When concerns arise about a drug’s safety, typically because harm is suspected from its use, the drug company often denies these claims. The regulatory agencies, which initially approved the drug, also defend its safety, asserting, “Oh no, it’s safe, we’ve tested it.” However, when ethical, independent scientists conduct their own tests, they may uncover troubling evidence suggesting harmful materials in the drug. Despite these findings, both the drug companies and the regulators push back, dismissing the new evidence. As a result, a stalemate develops, and the potentially dangerous drug remains on the market. How can this possibly be the right approach to such a serious situation?
In this scenario, the priority should be protecting public health, not maintaining the status quo. When credible evidence of potential harm emerges, it deserves serious, unbiased consideration. Dismissing concerns without thorough re-evaluation undermines public trust in both the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. The process must be transparent, and independent findings should be weighed alongside the original data to determine whether the drug remains safe for use. Keeping a possibly harmful drug on the market without proper resolution is a failure in protecting patients and upholding ethical standards.
Re: "HPV is a virus primarily transmitted through sexual contact and is the main cause of cervical cancer."
This is what Ian Frazer had to say on The Conversation in July 2012:
QUOTE
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.
END OF QUOTE
I was gobsmacked when I read this in 2012.
Why on earth would they vaccinate mass populations against something which obviously isn't a serious threat to most people?
Remind you of anything? 'Covid' for instance, another beat-up threat that has resulted in literally billions of people being injected against a disease which isn't a serious threat to most people.
How has this outrageous extortion racket been allowed to continue?!
Australia has been particularly bold with its push to vaccinate all children with Gardasil - probably because Melbourne-based CSL cut a deal with Merck just as it started rolling out the vaccine and stood to gain millions (billions) in royalties.
When my daughter was in high school, the school was offering these shots. My best friend and I discussed whether to get our daughters inoculated and decided against it. I only became aware of the grave health issues caused by these shots including death since getting on social media about my covid 19 shot injury. Mothers telling their stories about the death of their daughters after gardasil and the awareness of support groups worldwide.
Most of us have probably had questionable Pap smears in our lives only to resolve by the next Pap smear. I remember my daughter having a questionable Pap smear and the gyno telling her how her mother dropped the ball by not getting her inoculated. Sadly, doctors aren’t aware of what’s going on in the real world, the world where pharma doesn’t dictate the narrative.
I was never an “antivaxxer “ (weaponized term made popular by pharma) but sure am now only because of sloppy testing, the corruption in pharma and oversight agencies. Vaccines per se, could be the best medical intervention but under these corrupt circumstances, who can trust them? I’m now worried about my granddaughters getting their childhood shots. My son and daughter in law think I’m obsessed. They haven’t said as much but can tell when I bring the subject of vaccines up. I understand as childhood vaccines are de rigueur, the custom.
Thank you Maryanne for this important information with links, otherwise I wouldn’t be aware. You’re wonderful.
When concerns arise about a drug’s safety, typically because harm is suspected from its use, the drug company often denies these claims. The regulatory agencies, which initially approved the drug, also defend its safety, asserting, “Oh no, it’s safe, we’ve tested it.” However, when ethical, independent scientists conduct their own tests, they may uncover troubling evidence suggesting harmful materials in the drug. Despite these findings, both the drug companies and the regulators push back, dismissing the new evidence. As a result, a stalemate develops, and the potentially dangerous drug remains on the market. How can this possibly be the right approach to such a serious situation?
In this scenario, the priority should be protecting public health, not maintaining the status quo. When credible evidence of potential harm emerges, it deserves serious, unbiased consideration. Dismissing concerns without thorough re-evaluation undermines public trust in both the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. The process must be transparent, and independent findings should be weighed alongside the original data to determine whether the drug remains safe for use. Keeping a possibly harmful drug on the market without proper resolution is a failure in protecting patients and upholding ethical standards.
Great observation. It’s ground hog day… a safety agency will not re-investigate safety concerns when safety concerns arise… it boggles my mind.
Completely agree
The stories get worse. These drug manufacturers are not to be trusted. Neither are the regulating agencies.
Re: "HPV is a virus primarily transmitted through sexual contact and is the main cause of cervical cancer."
This is what Ian Frazer had to say on The Conversation in July 2012:
QUOTE
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.
END OF QUOTE
I was gobsmacked when I read this in 2012.
Why on earth would they vaccinate mass populations against something which obviously isn't a serious threat to most people?
Remind you of anything? 'Covid' for instance, another beat-up threat that has resulted in literally billions of people being injected against a disease which isn't a serious threat to most people.
How has this outrageous extortion racket been allowed to continue?!
It is way past time for accountability...
Ref: Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot! The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
Australia has been particularly bold with its push to vaccinate all children with Gardasil - probably because Melbourne-based CSL cut a deal with Merck just as it started rolling out the vaccine and stood to gain millions (billions) in royalties.
Did you know the Gardasil vaccine was originally rejected by the PBAC, Maryanne?
Yes...and within 24 hours that decision was overturned by John Howard in the lead-up to the 2007 election.
It was a political decision.
I've done a bit of work on HPV vaccination in the past, before the Covid debacle took over.
See this webpage: https://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/hpv-vax/
Some of the links mightn't work, but it's all very pertinent historical information to review...
No, I did not know that Elizabeth, how interesting … thank you for a great resource…. Do you have the original PBAC report?
Also see my webpage: Cochrane Nordic and HPV vaccine safety: https://over-vaccination.net/cochrane-collaboration/
And of course the aluminium adjuvant angle...
Cochrane – Aluminium and vaccine safety: https://over-vaccination.net/aluminium-and-vaccine-safety/
Here's something else to consider...
The conflicted Cochrane HPV vaccine review.
See my BMJ rapid responses:
- Cochrane HPV vaccination review - what about the CDC's Lauri Markowitz' undisclosed conflicts of interest? 5 October 2018: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4163/rr
- Cochrane HPV vaccine review severely compromised by conflicts of interest (2), 17 September 2018: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472/rr-5
- Cochrane HPV vaccine review severely compromised by conflicts of interest (1), 17 September 2018: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3472/rr-4
Ah yes, I am very familiar with this…. It was the catalyst for getting Gøtzsche booted out of Cochrane after he criticised the HPV vaccine review.
Ha! Peter Gøtzsche...hmmm...
Not to hand at the moment, need to look back in PBAC outcomes.
Here's an article from back in the day when Crikey gave some critical analysis on vaccination policy: https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/22/how-gardasil-hype-undermined-the-pbac/
When my daughter was in high school, the school was offering these shots. My best friend and I discussed whether to get our daughters inoculated and decided against it. I only became aware of the grave health issues caused by these shots including death since getting on social media about my covid 19 shot injury. Mothers telling their stories about the death of their daughters after gardasil and the awareness of support groups worldwide.
Most of us have probably had questionable Pap smears in our lives only to resolve by the next Pap smear. I remember my daughter having a questionable Pap smear and the gyno telling her how her mother dropped the ball by not getting her inoculated. Sadly, doctors aren’t aware of what’s going on in the real world, the world where pharma doesn’t dictate the narrative.
I was never an “antivaxxer “ (weaponized term made popular by pharma) but sure am now only because of sloppy testing, the corruption in pharma and oversight agencies. Vaccines per se, could be the best medical intervention but under these corrupt circumstances, who can trust them? I’m now worried about my granddaughters getting their childhood shots. My son and daughter in law think I’m obsessed. They haven’t said as much but can tell when I bring the subject of vaccines up. I understand as childhood vaccines are de rigueur, the custom.
Thank you Maryanne for this important information with links, otherwise I wouldn’t be aware. You’re wonderful.
Thanks Vivien. And you’re not obsessed, you’re awake. Keep fighting 💪🏻
An excellent article. Thanks
Thanks Ditta 🙌