What a bombshell. Merck presumably also knew that the DNA contamination was not "clinically insignificant" (as the TGA and other regulators have tried to claim) when it is wrapped up in aluminium nanoparticles.
Given the genomic sequence of the Merck version of HPV16 (which was codon optimised, just like the COVID vaccines), so would not show up on the standard screening HPV DNA test, it would be theoretically possible to create a specific PCR test (or FISH) to look for DNA contamination in affected individuals. Codon optimisation allows the manufacturer to "hide" such DNA contamination from standard clinical tests for HPV16 DNA.
Yes, the HPV vaccines have an aluminium adjuvant...
In this regard, consider a systematic review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in February 2004: "Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence".
This systematic review by Tom Jefferson et al (members of the Cochrane Vaccine Field) concludes in the abstract:
QUOTE
"We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."
END OF QUOTE
More detail on this conclusion is provided in the discussion, i.e.
QUOTE
“Our meta-analysis of the outcome data has enabled us to reach firm conclusions on the limited amount of comparative data available. Since there was no association with severe adverse events in young children or with induration in older children, we believe any association with chronic outcomes to be unlikely. The results of our review should be interpreted within the limited quantity and quality of available evidence. Within these limits, we found no evidence that aluminium salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. We found no comparative evidence assessing any possible associations between exposure to aluminium adjuvants and rare and hitherto little known outcomes such as macrophagic myofasciitis.”
END OF QUOTE
In their review Jefferson et al blatantly admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low.” And yet “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.
Is this not a bizarre conclusion? And it's had far-reaching impact, because I suggest Jefferson et al's review has facilitated an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, including HPV vaccines.
Was this before or after it was discovered that the comparator group was not actually "saline"?.....having adjuvant only in the placebo group is exactly how you cover up harms due to the adjuvant.
Also consider my BMJ rapid response published in October 2018: Cochrane HPV vaccination review - what about the CDC's Lauri Markowitz' undisclosed conflicts of interest? https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4163/rr
Further to my previous comment re Tom Jefferson et al's systematic review "Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence", which was published in 2004...coincidentally when the HPV vaccines were in the pipeline...
See this National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS) Vaccine components FactSheet May 2013 (Content last updated February 2008), which states:
QUOTE
"Aluminium salts, in small amounts, have been added to certain vaccines for about 60 years and a recent review of all the available studies of aluminium-containing diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines (either alone or in combination) found that there was no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events. The exposure to aluminium from vaccines is far less than that received from diet or medications, such as some antacids. Although aluminium-containing vaccines have been associated with local reactions and, less often, with the development of subcutaneous nodules at the injection site, other studies have reported fewer reactions with aluminium-containing vaccines than those without aluminium."
END OF QUOTE
That 'recent review' is referred to under 'Further reading' on the FactSheet, i.e. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunization with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004; 4: 84–90.
Tom Jefferson et al's systematic review is cited by the NCIRS to support the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, and yet I argue Jefferson et al's review is seriously flawed, i.e. they admit “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”, and yet “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.
That's INSANE! How could they recommend not undertaking any further research on this topic?!
In an article on the research sector-funded The Conversation website, published in July 2012, titled “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Ian Frazer stated:
“Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”.
If only “a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”, how was it ever justifiable to coerce mass populations of children to have HPV vaccination, particularly as the long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown?
Sadly all the public health officers are still urging people to get their kids injected with this toxic risky product for a disease they most likely won't ever get.
Mind you, a courtroom is the LAST place to expect "justice". The amount of legalistic chicanery that gets flung around ensures that "technicalities" override the actual issues in question !
...and I'm sure judges always do their best to adhere to rules of impartiality, but is that subconsciously possible, when so many judges owe their positions to a few "well resourced" segments of society ?
Enough cynicism for the day, I'm just upset that Taylor got booed ! 😢
Once again, Dr MaDeM demonstrates wisdom beyond her tender years by managing to find the positive in situations. Such an admirable and impressive quality. 👏 👍 😃
Well, although immensely concerning: as the phrase states, " a leopard never changes its spots", and hence, from the previous numerous similar findings about Merck and all its fellow Big Pharma friends, this revelation is not shocking at all.
Readers will be well aware of the awful manner in which a highly respected bowel surgeon, Andrew Wakefield was hounded from a laudable career, for calling out against Merck's MMR vaccine.
However, as the film Protocol 7 clearly illustrates, Merck were not only duplicitous but also fraudulent and totally and utterly despicable in their actions over the truth of the MMR "vaccine". So it is not at all surprising that this information regarding Gardasil has come out.
How many more of these revelations can we look forward to, now that Robert Kennedy Jr. is the head of HHS?
I suggest we sit back in our front row seats and enjoy the ride over the next 4 years and take comfort from seeing how the big boys at BigPharma are made to squeal over the malign stories that will unfold.
Actually Maryanne, I imagine that the list of similar "medications" is relatively endless and probably would be a useful journalistic exercise to publish!
And Merck came after me during my ABC statin debacle too! Merck makes simvaststin (Zocor), the second most prescribed statin in Australia, and the most prescribed in the US 🫣
The next question is whether this is intentional. There is a school of thinking that the DNA fragments are necessary to provide the desired immune response (which may or may not result in a clinical benefit). In other words they are left there intentionally but not declared as such in the ingredients. If further emails were to show evidence of this I would think the case would be over for Merck as they would have been perceived to have committed an intentional fraud by misrepresenting the product. Not a single doctor or patient would be aware of such a product inclusion which would have more correctly categorised Gardasil as a "DNA vaccine".
Re "Not a single doctor or patient would be aware of such a product inclusion which would have more correctly categorised Gardasil as a "DNA vaccine"."
There's so much that doctors and patients are unaware of when it comes to vaccines...any vaccines...
What a bombshell. Merck presumably also knew that the DNA contamination was not "clinically insignificant" (as the TGA and other regulators have tried to claim) when it is wrapped up in aluminium nanoparticles.
Given the genomic sequence of the Merck version of HPV16 (which was codon optimised, just like the COVID vaccines), so would not show up on the standard screening HPV DNA test, it would be theoretically possible to create a specific PCR test (or FISH) to look for DNA contamination in affected individuals. Codon optimisation allows the manufacturer to "hide" such DNA contamination from standard clinical tests for HPV16 DNA.
For more on the plasmid issue and why the nanoparticles (aka "adjuvants") are so important interested readers might wish to read more here https://www.arkmedic.info/p/would-you-like-plasmids-with-that
Excellent supplement…Thank you 🙏
Re "aluminium nanoparticles...aka "adjuvants"."
Yes, the HPV vaccines have an aluminium adjuvant...
In this regard, consider a systematic review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in February 2004: "Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence".
This systematic review by Tom Jefferson et al (members of the Cochrane Vaccine Field) concludes in the abstract:
QUOTE
"We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."
END OF QUOTE
More detail on this conclusion is provided in the discussion, i.e.
QUOTE
“Our meta-analysis of the outcome data has enabled us to reach firm conclusions on the limited amount of comparative data available. Since there was no association with severe adverse events in young children or with induration in older children, we believe any association with chronic outcomes to be unlikely. The results of our review should be interpreted within the limited quantity and quality of available evidence. Within these limits, we found no evidence that aluminium salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. We found no comparative evidence assessing any possible associations between exposure to aluminium adjuvants and rare and hitherto little known outcomes such as macrophagic myofasciitis.”
END OF QUOTE
In their review Jefferson et al blatantly admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low.” And yet “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.
Is this not a bizarre conclusion? And it's had far-reaching impact, because I suggest Jefferson et al's review has facilitated an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, including HPV vaccines.
For some more historical background, please see my email sent to Tom Jefferson in March 2013, the context of which was influenced by my research in to pet vaccines: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/adverse-events-after-immunisation-with-aluminium-containing-dtp-vaccines_-systematic-review-of-the-evidence.pdf
Was this before or after it was discovered that the comparator group was not actually "saline"?.....having adjuvant only in the placebo group is exactly how you cover up harms due to the adjuvant.
You couldn't make it up how bad this is...
And Cochrane...what a shambles they are...
As my BMJ rapid responses published in September 2018 note: Cochrane HPV vaccine review severely compromised by conflicts of interest: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472/rr-5
Also consider my BMJ rapid response published in October 2018: Cochrane HPV vaccination review - what about the CDC's Lauri Markowitz' undisclosed conflicts of interest? https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4163/rr
As mentioned previously, I've undertaken a lot of correspondence questioning aluminium and vaccine safety, see for example one of my emails to Peter Gøtzsche, a co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration, this letter is dated 8 July 2014, sent after I received no satisfactory response from Tom Jefferson: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/challenge_to_cochrane_re_vax-safety_and_aluminium.pdf
Further to my previous comments re aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines...
I've undertaken much correspondence on this subject.
Consider for example: Questionable claims for the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products - email to Professor Kristine Macartney, NCIRS, 20 March 2019: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gmail-questionable-claims-for-the-safety-of-aluminium-adjuvanted-vaccine-products-email-to-professor-kristine-macartney-ncirs.pdf
Further to my previous comment re Tom Jefferson et al's systematic review "Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence", which was published in 2004...coincidentally when the HPV vaccines were in the pipeline...
See this National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS) Vaccine components FactSheet May 2013 (Content last updated February 2008), which states:
QUOTE
"Aluminium salts, in small amounts, have been added to certain vaccines for about 60 years and a recent review of all the available studies of aluminium-containing diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines (either alone or in combination) found that there was no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-term adverse events. The exposure to aluminium from vaccines is far less than that received from diet or medications, such as some antacids. Although aluminium-containing vaccines have been associated with local reactions and, less often, with the development of subcutaneous nodules at the injection site, other studies have reported fewer reactions with aluminium-containing vaccines than those without aluminium."
END OF QUOTE
That 'recent review' is referred to under 'Further reading' on the FactSheet, i.e. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunization with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004; 4: 84–90.
Tom Jefferson et al's systematic review is cited by the NCIRS to support the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, and yet I argue Jefferson et al's review is seriously flawed, i.e. they admit “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”, and yet “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.
That's INSANE! How could they recommend not undertaking any further research on this topic?!
*https://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/vaccine-components-fact-sheet.pdf
My comment is a short one. BASTARDS!!!!
In an article on the research sector-funded The Conversation website, published in July 2012, titled “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Ian Frazer stated:
“Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”.
If only “a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”, how was it ever justifiable to coerce mass populations of children to have HPV vaccination, particularly as the long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown?
*https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
Yet another example of money and profits trumping safety.
The people must vote with their feet.
Devastating. And this is freely injected into our young girls.
Great followup and reporting!
Sadly all the public health officers are still urging people to get their kids injected with this toxic risky product for a disease they most likely won't ever get.
Thank you 🙏
What a tangled web we weave....
It all comes out in the WASH !
Mind you, a courtroom is the LAST place to expect "justice". The amount of legalistic chicanery that gets flung around ensures that "technicalities" override the actual issues in question !
...and I'm sure judges always do their best to adhere to rules of impartiality, but is that subconsciously possible, when so many judges owe their positions to a few "well resourced" segments of society ?
Enough cynicism for the day, I'm just upset that Taylor got booed ! 😢
A small silver lining is that these lawsuits are the only way we get access to drug company internal documents obtained during discovery…🥴
Whistleblowers could leak things... :)
YES ! Quite So !
Once again, Dr MaDeM demonstrates wisdom beyond her tender years by managing to find the positive in situations. Such an admirable and impressive quality. 👏 👍 😃
I'm sure she wouldn't boo at Taylor ! 🙊
lol! I might be tempted to boo .. the peer pressure 😂
Thanks for another great investigative piece. It’s very important to see who is preventing the truth from coming out.
Well, although immensely concerning: as the phrase states, " a leopard never changes its spots", and hence, from the previous numerous similar findings about Merck and all its fellow Big Pharma friends, this revelation is not shocking at all.
Readers will be well aware of the awful manner in which a highly respected bowel surgeon, Andrew Wakefield was hounded from a laudable career, for calling out against Merck's MMR vaccine.
However, as the film Protocol 7 clearly illustrates, Merck were not only duplicitous but also fraudulent and totally and utterly despicable in their actions over the truth of the MMR "vaccine". So it is not at all surprising that this information regarding Gardasil has come out.
How many more of these revelations can we look forward to, now that Robert Kennedy Jr. is the head of HHS?
I suggest we sit back in our front row seats and enjoy the ride over the next 4 years and take comfort from seeing how the big boys at BigPharma are made to squeal over the malign stories that will unfold.
Don’t forget Vioxx!!
Actually Maryanne, I imagine that the list of similar "medications" is relatively endless and probably would be a useful journalistic exercise to publish!
And Merck came after me during my ABC statin debacle too! Merck makes simvaststin (Zocor), the second most prescribed statin in Australia, and the most prescribed in the US 🫣
Not surprising. Obviously these fragments will be there.
The next question is whether this is intentional. There is a school of thinking that the DNA fragments are necessary to provide the desired immune response (which may or may not result in a clinical benefit). In other words they are left there intentionally but not declared as such in the ingredients. If further emails were to show evidence of this I would think the case would be over for Merck as they would have been perceived to have committed an intentional fraud by misrepresenting the product. Not a single doctor or patient would be aware of such a product inclusion which would have more correctly categorised Gardasil as a "DNA vaccine".
Yes, it could be determined that there was deliberate misrepresentation of its product and ingredients and related harms.
Re "Not a single doctor or patient would be aware of such a product inclusion which would have more correctly categorised Gardasil as a "DNA vaccine"."
There's so much that doctors and patients are unaware of when it comes to vaccines...any vaccines...