attack on her, something I had never intended. I decided to read from my prepared text anyway. It was well received by the audience, though henceforth she was (understandably) a bit frosty whenever I showed up at the university health center.


Unfortunately the Slate article includes a link to an article by that sad old faker Brian Deer. I've noted a few examples of Deer's distortions below. These examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive. At the end is a link to Dr. Wakefield's affidavit.

Child 1: Deer says that 10 weeks before MMR Child 1 could not “hear properly,” sign of a developmental disorder.

Fact: Medical records show Child 1 had a simple ear infection after which his hearing was normal.

Child 2: Deer says that Child 2’s head banging occurred months after MMR rather than two weeks.

Fact: One of 2’s doctors says that he started temper tantrums about two weeks after MMR.

Child 3: Deer says that Child 3 did not have non-specific colitis.

Fact: An image of Child 3’s biopsy was included in Lancet paper. It showed dense infiltration of inflammatory cells.

Child 4: Deer says that Child 4 had developmental delays before MMR.

Fact: Medical records show Child 4 regressed after single measles vaccine and became worse after MMR

Child 5: Deer says that Wakefield concealed concerns with Child 5’s development before MMR.

Fact: Medical records noting such concerns were not in the possession of the Lancet authors.

Child 6: Deer says that Child 6 had “fits” [febrile seizures] before MMR.

Fact: Medical records indicate normal development until MMR, after which near cot-death with behavior change.

Child 7: Deer says that Child 7, brother of Child 6, had “fits” [febrile seizures] before MMR.

Fact: Medical records show normal development until MMR, after which became quiet and language-deficient.

Child 8: Deer says that Child 8 was not developmentally normal before MMR.

Fact: After surgical repair of heart problem, developed rapidly. After MMR, grand mal seizure with rapid deterioration.

Child 9: Deer says that Child 9’s parents blamed MMR for regression occurring 2 months later, which Wakefield concealed.

Fact: Clinic note of Walker-Smith says “MMR…no obvious reaction.” The parents only made the association later.

Child 10: Deer says Child 10 did not have non-specific colitis.

Fact: Dr. Anthony: mild chronic inflammation in colon. Dr. Casson: decreased goblet cells; epithelial focal abnormalities.

Child 11: Deer says Child 11 showed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements before MMR.

Fact: Father’s letter to Royal Free says MMR followed by months of sickness, then autistic behavior at 18 months.

Child 12: Deer says that Child 12 did not have autism.

Fact: Psychiatrist Dr. Ing says Child 12 had autistic spectrum disorder.

Gary Ogden

John: This sounds like what John Rappaport calls "the limited hangout." To sort of report a story, then drop it like a rock, as if it never happened. The Slate reporter did a poor job of investigating the Guardakill trial reports. He uses the term "placebo-controlled trials" more than once. I have thoroughly read and digested the four Guardakill trial reports on the CDC website. Only one used a placebo group, which was very small in number (hundreds rather than the thousands in Guarkakill and adjuvant arms). Then they combined the data from this small group with the adjuvant group in their report of adverse events. But now to know they didn't even bother to look for adverse events? Little shocks me any longer, but why is Julie Gerberding not breaking rocks in Leavenworth? Along with the ACIP members, PrOffit, Pan and the entire management of Merck?

Hans Litten

I wouldn't take 500,000 pounds to be in one of their barbaric trials . Scoundrels Criminals.

Denmark is so up to its neck in all of this. Much more than just Poul Thoresen & Diana Schendel.

Ovarian & Testicular Atrophy en masse . Mass sterilisation program as evidenced by the very recent collapse in teenage pregnancy .

John Stone

So, this is Slate in 2013 "No one else is smiling, Katie Couric".

and I suppose the question might be why Slate thinks it has the right to wage hate campaigns against anyone who speaks up or asks questions about the vaccine program. After all it might turn out in the end that they were right. Well, it is great that they have entered the field but the pose of extreme rectitude on their part is rather hard to to take. The science isn't in when people report harms, and are ignored or disparaged. Slate has been anti-science because this is just what it does. Earlier this year Slate ran a hate editorial against RFKjr:

"....“We caved to public perception[over thimerosal],” Offit says. “You’re always better off trying to explain the science—you owe the public that. We made a mistake.”

"Wherever you come down on the decision, the real villains in the thimerosal episode are vultures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who seized on the scientific uncertainty and the public communications challenges to scare the hell out of people."

But it was always highly improbable that RFKjr had taken such a stand to make his life easy, or because anyone was complacent about deaths. The issue is whether products can withstand genuine public scrutiny, and till now Slate have not contributed helpfully to the debate. All they could do was demonize the critics in a most vicious way.

The question we might ask is whether this is some kind of controlled explosion: that “they” don’t think it is going to be possible to suppress the HPV vaccine scandal in the mainstream domain any longer.

bob moffit

In a book I would highly recommend reading .. "Vaccines .. a Reappraisal" by Dr. Richard Moskowitz .. there is a lot of information regarding HPV .. including .. ingredients, safety trials, autoimmune diseases, death, ovarian failure .. and .. scandals .. such as ..

"In many countries of Europe and around the world, these (HPV) vaccines have occasioned numerous investigations, lawsuits, and government bans, as the result of a shocking number of deaths and permanent disabilities, and an unprecedented volume of negative publicity.

In 2013, the Japanese government officially withdrew its recommendation of Gardasil, based on 2,000 adverse reactions reported in just 3 years, including seizures, brain damage, blindness, paralysis, memory loss, speech impairment and pancreatitis, not to mention its exorbitant cost of $600.00 per dose. According to the Tokyo Times, Japanese health authorities placed the blame squarely on the American government for covering up the risks and persuading other countries to accept it on that basis: "Not only does the Obama administration continue recommending the vaccine; it spends large sums of taxpayer dollars in promoting it, and works hard to keep dangers secret".

Excellent book for ANYONE with a desire to fully understand the growing concerns over the "safety and efficiency" of ANY vaccine.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)