A forensic analysis—now part of the official court record—lays bare a chilling narrative of clinical trial rigging, regulatory failure, and global deception.
This article was published on the research sector website The Conversation in July 2010, and was basically an advertorial for the Gardasil vaccine which was being implemented for boys in Australia around that time.
Note in Frazer's article cervical cancer is described as "this second most common cause of cancer death in women".
That's an eye-catching statistic isn't it?
But actually cervical cancer was listed as 19th on a list of the estimated 20 most common causes of death from cancers for females in 2010 and 2014, which is at odds with Ian Frazer's statement that cervical cancer is the "second most common cause of cancer death in women".
Interesting that Ian Frazer was awarded Australian of the Year for this, and 2 researchers awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work preventing the rapid degradation of mRNA in the Covid shots, essentially increasing their toxicity.
Re misleading adolescents about vaccine safety, here's some more crucial information of which they are likely unaware, as reported in a paper by Diane M Harper et al, published in The Lancet in 2004...
QUOTE
"Geometric mean titres for vaccine-induced antibodies to HPV antibodies were over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV-18 and HPV-16, respectively. Vaccine-induced titres remained substantially raised at 18 months, and were still 10-16 times higher than those seen in women with natural HPV-16 or HPV-18 infections, respectively."
END OF QUOTE
Should we be concerned that HPV vaccines produce antibodies over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV18 and HPV16 respectively, and which remain substantially raised months after vaccination?
Yes actually I saw this recently when covering Dr Sin Hang Lee’s work on Gardasil…. Crazy high titres with the vaccine compared to natural infections. Dr Lee suspects it’s because the aluminium adjuvant (bound to residual HPV DNA) in Gardasil gets taken up by tissues and leads to chronic stimulation …and in some people, eventually POTS.
Maryanne, you note: "Aluminium adjuvants are known neurotoxins that trigger immune responses and can cause local and systemic side effects on their own."
Can you pass the the word onto the Australian Government?
A report from the Australian Government Department of Health states: "There is no evidence that the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm..."
This statement is based on a systematic review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004 that concludes "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken".
Think about that statement!
A 'systematic review' based on garbage in / garbage out is being used to justify that "There is no evidence the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm...", and the icing on the cake is that the same review recommended against any further research on the topic.
Mind-boggling...
To think this rubbish review made it through peer review at The Lancet Infectious Diseases, and ended up having major impact on vaccination policy in Australia...home of the aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccine associated with Ian Frazer, Merck and CSL Seqirus.
I started challenging that rubbish review back in 2013...but it's still in place, still being used to influence vaccination policy.
Also see my recent article, including references and my email to Kristine Macartney, Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), sent in March 2019: "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken." https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/despite-a-lack-of-good-quality-evidence
I doubt anyone in government is willing to acknowledge this. It would be a brutal admission—after all, they aggressively promoted it as one of Australia’s most prized, lifesaving medical breakthroughs, co-invented by one of our own. 🤡 🌎
This was in 2015, when the Murdoch media's tabloid 'No Jab, No Play' campaign for coercive vaccination for children was coming to fruition, courtesy of compliancy of Australian politicians, particularly then Social Services Minister Scott Morrison who obligingly raised the No Jab, No Pay bill, which subsequently became the No Jab, No Pay law in January 2016, followed by No Jab, No Play laws in various states.
As it turned out the Gardasil vaccine for older children didn't become 'mandatory' under the No Jab, No Pay law, although there is enormous pressure for general compliancy with the vaccination schedule.
Maryanne, your article makes me as mad as hell! And it should make anyone mad who still has a pulse, a conscience, and a shred of concern for our children. Because what you’ve laid bare is not just a scandal—it’s a monstrous betrayal of public trust, medical ethics, and human decency.
The revelations in Robi v Merck & Co are not ambiguous. They are not open to interpretation. They are cold, hard evidence of a calculated and deliberate effort by Merck to rig clinical trials, distort data, hide harms, and deceive the world. And worst of all, they did it knowing their product would end up in the arms of healthy, unsuspecting children.
Peter Gøtzsche’s 350-page forensic analysis is not the work of a fringe critic—it is a devastating indictment by one of the world’s foremost experts in medical research methodology. His conclusion is unflinching: the Gardasil trials cannot be trusted. The data were manipulated, the harms buried, and the entire process weaponised not to discover truth—but to suppress it.
This wasn’t science. This was a marketing operation disguised as research.
Merck’s decision to use an aluminium-based adjuvant as a “placebo” is scientific fraud, plain and simple. When your control is known to cause harm, you don’t get to claim your vaccine is “safe.” You’ve simply ensured that any side effects will be mirrored in the control group, allowing you to claim there’s no difference. That’s not incompetence. That’s deception by design.
And where were the regulators? Right where we feared they’d be—nodding along, rubber-stamping the data, and asking no hard questions. They didn’t challenge the flawed methodology. They didn’t demand transparency. They accepted Merck’s cooked data, often without even reading beyond the executive summaries.
They were not asleep at the wheel. They were passengers on the same gravy train.
Worse still, our politicians—those elected to serve and protect the people—have become parrots for the pharmaceutical narrative. Whether out of ignorance, cowardice, or complicity, they’ve allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by industry executives whose only god is profit. When reports of injuries came in, they looked the other way. When parents begged for answers, they were ignored or gaslit. When doctors raised alarms, they were threatened or silenced.
And all the while, Gardasil kept being pushed into the arms of more and more children.
This isn’t just a regulatory failure—it’s a moral collapse. It is the industrial-scale sacrifice of our youth at the altar of corporate greed. And let’s not kid ourselves—if these allegations hold true (and the evidence suggests they do), we are not just dealing with unethical behaviour. We are dealing with criminal conduct.
As for the people who orchestrate and perpetuate this? Let’s not mince words. The ones who deliberately bury harms, who falsify safety profiles, who exploit regulatory weakness, who silence dissent, and who push these toxic products onto children—they are psychopaths in suits. Emotionally detached. Morally bankrupt. Functionally indistinguishable from predators—except their victims number in the millions and their weapons wear the mask of medicine.
So I’ll ask the question that your article forces every thinking person to confront:
Just how much evidence do we need?
How many expert reports? How many courtroom disclosures? How many damaged children? How many silenced doctors? How many grieving parents?
The answer is: we’ve had enough evidence for years. What we lack is justice.
If this case does what it must—if it drags the truth out from under the mountain of lies—then let it not stop with Merck. Let it sweep through the whole rotten edifice. From the corrupt regulators to the puppet politicians. Let it rip the mask off an industry that has profited not from healing, but from harm.
Because until there is accountability, the crimes will continue. And so will the casualties.
Yep, yep, yep…. I was vigorously nodding as I read your comment Gaz. How can the establishment sit on its hand in light of this? That’s a rhetorical question. 😩
Maryanne, your courage and clarity continue to set the gold standard in science journalism. You’ve never flinched from exposing the uncomfortable truths—whether it was statins back then or vaccines now—and your voice is one of the few that still carries the weight of integrity. Thank you for staying the course. The establishment’s silence only amplifies the urgency of your work—and the world is better for it.
Thanks so much for sharing all this. You've done incredible work digging into the truth about aluminium in vaccines—something most people (even doctors) never question. It’s unbelievable that a review admitting the evidence was poor could still recommend no further research, and yet be used to shape vaccine policy for years. That’s not science—it’s cover-up. Your letters and research show that the authorities were warned. They had the information. They chose to ignore it. And now, aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being pushed harder than ever, without proper long-term safety testing. You’ve exposed just how shaky the foundations are, and how misleading the “safe and effective” claim really is. Thank you for your persistence. Your work matters—especially to those of us who refuse to accept blind trust over hard truth.
The case for regulators conducting trials of significant drugs, funded by commensurate fees from pharmaceutical companies, is compelling for several reasons:
1. Mitigation of Conflict of Interest:
• Currently, most clinical trials are funded and conducted by the pharmaceutical companies seeking approval. This structure creates potential conflicts of interest, as companies have financial incentives to present favorable results.
• If regulators such as the FDA, EMA, or TGA conducted trials independently, using standardized protocols, it would mitigate potential biases and increase public trust in the findings.
2. Uniform Study Design and Transparency:
• Independent trials could use standardized, inert placebos rather than proprietary or potentially reactogenic substances.
• Regulators could also enforce consistent endpoint definitions, such as myocarditis/pericarditis detection, long-term safety monitoring, and adverse event categorization, ensuring uniform data collection across trials.
3. Data Access and Public Transparency:
• If regulators controlled the trials, all data, including placebo composition, raw adverse event data, and secondary endpoints, would be publicly accessible.
• This would prevent selective reporting and allow for independent reanalysis by third-party researchers, improving scientific integrity.
4. Funding via Fees:
• Pharmaceutical companies could be required to pay a substantial fee to fund these independent trials, proportionate to the projected revenue or public health impact of the drug.
• This model could reduce financial strain on regulatory bodies while ensuring that companies still have a vested interest in high-quality, well-designed studies.
5. Addressing Prolonged Patent Protections:
• Conducting regulator-run trials could also address issues related to extended patent protections.
• For example, if the patent holder is the primary data generator, they can control the narrative around safety and efficacy for decades. Regulator-run trials would provide a counterbalance, ensuring that independent data is available even during patent exclusivity periods.
6. Preventing Data Withholding:
• If trial data is generated and controlled by independent regulators, companies would not have the ability to selectively withhold adverse event data or proprietary placebo compositions, as seen in controversies like Gardasil.
Potential Challenges:
• Implementation would require significant restructuring of regulatory frameworks and increased regulatory capacity.
• Pharmaceutical companies might resist such a model, arguing that it could delay drug approval and increase costs.
• Ensuring regulator independence from industry influence would be critical to maintaining public trust.
Wow! To think we allowed our girls to have this ‘vaccine’ when all this information was out there. I keep wondering why there aren’t politicians and bureaucrats as well as scientists and executives being trotted off to jail for very long periods of time. To think the incriminating evidence was sealed. Flabbergasted, saddened and so angry.
This is truly diabolical. Pharmaceutical companies get away with murder and permanent harms. They don’t care about people and their lives and in this case young people, as long as they can live the good life, which means they’re psychopaths pure and simple with the blessings of governments to operate legally. They disgust me and should be thrown in prison instead of being financially penalized as that’s proven to be meaningless with their over abundance of cash, the same old same old is not a deterrent. I detest them.
THIS post (!) is your most important post! I believe that this story will fundamental to the revealing of the scientific deception in which Big Pharma has engaged...and that the mainstream media has served as an accomplice.
Big Pharma has create the LIE (!) that placebo controlled studies are "unethical" as a way to disguise the dangers of their vaccines. And needless to say, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche is the IDEAL defender of "good science."
Someone with whom I had been discussing problems of Gardasil safety while referring her to the discussion in this substack, then forwarded me a report from Reuters on a March 11, 2025 trial. She indicated the court case had concluded and the judge's decision was in favour of Merck. The Reuters article identified Merck as the defendant and Gardasil safety and appropriate label warnings as The issue but did not identify a specific plaintiff. It just said the judge's decision in favour of Merck applied to 200 similar lawsuits nationwide.
Here is what Reuters wrote in their article:
March 11 (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled in favour of Merck (MRK.N), in litigation accusing it of concealing the risks of Gardasil, a vaccine to prevent cervical and other cancers caused by the human papillomavirus and one of the drugmaker's best-selling products.
The decision made public on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell in Charlotte, North Carolina applies to more than 200 lawsuits in the nationwide case.
So-called bellwether plaintiffs who received Gardasil between 2012 and 2021 said the vaccine caused them to suffer excessive increases in heart rates or premature ovarian failure, and that Merck should have added warnings to the labels.
Does the judge's March 11 decision described in the above Reuters report have any bearing or impact on the case under discussion on this substack, i.e. Robi vs Merck & Co, which Maryanne indicates is supposed to commence in September 2025? Or is it completely unrelated? Thanks.
Re: "...were millions of adolescents misled into consenting to a vaccine whose true safety risks were deliberately obscured?"
Considering misleading information, consider this article by Ian Frazer, co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines - Catch cancer? No thanks, I'd rather have a shot! https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
This article was published on the research sector website The Conversation in July 2010, and was basically an advertorial for the Gardasil vaccine which was being implemented for boys in Australia around that time.
Note in Frazer's article cervical cancer is described as "this second most common cause of cancer death in women".
That's an eye-catching statistic isn't it?
But actually cervical cancer was listed as 19th on a list of the estimated 20 most common causes of death from cancers for females in 2010 and 2014, which is at odds with Ian Frazer's statement that cervical cancer is the "second most common cause of cancer death in women".
See references and more discussion on this matter in my email to Tom Jefferson, Peter Gøtzsche and others, sent on 13 December 2016: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/fear-mongering-about-hpv-and-cervical-cancer-_-nordic-cochrane-ema-complaint-re-safety-of-the-hpv-vaccines.pdf
Good work Elizabeth and Marianne.
Interesting that Ian Frazer was awarded Australian of the Year for this, and 2 researchers awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work preventing the rapid degradation of mRNA in the Covid shots, essentially increasing their toxicity.
Re misleading adolescents about vaccine safety, here's some more crucial information of which they are likely unaware, as reported in a paper by Diane M Harper et al, published in The Lancet in 2004...
QUOTE
"Geometric mean titres for vaccine-induced antibodies to HPV antibodies were over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV-18 and HPV-16, respectively. Vaccine-induced titres remained substantially raised at 18 months, and were still 10-16 times higher than those seen in women with natural HPV-16 or HPV-18 infections, respectively."
END OF QUOTE
Should we be concerned that HPV vaccines produce antibodies over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV18 and HPV16 respectively, and which remain substantially raised months after vaccination?
For more info and references, see my email to Tom Jefferson, Peter Gøtzsche and others, sent in November 2016: Safety of the HPV vaccines high antibody titre after vaccination: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/safety-of-the-hpv-vaccines-high-antibody-titre-after-vaccination.pdf
Yes actually I saw this recently when covering Dr Sin Hang Lee’s work on Gardasil…. Crazy high titres with the vaccine compared to natural infections. Dr Lee suspects it’s because the aluminium adjuvant (bound to residual HPV DNA) in Gardasil gets taken up by tissues and leads to chronic stimulation …and in some people, eventually POTS.
Also in regard to challenging misleading information about vaccines, suggest you have a close look at this email Maryanne, which provides more evidence of a member of the public, i.e. me, trying to seek accountability for taxpayer-funded vaccination policy. This email to Tom Jefferson, Peter Gøtzsche and others discusses my experience with Fiona Godlee, then editor in chief of The BMJ: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/response-to-fiona-godlee-bmj-re-hpv-vaccination-richard-lehmans-bmj-blog-item-_two-is-as-good-as-three-for-hpv.pdf
Maryanne, you note: "Aluminium adjuvants are known neurotoxins that trigger immune responses and can cause local and systemic side effects on their own."
Can you pass the the word onto the Australian Government?
A report from the Australian Government Department of Health states: "There is no evidence that the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm..."
This statement is based on a systematic review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004 that concludes "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken".
Think about that statement!
A 'systematic review' based on garbage in / garbage out is being used to justify that "There is no evidence the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm...", and the icing on the cake is that the same review recommended against any further research on the topic.
Mind-boggling...
To think this rubbish review made it through peer review at The Lancet Infectious Diseases, and ended up having major impact on vaccination policy in Australia...home of the aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccine associated with Ian Frazer, Merck and CSL Seqirus.
I started challenging that rubbish review back in 2013...but it's still in place, still being used to influence vaccination policy.
See my correspondence here: https://over-vaccination.net/aluminium-and-vaccine-safety/
And here: https://over-vaccination.net/cochrane-collaboration/
Also see my recent article, including references and my email to Kristine Macartney, Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), sent in March 2019: "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken." https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/despite-a-lack-of-good-quality-evidence
I doubt anyone in government is willing to acknowledge this. It would be a brutal admission—after all, they aggressively promoted it as one of Australia’s most prized, lifesaving medical breakthroughs, co-invented by one of our own. 🤡 🌎
Well we need to make them acknowledge it Maryanne...
The longer this goes on, the worse it gets...for them...
See for example my email to Tony Abbott, then Prime Minister of Australia, sent in July 2015: RE: Challenging compulsory vaccination with the Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/challenging-compulsory-vaccination-with-the-gardasil-hpv-vaccine.pdf
This was in 2015, when the Murdoch media's tabloid 'No Jab, No Play' campaign for coercive vaccination for children was coming to fruition, courtesy of compliancy of Australian politicians, particularly then Social Services Minister Scott Morrison who obligingly raised the No Jab, No Pay bill, which subsequently became the No Jab, No Pay law in January 2016, followed by No Jab, No Play laws in various states.
As it turned out the Gardasil vaccine for older children didn't become 'mandatory' under the No Jab, No Pay law, although there is enormous pressure for general compliancy with the vaccination schedule.
Also for your information, see my submission challenging the No Jab, No Pay bill, submitted in October 2015: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/sub425_hart-1.pdf
My letter to Tony Abbott above also refers to previous emails sent to him, but hyperlinks not working now.
Here are working links:
- Letter sent to Tony Abbott on 22 June 2015 re Murdoch media's No Jab, No Play campaign, and subsequent government edict re children's vaccination: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/letter-to-pm-tony-abbott-re-vaccination-and-legally-valid-consent.pdf
- Letter sent to Tony Abbott on 21 January 2015 re Vaccination policy and practice in Australia – lack of transparency and accountability: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/letter_to_tony_abbott_pm_re_vax_policy.pdf
Also Maryanne, see my email to Chris Baggoley, then Australia's Chief Medical Officer, sent in May 2016: RE: MISLEADING INFORMATION ON ALUMINIUM AND VACCINE SAFETY AND VACCINATION POLICY: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/letter-to-chief-medical-officer-re-aluminium-and-vaccine-safety-and-vaccination-policy.pdf
Cannot digest this all now… but I’m taking small bites as I’m working on other stories all at once. 🙉
Historical information for you to think about Maryanne...
HPV vaccination and aluminium and vaccine safety has been questioned in Australia and elsewhere for years...but been ignored.
You might be surprised by some of the people who have blocked me...
Maryanne, your article makes me as mad as hell! And it should make anyone mad who still has a pulse, a conscience, and a shred of concern for our children. Because what you’ve laid bare is not just a scandal—it’s a monstrous betrayal of public trust, medical ethics, and human decency.
The revelations in Robi v Merck & Co are not ambiguous. They are not open to interpretation. They are cold, hard evidence of a calculated and deliberate effort by Merck to rig clinical trials, distort data, hide harms, and deceive the world. And worst of all, they did it knowing their product would end up in the arms of healthy, unsuspecting children.
Peter Gøtzsche’s 350-page forensic analysis is not the work of a fringe critic—it is a devastating indictment by one of the world’s foremost experts in medical research methodology. His conclusion is unflinching: the Gardasil trials cannot be trusted. The data were manipulated, the harms buried, and the entire process weaponised not to discover truth—but to suppress it.
This wasn’t science. This was a marketing operation disguised as research.
Merck’s decision to use an aluminium-based adjuvant as a “placebo” is scientific fraud, plain and simple. When your control is known to cause harm, you don’t get to claim your vaccine is “safe.” You’ve simply ensured that any side effects will be mirrored in the control group, allowing you to claim there’s no difference. That’s not incompetence. That’s deception by design.
And where were the regulators? Right where we feared they’d be—nodding along, rubber-stamping the data, and asking no hard questions. They didn’t challenge the flawed methodology. They didn’t demand transparency. They accepted Merck’s cooked data, often without even reading beyond the executive summaries.
They were not asleep at the wheel. They were passengers on the same gravy train.
Worse still, our politicians—those elected to serve and protect the people—have become parrots for the pharmaceutical narrative. Whether out of ignorance, cowardice, or complicity, they’ve allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by industry executives whose only god is profit. When reports of injuries came in, they looked the other way. When parents begged for answers, they were ignored or gaslit. When doctors raised alarms, they were threatened or silenced.
And all the while, Gardasil kept being pushed into the arms of more and more children.
This isn’t just a regulatory failure—it’s a moral collapse. It is the industrial-scale sacrifice of our youth at the altar of corporate greed. And let’s not kid ourselves—if these allegations hold true (and the evidence suggests they do), we are not just dealing with unethical behaviour. We are dealing with criminal conduct.
As for the people who orchestrate and perpetuate this? Let’s not mince words. The ones who deliberately bury harms, who falsify safety profiles, who exploit regulatory weakness, who silence dissent, and who push these toxic products onto children—they are psychopaths in suits. Emotionally detached. Morally bankrupt. Functionally indistinguishable from predators—except their victims number in the millions and their weapons wear the mask of medicine.
So I’ll ask the question that your article forces every thinking person to confront:
Just how much evidence do we need?
How many expert reports? How many courtroom disclosures? How many damaged children? How many silenced doctors? How many grieving parents?
The answer is: we’ve had enough evidence for years. What we lack is justice.
If this case does what it must—if it drags the truth out from under the mountain of lies—then let it not stop with Merck. Let it sweep through the whole rotten edifice. From the corrupt regulators to the puppet politicians. Let it rip the mask off an industry that has profited not from healing, but from harm.
Because until there is accountability, the crimes will continue. And so will the casualties.
Sorry my comment is so long, I’m a bit fired up 😡
Yep, yep, yep…. I was vigorously nodding as I read your comment Gaz. How can the establishment sit on its hand in light of this? That’s a rhetorical question. 😩
Maryanne, your courage and clarity continue to set the gold standard in science journalism. You’ve never flinched from exposing the uncomfortable truths—whether it was statins back then or vaccines now—and your voice is one of the few that still carries the weight of integrity. Thank you for staying the course. The establishment’s silence only amplifies the urgency of your work—and the world is better for it.
Thanks Gaz, big hug 🤗
Gaz, re aluminium and vaccine safety, consider for example my email to Chris Baggoley, then Australia's Chief Medical Officer, sent in May 2016: RE: MISLEADING INFORMATION ON ALUMINIUM AND VACCINE SAFETY AND VACCINATION POLICY: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/letter-to-chief-medical-officer-re-aluminium-and-vaccine-safety-and-vaccination-policy.pdf
And here's the email I sent in March 2013 questioning the systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety that has been so influential on vaccination policy, that started my quest for accountability on this matter: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/adverse-events-after-immunisation-with-aluminium-containing-dtp-vaccines_-systematic-review-of-the-evidence.pdf
Thanks so much for sharing all this. You've done incredible work digging into the truth about aluminium in vaccines—something most people (even doctors) never question. It’s unbelievable that a review admitting the evidence was poor could still recommend no further research, and yet be used to shape vaccine policy for years. That’s not science—it’s cover-up. Your letters and research show that the authorities were warned. They had the information. They chose to ignore it. And now, aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being pushed harder than ever, without proper long-term safety testing. You’ve exposed just how shaky the foundations are, and how misleading the “safe and effective” claim really is. Thank you for your persistence. Your work matters—especially to those of us who refuse to accept blind trust over hard truth.
Keep going. You’re not alone.
Wow not in the least surprising but still 🙏
The TGA here in OZ will be all over this.....
We need a drop down emojis section of laughing clown faces after the first line.
😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡
What ROTTERS ! 😠
The case for regulators conducting trials of significant drugs, funded by commensurate fees from pharmaceutical companies, is compelling for several reasons:
1. Mitigation of Conflict of Interest:
• Currently, most clinical trials are funded and conducted by the pharmaceutical companies seeking approval. This structure creates potential conflicts of interest, as companies have financial incentives to present favorable results.
• If regulators such as the FDA, EMA, or TGA conducted trials independently, using standardized protocols, it would mitigate potential biases and increase public trust in the findings.
2. Uniform Study Design and Transparency:
• Independent trials could use standardized, inert placebos rather than proprietary or potentially reactogenic substances.
• Regulators could also enforce consistent endpoint definitions, such as myocarditis/pericarditis detection, long-term safety monitoring, and adverse event categorization, ensuring uniform data collection across trials.
3. Data Access and Public Transparency:
• If regulators controlled the trials, all data, including placebo composition, raw adverse event data, and secondary endpoints, would be publicly accessible.
• This would prevent selective reporting and allow for independent reanalysis by third-party researchers, improving scientific integrity.
4. Funding via Fees:
• Pharmaceutical companies could be required to pay a substantial fee to fund these independent trials, proportionate to the projected revenue or public health impact of the drug.
• This model could reduce financial strain on regulatory bodies while ensuring that companies still have a vested interest in high-quality, well-designed studies.
5. Addressing Prolonged Patent Protections:
• Conducting regulator-run trials could also address issues related to extended patent protections.
• For example, if the patent holder is the primary data generator, they can control the narrative around safety and efficacy for decades. Regulator-run trials would provide a counterbalance, ensuring that independent data is available even during patent exclusivity periods.
6. Preventing Data Withholding:
• If trial data is generated and controlled by independent regulators, companies would not have the ability to selectively withhold adverse event data or proprietary placebo compositions, as seen in controversies like Gardasil.
Potential Challenges:
• Implementation would require significant restructuring of regulatory frameworks and increased regulatory capacity.
• Pharmaceutical companies might resist such a model, arguing that it could delay drug approval and increase costs.
• Ensuring regulator independence from industry influence would be critical to maintaining public trust.
Wow! To think we allowed our girls to have this ‘vaccine’ when all this information was out there. I keep wondering why there aren’t politicians and bureaucrats as well as scientists and executives being trotted off to jail for very long periods of time. To think the incriminating evidence was sealed. Flabbergasted, saddened and so angry.
This is truly diabolical. Pharmaceutical companies get away with murder and permanent harms. They don’t care about people and their lives and in this case young people, as long as they can live the good life, which means they’re psychopaths pure and simple with the blessings of governments to operate legally. They disgust me and should be thrown in prison instead of being financially penalized as that’s proven to be meaningless with their over abundance of cash, the same old same old is not a deterrent. I detest them.
THIS post (!) is your most important post! I believe that this story will fundamental to the revealing of the scientific deception in which Big Pharma has engaged...and that the mainstream media has served as an accomplice.
Big Pharma has create the LIE (!) that placebo controlled studies are "unethical" as a way to disguise the dangers of their vaccines. And needless to say, Dr. Peter Gøtzsche is the IDEAL defender of "good science."
Someone with whom I had been discussing problems of Gardasil safety while referring her to the discussion in this substack, then forwarded me a report from Reuters on a March 11, 2025 trial. She indicated the court case had concluded and the judge's decision was in favour of Merck. The Reuters article identified Merck as the defendant and Gardasil safety and appropriate label warnings as The issue but did not identify a specific plaintiff. It just said the judge's decision in favour of Merck applied to 200 similar lawsuits nationwide.
Here is what Reuters wrote in their article:
March 11 (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled in favour of Merck (MRK.N), in litigation accusing it of concealing the risks of Gardasil, a vaccine to prevent cervical and other cancers caused by the human papillomavirus and one of the drugmaker's best-selling products.
The decision made public on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell in Charlotte, North Carolina applies to more than 200 lawsuits in the nationwide case.
So-called bellwether plaintiffs who received Gardasil between 2012 and 2021 said the vaccine caused them to suffer excessive increases in heart rates or premature ovarian failure, and that Merck should have added warnings to the labels.
/End Quote, source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/merck-prevails-gardasil-safety-litigation-2025-03-11/
Does the judge's March 11 decision described in the above Reuters report have any bearing or impact on the case under discussion on this substack, i.e. Robi vs Merck & Co, which Maryanne indicates is supposed to commence in September 2025? Or is it completely unrelated? Thanks.