Evasion of Issues Regarding Gardasil (HPV Vaccine): Cause of Side Effects Found?
Dr. Diane Harper, reportedly the chief developer of Gardasil, turned her back on this vaccine.
A doctor may not enlighten you about Gardasil but a drug representative will
Gardasil does not cause reported side effects?
The article published in Snopes.com says that the raw data on the reported adverse side effects of Gardasil do not establish the fact that Gardasil is the cause of such side effects.
It shoud be noted that raw data are gathered by a branch of medicine called epidemiology. This discipline only shows trends and not the cause of disease. It is up to biology or biochemistry to establish the cause of a trending disease. For example, that cholera epidemic in London was associated with the drinking water. This was the first case of epidemiology that was inaugurated by Dr. John Snow in 1854. However, drinking water was not itself the cause of the cholera. It was the microbes (Vibrio cholerae) that it contained that cause cholera.
The rebuttal for Gardasil pounched on the epidemiology. Epidemiology is helpless against such rebuttal because epidemiology is not the discipline responsible to pin down the cause of adverse effects of Gardasil.
Gardasil like cigarette smoke
Take smoking as a parallel example. In Congressional hearings conducted by the US Senate on the adverse effects of smoking, the cigarette industry pounched on the raw data on people who had died of cancer after consuming tobacco products. According to the cigarette industry in 1976 yet statistical data gathered from surveys do not establish the fact that cigarette smoke causes cancer (Epstein, S. S. The Politics of Cancer. 1978). At that time medical professionals knew of tar and nicotine and other particulates as the causes of cancer. However, conventional medicine then failed to demonstrate the direct relationship between cancer and smoking. Therefore, the cigarette industry averred, cigarette smoke does not cause cancer.
In 1999, after a series of lawsuits filed against the cigarette industry, this industry finally admitted the presence of polonium in cigarette smoke (Melpor. The Radioactive Polonium in tobacco leaves. Hubpages. Internet. Dec. 22,2013). Polonium 210 is a radioactive material that when it decays to lead 206 it emits X-rays and generates free radicals. X-rays and free radicals cause cancer.
Cigar, chewing tobacco, cigarettes and cigarette smoke contain another radioactive material, lead 210 (Cranton, E. MD. Bypassing Bypass. Updated 2nd edition. 1995), that is more hazardous than polonium Polonium 210 has a half life of about 148 days while lead 210 has a half life of 22 years (Microsoft Encarta. 2009). That means that a person who quits smoking now will have lead 210 in his/her body, whether living or dead, in 44 years more. Lead 210 stays in the DNA that is usable in over a thousand years (Platt. C. Forensics). It can be used to identify the pharaohs in the pyramids of Egypt.
In his first term, Pres. Barack Obama of the US signed into law a congressional bill mandating the Food and Drug Administration to supervise the cigarette industry in removing polonium from its products, according to Melpor. Lead 210 is not mentioned. Hopefully, the removal of polonium may also take out lead.
What are in Gardasil that for now have been associated with the side effects, like nausea, weakness, anaphylaxis, paralysis (Guillain Barre syndrome), lupus and many more?
Take this case report:
"The otherwise healthy girl died in her sleep six months after receiving her third and final dose of the HPV vaccine. A full autopsy revealed no cause of death.
"Sin Hang Lee with the Milford Molecular Laboratory in Connecticut confirmed the presence of HPV-16 L1 gene DNA in the girl’s postmortem blood and spleen tissue. These DNA fragments are also found in the vaccine. The fragments were protected from degradation by binding firmly to the particulate aluminum adjuvant used in the vaccine" (Dr. Mercola. Oncology Dietitian Exposes Fraud in CDC’s HPV Vaccine Effectiveness Study. Internet. Jan. 29,2014)
Recombinant DNA or biotechnology
It is not widely known, or it is not widely disclosed to the public, what is the medium in making Gardasil DNA recombinants. It is admitted that the vaccine is a DNA recombinant like the hepatitis B vaccine. Now hepatitis B vaccine is raised in yeast, a bacterium. That is why hepatitis B vaccine is not given to a person who has allergy to yeast products.
One swine flu vaccine was raised on a medium where the protein of the medium caused the Guillain Barre Syndrome. This was found out after several persons vaccinated for swine flu developed this side effect. Fortunately, if it could be called that, the insurance coverage for the production of this swine flu was shouldered by the US government. So the government paid for medications of those afflicted with Guillain Barre syndrome.
The DNA recombinant technology is now commonplace. Take the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B consists of protein coat and DNA. The protein coat is not infectious. The DNA is the infectious part, that is, it can multiply and infect. The protein coat can be separated from the DNA particle. In fact, there are more empty protein coats than DNA infectious particles in a teaspoon of blood. There are 50 trillion protein coats while there are 500 thousand DNA particles in a teaspoon of blood (Offit, P., MD and L. Bell, MD. Vaccines: What Every Parent Should Know. 1996: 77-79)..
Some genes control the production of protein coat. Likewise, some other genes control the production of DNA particle. The genes of protein coat had been isolated and incorporated into the chromosomes of yeast. That incorporation of genes is complicated, done in the laboratory. I discuss in more detail the technology in my Hub, “New method to cure cancer: gene therapy.”
When yeast cells containing the genes of protein coat multiply, they multiply at the same time protein coats. These protein coats are harvested and used as vaccine for hepatitis B.
Gardasil is against the human papilloma virus but not against cervical cancer
We must separate the HPV from cervical cancer. To recall, virus itself does not cause cancer. It is the free radical with which the immune system shoots the virus that causes cancer. The macrophage, component of the immune system, shoots the virus and inflamed cells with nitric oxide, a free radical. This nitric oxide is mediated by the inducible nitric oxide synthase. I have a Hub explaining why Gardasil and Cervarix are not effective against cancer. HPV, inflamed cells and healthy cells near them are hit. Nitric oxide causes mutation in healthy cells that may, with high probability, result in cancer.
The rebuttal published in Snope.com does not tackle the cause of cancer. It skips it. Conventional medicine ignores free radicals as causes of cancer, and other degenerative diseases for that matter. If it recognized free radicals as causes of disease, it would open the floodgates exposing the reasons why conventional medicine has not come up with effective preventive, treatment and curative measures against cancer and other degenerative diseases.
Also medical research using free radicals as framework would be spurred that would result in effective treatment and cures. That would result in the shrinking of markets of conventional drugs that are prescribed against cancer and other degenerative diseases.
Now, there are other free radicals, aside from nitric oxide, like singlet oxygen, superoxide. There are also derivatives of free radicals like hydroxyl radical, alkoxy radical, hydrogen peroxide, peroxynitrite, lipid peroxide and nitrous oxide. These act like free radicals. I have several Hubs on free radicals, like roles of free radicals and their derivatives in health.
A female may get cervical cancer even when she was not afflicted by HPV. The causes of cancer should be addressed more directly. HPV is not a direct cause.
In addition, those afflicted with HPV, 98% of them, clear the virus once they get well. That is, even without the vaccine, they get rid of HPV. It is like hepatitis A. A person afflicted by hepatitis A virus will get rid of this virus once he gets well. So it might be the case that the HPV vaccine is not effective against HPV; incidentally, the person will get rid of HPV naturally. It is easy to give credit to Gardasil the elimination of HPV if s/he was vaccinated with Gardasil.
That way, Gardasil gets a bonanza credit from the natural immunity of the HPV victim.
"Another fact hidden among the reported data was that among the 740 girls included in the post-vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of high-risk, non-vaccine types of HPV also significantly declined, from just under 21 percent to just over 16 percent.
"So, across the board, HPV of all types, whether included in the vaccine or not, declined. This points to a reduction in HPV prevalence that has nothing to do with vaccine coverage" (Dr. Mercola. Oncology Dietitian Exposes Fraud in CDC’s HPV Vaccine Effectiveness Study. Internet. Jan. 29,2014)
The question is: why take a vaccine against HPV as a protection against cervical cancer when HPV does not cause cancer? The correct method is to get a vaccine that protects against HPV.
Take this report from Canada:
In "... a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have not actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified..." (Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe? Neural Dynamics Research Group at the Department of Ophtholmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Internet).
To summarize the above report: Gardasil is ineffective against HPV. It is also ineffective against cervical cancer.
Gardasil hides under a cloak. HPV infection does not show any symptom of cancer. Wart is not a symptom of cancer.
Against the person
Persons like Dr. Diane Harper, reportedly the lead developer of Gardasil, and Jenny Thompson, director of Health Science Institute, are attacked in defense of Gardasil. That ploy is along argumentum ad hominem: addressing the person not the issue. Dr. Harper turned her back on Gardasil.
We are not against the drug representative who sells drugs to doctors or rather induces doctors to prescribe the drugs that s/he sells. That is how the drug representative makes his/her living.
In brief, the drug representative updates the doctors on the features of a drug s/he sells. To a large extent doctors now depend on such updates in prescribing drugs. Some doctors seldom update themselves on medical research or by attending conferences. However, even medical journals and medical conferences are subsidized by big pharmaceutical companies. A doctor who acts as gatekeeper or other position in a health maintenance organization (HMO) will most likely prescribe drugs that the HMO has a marketing arrangement. This is specially true in the United States.
Huber habee directed me to click Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp. This was her response to my Hub on HPV vaccines.
Upon reading my comments on her Hub on HPV vaccines, my_girl_sara was also directed to this website by a big hospital that she called to ask about the status of Gardasil.
It is obvious that no doctor of that big hospital entertained the questions of my_girl_sara. She was directed to a canned response prepared under the sponsorship of the pharmaceutical company that makes Gardasil.
It goes without saying that doctors are relying on updates given by drug representatives on the status of Gardasil. These doctors do not summon their own observations and conclusions derived from their application of Gardasil.
Pity the consumers!
Even their guardian, the Food and Drug Administration, sometimes fails in its job. It was remiss on the case of Vioxx, a painkiller for arthritis that was made and marketed by Merck. It was found by researchers of Merck itself that a person taking Vioxx continuously for 18 months would contract stroke and heart attack. Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004. The aftermath was 11,500 lawsuits filed against Merck that settled the claims at the cost of US$4.85 billion (Internet, Dec. 22,2013). Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in USA, is the maker of Gardasil.