Systemic Toxicity of Aluminium Adjuvants: Prof. Christopher Exley
Surprising NYT Editorial in Which China Gets Tougher Vaccine Safety Scrutiny than America

Court Hears Merck Gardasil Science and Moves Forward

Vioxx now gardasilThank you to Lyn Redwood of Children's Health Defense for this report on the latest Mercktastrophe.

On Wednesday January 9th, I attended Science Day Presentations in the Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente case in Los Angeles Superior Court. I want to report to our community on the outcome of this important event and provide some personal commentary.

It is difficult to describe the feelings of elation and frustration that I experienced during the full day of furious arguments that began at 9:30 am before Judge Maren Nelson. Due to the restrictions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, my son and thousands of children like him, have never been able to have their injuries acknowledged in a court of law.  This day gave families around the globe whose children’s health was permanently harmed by the HPV vaccine a glimmer of hope that their injuries and suffering would finally be acknowledged. The frustration I felt came from the obvious fact that the science relied on by our federal agencies to approve the HPV vaccine was criminally inadequate and that Jennifer’s injuries and those of the thousands of others like her could have been prevented.

Prior to Science Day, plaintiffs’ attorneys worried that because Judge Nelson threw out a $472 million 2017 jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for causing ovarian cancer in women exposed to its asbestos-containing baby powders, the Court might not be very receptive to their arguments here. However, Judge Nelson gave scrupulous attention to the science presentations by both sides and clearly seemed to be approaching the Robi case with an open mind.

A red-letter day

After 20 years of advocating for vaccine safety, this was the first time that I’ve watched vaccine science issues adjudicated in a true court of law.  It was truly a red-letter day. Jennifer’s lawyers brilliantly laid bare Merck’s anemic case for Gardasil, dissecting the science in withering presentations challenging both the efficacy and safety of the Gardasil vaccine, and then chronicling the horrifying agency and corporate corruption that lead to its approval.

Jennifer Robi is a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccines at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation.

Jennifer’s attorney, Sol Ajalat, initially brought her case in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and then, following a judgment in the program, elected to proceed in civil court. Since VICA (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act) forbids recoveries for product defect or negligence, Ajalat brought Jennifer’s civil case under the theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and meager benefits of the vaccine.

In order to support Sol Ajalat and his sons Greg, Larry, and Steve, who compose the Los Angeles firm Ajalat & Ajalat, a blue ribbon A-Team of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms have joined Jennifer’s trial team. These include the firms most feared by Pharma: Weitz & Luxenberg (countless major pieces of litigation over 30 years), Morgan & Morgan (Vioxx, Phenphen, Breast Implants, Tobacco), Baum Hedlund, (Monsanto $289 million verdict 2018 and the $54 million 2000 verdict against Bayer in Haemophiliac/AIDS case) as well as Children’s Health Defense’s own Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Kim Mack Rosenberg (a co-author of The HPV on Trial). The plaintiff’s bar has steered clear of vaccine lawsuits since the 2008 Thimerosal fiasco which nearly bankrupted several big firms. Now, Merck, through its reckless overreaching with Gardasil—a public health flimflam currently emerging as the most dangerous vaccine in history—has brought the nation’s leading trial lawyers back to the brawl.

The three Merck attorneys who made presentations were Dino Sangiamo, Sally Bryan, and Christina Gaarder. Jo Lyn Valoff represented Kaiser.  Read more at the Child Health Safety website here.


Sonja Grear

I have made two graph of US fertility rates by age group of mother, from 2001 to 2017. It uses data from the CDC. The CDC has published a similar graph, but it combines all the ages and uses a logarithmic scale to hide the obviousness of the drop in fertility for younger moms, but increasing fertility for older moms. I would be happy to send it for any use.

Hans Litten

Well isn't this interesting. Gardasil being made redundant ?
I bet this treatment never sees daylight - what do you think ?

Researchers at Mexico’s National Polytechnic Institute (IPN) are celebrating a major scientific achievement: a new treatment that they claim can completely cure the human papillomavirus (HPV), helping to curb a leading cause of deadly cancer among women.

Led by scientist Eva Ramon Gallegos, the team was able to eradicate HPV in 29 patients through a non-invasive technique known as photodynamic therapy, according to El Universal.

The treatment involves the use of a drug called a photosensitizer or photosensitizing agent, alongside a wavelength of light that is used to treat affected areas of the body.

Hans Litten

Would it be possible to get regular updates as to how this action is going ?
Does anyone know a way to hear - or are we not allowed to know ?

I am praying for a Bayer Style Glyphosate collapse in Mercks share price.
Bayers share price halved and may even have further to go .

104 to 68 - ok not quite halved but that my friends is a massacre. A good massacre.

Jenny Allan

Just to point out, last week in the UK there was a lot of newspaper publicity about young women failing to attend their appointments for pap smear screening. Oh yes- those SAME young women who were brainwashed at school into receiving HPV vaccines to 'prevent cancer'. They believed this nonsense which logically should do away with the necessity for pap smear screening in vaccinated women.

Except of course there is no evidence the HPV vaccines prevent cervical or any other cancers. We will have to wait until these young women are middle aged. That is unless they die from cervical cancer beforehand.

Beleaguered Autism Mom

Fred, Thanks for pointing out my mistake. You would think after years of spreading my legs in the stir-ups getting my cervix scraped to get birth control pills, I wouldn’t make such an error. Maybe the jury will be made up of people like me, who think the fact that HPV-vaccinated women still have to get those intrusive PAP tests, is proof that vaccine is not effective. Do you think the young woman was told that 85% of cervical cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries? Or that cervical cancer is treatable?

John Stone


Maybe it’s the ones you don’t read

Frederic Chopin


Gardasil is marketed for prevention of cervical cancer.

My point is given that the only 2 extensive reviews I’m aware of looking at POTS and HPV vaccination found no link, how are her lawyers going to prove her POTS was caused by Gardasil? It looks like they’re just going after the premarketing research, advertising, etc.


what a moment.

Tim Lundeen

It seems that Gardasil increases cancer rates:

Beleaguered Autism Mom

Fred, Her body, her choice. This young woman found out the hard way what POTS is. She didn’t know. That is the whole point of this trial. It is fraud to hide the risks of vaccine induced damage. The “boogy-man is gonna get ya” marketing techniques aside, Merck’s own safety data and Kaiser’s medical records show what they know. The defendants cannot reasonably claim the relative risk of ovarian cancer (at advanced age) 1.5% is higher than the increased and long-term medical costs of these Gardasil-vaccinated young women and girls. Merck cannot prove ovarian cancer is being prevented – which is what the young woman in this case was led to believe. If you mean, the trial is going to be interesting because the defendants will be giving their Plotkinesque explanation that a few have to be sacrificed for the greater good. I think that is going to come off as “Daddy knows best what to do with your body little girl.” What you call interesting, I call overdue.


Frederic of all the reviews done by the CDC which ones have actually been valid?

As in which vaccines have been stress tested to prove their safety? And what level did these stress tests prove to be safe at?

We both already know the answer.

No vaccine in history would ever pass a stress test at pretty much any level - certainly not the level of dosing that ends up being used.

Every other consumer product is stress tested for safety. You don't prove cars are safe by doing vague, opaque cohort studies against controls of your choosing. Just for vaccines.


MSD Animal Health [a division of Merck & Co Inc,Kenilworth Nj, USA]
Time to Vaccinate - A White Paper on the potential for Vaccination to help reduce the use of anti-biotics 21 November 2017 Safe harbour provisions the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 .

Available to read online - Book- We're All Screwed! How Toxic Regulation Will Crush the Free Market System By Stephen A Boyko 2009

Frederic Chopin


She's suing Merck (and I think many other entities, including several physicians), claiming Gardasil caused her to develop POTS. I think that's the bottom line, but I had a hard time finding details online.

Extensive reviews by the CDC and the EMA haven't found a link between any HPV vaccine and POTS, so how her lawyers are planning to show "Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and meager benefits of the vaccine" is going to be interesting.

Angus Files

Exleyent! as always superb from the Professor.

Pharma For Prison


Hans Litten

Professor Excellent: (perhaps the greatest living scientist in the world today)

"it is an interview I gave just before Christmas about the HPV vaccine; "

Michael S.

@ Mark Wax: Thank you for taking the time to post Robert Moxley's excellent and highly informative article on problems inherent in the Vaccine Court. It goes without saying that this article should be on the front page of all American newspapers, but we all know that it will linger in obscurity along with most articles that attempt to portray the truth.


Thank you so very much Ms Doyle, and Mr Wax and all of the people that post comments here!! I learn so much every day!!! Wouldn’t be able to do that if not for the people who keep this site running! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!!!!!


@Pete: I have the 1/30 print edition of the NYT in front of me and that article's not in it. However, there is a letter entitled "Fears About Vaccines" from the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International Pediatric Association. It's the usual propaganda calling vaccine skepticism "dangerous misinformation" and summarily labeling vaccines safe. It also calls for an international strategy to increase pro-vax efforts "beyond the clinic walls", whatever that means.


When it comes to what is going to be forcibly injected into my children, Zubin Damania has no idea what amorphous aluminum hydroxide phosphate sulphate is. I do! So he can piss off!!!!


Thank you so much to Mr Kennedy and all those lawyers fighting for justice. May they win.
Frederick Chopin; if you read the full article, they could not sue for either design defect or negligence. ( It may just be me, but " negligence is fine" isn't the standard I would want for any medical product that I or anyone I love intended to use. )
Apparently, however, fraud is still eligible for a civil suit.
So my question for you, Mr Chopin;
Are you a supporter of vaccine manufacturers, or of vaccines? Because there is a difference. if you are a supporter of the manufacturers bottom line, ,and don't care about the actual vaccines anyway, then probably the best thing they could do from a financial perspective, is reformat it, take out the aluminium, maybe even take out most of the virus, and then market it as the new improved version ( there should be far fewer side effects) while fudging a couple of studies to make it look like it works.

If however, what you really support are vaccines, then reading this information should be scary to you too. Because if negligence is allowed, and studies are shown to be faked, is that the level of care you personally want in a medicine you plan to use?

Brian Nomi

Great job posting this! CHD is a super site. I hope to see good news coming out of the LA court, someday.

R Prasad

The courts are so punctual in hearing corporate's grievances. But, why the courts don't care about abuse of Autism kids in the public schools and care centers?


Throughout the world vaccination is one sanctioned way children can be maimed and murdered.

We have lost our humanity.


The Merck lawyers don't think the judge knows that atoms are really, really small. Even 225 micrograms will contain a lot of them.

Angus Files

Tax vaccines into oblivion to pay for the health issues caused by them such as they detail on the package inserts produced by the manufacturers - vaccines no more end off.

Pharma For Prison


Jeannette Bishop

Thank you! This article is very helpful, particularly in laying out the trials' fraud.

And did Merck lawyers really argue, the same as trolls all over the internet (and Senator Pan), that even water is toxic at high enough doses? Also, 225 1/millionth pieces of a gram dollar bill, that's all the AAHS dosing amounts to? ...I really think this is typifying of how the industry has justified injection of untested vaccine poisons for nearly a century, (that and the fact that INFECTIONS EXIST!... so maybe through winging it, we might--though we're all supposed to assume WE WILL, because you know, that might boost results with a placebo-effect-like effect or at least self-fulfilling-prophecy-like effect--then have a success "story").

Beleaguered Autism Mom

Thank you Lyn Redwood for all that you have done and continue to do to support those of us impacted by vaccine induced brain damage.
Military personnel and their families are automatically compensated for any harm or death that comes in the line of duty. I think that is what is what the parents who proposed VICP envisioned. The difference is military personnel are informed of the risks, Jennifer Robi and the millions of vaccine-injured are not. Thank you Jennifer Robi for not giving up in a fight against a corrupt system of profiteers that was stacked against you.

David Weiner

"This Friday, vaccine safety advocates are gathering for an event in Washington, D.C., to ask President Trump to examine the flaws with the VICP and create a separate, independent agency to fully evaluate and monitor vaccine safety."

It really boggles my mind that there are people who still believe that the government vaccine program can be reformed, despite all of the evidence of misconduct, criminality, and corruption.

Mark Wax

The 'Vaccine Court' Is Hazardous to Your Health
The American Conservative-Mar 29, 2017

"The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act was passed in 1986, under the shadow of multi-million dollar jury verdicts against the makers of the Diphtheria Pertussis and Tetanus (DPT) vaccine. Congress announced that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and provided that vaccine-injured children and their families would be financially compensated. Part of the larger Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a “no-fault” program.

Very well. As one of the earliest “vaccine attorneys”—a very limited practice niche—I know first-hand it didn’t work that way. I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings. I was able to obtain reversal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of the denial of compensation to a vaccine-injured child in a case that the government appealed to the United States Supreme Court as Shalala v. Whitecotton. It was the only Vaccine Act case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court until Sebelius v. Cloer in 2013, where I was co-counsel for the vaccine-injured petitioner, and guided the attorneys-fees litigation that the Supreme Court upheld on review against the government’s objection. I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged, one major step at a time, in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes—on a state or federal level—the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed. The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss. The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant; according to a 2013 report presented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, nearly 300 vaccines were reported to be in development. Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.

The Act originally provided for compensation petitions in the closest federal district court. The federal court would appoint a “special master,” with consent of the parties, to review the medical records and to recommend a decision for the court. The entire compensation process, even with court review, would only take 240 days. The “no-fault” outlook was designed to compensate even apparent vaccine injuries. Congress stated that compensation awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity” would instill confidence in the vaccine effort. It all was too good to be true.
The so-called vaccine court is not what activist parents thought they had achieved. In the new tribunal that arose, no decision would be a precedent for the next. Inconsistent results would be acknowledged, accepted, and ascribed to differences in “world view.” The injured and their counsel (the latter economically oppressed by the program’s prohibition against private attorneys fees) encounter a Kafkaesque system. There is no institutional memory of the favorable decisions. Counsel find (and have empirically verified) that the choice of special master will tend to determine whether the petition for compensation can succeed, or will fall. “Risk” settlements are the predominate type of awards. A very small petitioners’ bar litigates against a determined and aggressive opponent to find an inadequate measure of justice. Limits on general damages and death enacted in 1986 are still the same. And the program churns on, taking years to litigate any meaningful issue. The injuries continue, and awards continue to be made, practically in secret.
The 1986 blueprint for quick relief did not even make the starting line. Before a single claim was filed, a barely publicized amendment removed vaccine injury jurisdiction from the Article III federal judicial branch and placed vaccine injuries into the Court of Claims. Renamed as the Court of Federal Claims, it is a “legislative court” under Article II. In constitutional terms, it is an executive branch agency.

By the time the VICP opened in 1988, eight “special masters” had been hired to preside in Washington D.C. over every vaccine injury case. The compensation tribunal was self-invented, and speedy adjudication was out the window. Hundreds of petitions were filed the day the doors opened. Thousands followed. Each master acquired a caseload of hundreds of cases. Many of the initial petitions were still pending ten years later.
The Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory duty to publicize the program. The original statute of limitations had to be extended. A flood of late petitions were filed by families that could not find counsel to file in time. In fact, a large percentage of the initial cases were filed simply because the families had learned about the Act from an article written by my law partner and I, that was published in the September 1989 issue of Exceptional Parent Magazine.The DOJ began to vigorously litigate against the injured. In 1989—ironically, with the stated goal of cooling the litigation—came an even worse constitutional blunder. “Technical amendments” formalized the new “Office of the Special Masters.” Congress vested this new “vaccine court” with rulemaking power, and with the unfettered discretion of a trial court. No longer did the masters “recommend.” Now, they adjudicated. The “inquisitorial” format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.

A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy. These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine. Doctors willing to help petitioners were criticized for being too eager to “blame” the vaccines. An unspoken premise is ever-present: to acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten “herd immunity.” The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well.
As hundreds of early awards were being made under the “Vaccine Injury Table,” the government had an entrenched position: the program bureaucracy, represented by the DOJ, insisted that the Table’s listed and defined immediate-onset injuries “would have happened anyway.” And suddenly there came an administrative coup, accomplished by overt agency legislation.

The Act empowered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “amend” the Vaccine Injury Table, and in 1995 the Table was eviscerated. The underlying concepts written into the VICP were abandoned and repudiated. No longer were DPT and MMR vaccines presumed to cause immediate brain injuries following vaccination. “Actual causation” instantly became the standard for recovery. Every case would now be litigated with expert witnesses, with the tribunal in firm control of the petitioners’ available resources.
The modern proponents of a restricted administrative state would be appalled. One wonders how much a newer Supreme Court would defer to the 1995 outlook that this was not a separation of powers problem, and not a violation of the Presentment Clause. And even this does not define the worst constitutional defect.
In passing the VICP, Congress created an insurance remedy. But the private rights of injured children previously could have been the basis for a civil injury action in state courts. The right to seek justice and a civil damages remedy has been supplanted by a statutory entitlement to share in a fund, paid by a 75-cent tax on every vaccine. This substitution of remedies cannot be reconciled with the constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Seventh Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court requires a jury trial whenever private rights are passed-upon judicially. And judicial remedies are adjudicated in Article III federal courts. Only if the compensation Program was just an alternative remedy, would there be no Seventh Amendment violation. But the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth told the vaccine-injured community—the original advocates for the Act — that their court remedy had not been preserved. The immunity finding was an astonishing judicial coup on the part of Wyeth.
Curiously, an injured petitioner can “elect against” the compensation program (in favor of what, nobody knows) any time after the 240-day limit has expired. And the Act even provides that a petitioner must “elect against” a vaccine court judgment to preserve the right to a civil action. Yet there is no meaningful civil remedy. The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program—ostensibly in service of the “public health”—as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. “Confidence” in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.

The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances. The evolution of the program demonstrates how oppression can occur when legislative power is vested in the executive branch. It reflects how the delivery of justice will suffer when judicial power is diverted away from the Article III courts of law. It reflects the danger of vesting that judicial power within the executive branch. Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk.

Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent. The “public health” cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.

This Friday, vaccine safety advocates are gathering for an event in Washington, D.C., to ask President Trump to examine the flaws with the VICP and create a separate, independent agency to fully evaluate and monitor vaccine safety."

Robert Moxley is a sole practitioner in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He has defended the right of conscientious and religious objection to mandatory vaccination in federal courts across the country.

Aimee Doyle

This is exciting. As an autism parent, and an attorney, I am so happy this is finally being heard in a real court, with discovery! I wonder what documents that will reveal. Can't wait for updates.

I am curious. Why haven't more cases been brought in civil court after being denied in vaccine court? Anyone know?

Also wondering how the media will be covering this trial. Should be interesting...

David Weiner


Of course, one could and should ask the same question about all of the governments who are delivering unsafe vaccines, not just beating up on China because they have acknowledged a quality control problem.

Not that governments should be delivering vaccines in the first place, but that's another story.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Pete | January 30, 2019 at 06:14 AM


And no they cannot, no govt can, the technology is flawed from the outset.
Vaccination is a complete myth.

Frederic Chopin

Terrific article about a no-liability vaccine and no bias whatever.

Bob Moffit

RFK, Jr. (from the video): “We’re going to fight this battle for you. We’re going to take it to the streets. We’re going to take it to Congress. We’re going to take it to the regulatory agencies. We’re going to force the press to start covering this issue honestly for the first time, and allowing this debate to take place. And above all, we’re going to take it to the court room, and we’re going to win these cases. We’re going to find justice for you, for your families and for our country at last. If we’re going to do this effectively, we need your support.”

RFK's words … "we're going to take it to the court room and we're going to win these cases" is very, very encouraging. Hopefully the "court room" will be a CRIMINAL COURT ROOM .. where prosecutions of violation of RICO laws will be pursued. Here is Wikileaks history of RICO law:

"Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise."

Reading this article concerning the testimony and evidenced presented Los Angeles Superior court case between Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente .. it is clearly evident that MERCK has systematically engaged in "racketeering activity" as part of an ongoing LUCRATIVE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE .. and ALL parties involved must be held liable for violating RICO law.

The only way this CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE will end will be in a CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW.

susan welch

When I read this yesterday, I was so excited that such a formidable team are working so hard to expose the truth of the terrible injuries (and deaths) caused by this dreadful vaccine.

Surely they cannot keep this under wraps, can they?

I've tweeted it to the UK Department of Health and Private Eye.


Children’s Health Defense are doing an outstanding job!

Look what is in the NYTimes today:-

If a Government Can’t Deliver Safe Vaccines for Children, Is It Fit to Rule?

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.)