Breaking News: Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples

By Norma Erickson, President

For the first time in history, a biologically plausible mechanism of action has been discovered linking a vaccine to a serious adverse event. Gardasil has left behind its genetic fingerprint in post-mortem central nervous system samples of two girls who took this vaccine.

Two teenage girls from opposite ends of the world – both dead before their time have two additional things in common. They both took Gardasil to try and prevent cervical cancer and fragments of the HPV-16-L1 antigen used in Gardasil have been found in blood vessels within their brains.

The HPV-16-L1 protein is one of the antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix. An antigen is a toxin or other foreign substance that induces an immune response in the body. Theoretically, these antigens are not supposed to cross the blood brain barrier. However, according to a recently concluded case study this may not be the case.

Using a new immunohistochemical (IHC) protocol they developed, Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic examined post-mortem samples taken from the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus and watershed cortex of a 19 year-old girl; as well as post-mortem samples of the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus, portions of the brainstem (medulla, midbrain, pons), right basal ganglia, right parietal and left frontal lobes of a 14 year-old girl. They tested for the presence of two of the specific antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix: HPV-16-L1 and HPV-18-L1.

They discovered the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles within the blood vessels in the brain (cerebral vasculature) with some of these particles adhering to the blood vessel walls. For the average medical consumer, this is the equivalent of a Gardasil fingerprint and it should not be in brain tissues.

Does the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles inside these girls’ cerebral vasculature provide evidence of a “Trojan Horse” mechanism by which these particles adsorbed to aluminum adjuvant gain access to human brain tissue? Remember, both Gardasil and Cervarix contain HPV-16-L1 virus-like particles (VLP’s) of the recombinant major capsid (L1) protein adsorbed onto aluminum adjuvants.

Tomljenovic and Shaw also discovered that the antibodies against HPV-16-L1, which were used to detect the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles, were also binding to the wall of cerebral blood vessels in the brain samples.

Their IHC analysis also showed increased T-cell signaling and marked activation of the classical antibody-dependent complement pathway in cerebral vascular tissues from both cases. This pattern of complement activation, in the absence of an active brain infection, indicates an abnormal triggering of the immune response in which the immune attack is directed towards the blood vessels of the brain, thus triggering an autoimmune cerebral vasculitis.

Cerebral vasculitis is a serious disease which typically results in fatal outcomes when undiagnosed and left untreated. The fact that many of the symptoms reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e. intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors and tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits) is a serious concern in light of Tomljenovic and Shaw’s findings.

Finally, there was clear evidence of brain hemorrhages in both cases which further demonstrated that a serious injury to the cerebral vasculature occurred.

For the average medical consumer, this evidence suggests that the antibodies produced in response to vaccination with the HPV-16-L1 may cause one’s immune system to attack its own blood vessels. HPV vaccines containing HPV-16-L1 antigens could therefore pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.

There is little doubt that HPV vaccines are unsafe for some individuals. Who those individuals are and why they are more susceptible to serious adverse reactions than others remains unknown. More studies must be conducted to answer these questions.

The article by Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic entitled Death after qHPV vaccination: causal or coincidental, published in Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs today provides evidence of a biologically plausible mechanism of action linking a particular vaccine to serious adverse outcomes, perhaps for the first time in history. Although this study may not conclusively ‘prove’ causality, it seriously demonstrates the need for additional investigation. (Access entire article here.)

When reading this case study, one must understand the findings should be viewed with caution. This is a small sample size and there were no control samples available. However, the marked resemblance between the two cases strongly supports the present conclusions.

It is important to note that activation of the antibody-dependent complement pathway, as shown in Tomljenovic and Shaw’s analysis, typically occurs in neurodegenerative diseases which have an underlying immune trigger. This process is not a feature of a normal young brain.

Given that the autopsy in both cases revealed no major abnormality (anatomically, microbiologically or toxicologically) that might have been regarded as a potential cause of death; it appears plausible that the antigenic component of the HPV vaccine (HPV-16-L1) was indeed responsible for the fatal inflammation of the blood vessels.

Medical consumers need to know:

  • Vasculitis has long been recognized as a possible severe adverse reaction to vaccination.
  • Molecular mimicry (whereby the vaccine antigen resembles a host antigen) is generally accepted among medical professionals and scientists as a mechanism by which vaccines can trigger autoimmune diseases.
  • Tomljenovic & Shaw’s search of the VAERS database revealed numerous reports of post-HPV vaccination–associated vasculitis.
  • An analysis of these reports showed that post-HPV vaccination vasculitis-related symptoms most typically manifest within the first three to four months after vaccination, as was also reported in the two cases analyzed by Shaw and Tomljenovic.
  • Tomljenovic and Shaw also noted a striking similarity between the vasculitis-related symptoms reported to VAERS and those experienced by the two cases they examined.

Every vaccine carries some risk of adverse effects. Unlike most medications, vaccines are normally administered to healthy individuals. Therefore, it is all the more critical to identify those individuals who are at risk for serious adverse events after vaccines.

We consider ourselves a civilized society. The time has come to stop sacrificing the life and future of anyone for the greater good. The time has come to admit vaccine injuries occur, find out why and cure those already affected. Anything less is neither responsible, nor ethical.

Comments

  1. Jacqueline Hogan says:

    Merck and all those who have defended and pushed this vaccine on young children can no longer deny the possible link to deaths and serious adverse reactions that show up time and time again within those vaccinated with Gardasil. “Coincidence” has long expired! Thank God for people like Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr.Lucija Tomljenovic and all at Sane Vax who will never give up on the quest for Truth and Justice! Xxx Angel Heartlinks x

  2. This is amazing research and I am horrified to have my fears confirmed about Gardasil. There is not a chance in hell that either of my children will get this vaccine. Thank goodness for the scientists who have the guts to publish this against big pharma. We’re behind you all the way.

    • No… This is not “amazing research”.

      Only TWO cases were studied, can you comprehend the statistical insignificance of this compared to the tens of millions of Gardasil doses administered? A couple of other cases were cited in the study from VAERS which is the worst possible source of data. VAERS is a passive collection vehicle where ANYONE, regardless of their medical or scientific background, can report an event that MIGHT have been an adverse reaction following a vaccination. Take the time to read some of what is reported to VAERS, they have a website. You will quickly see the incomplete, unprofessional, occasionally incomprehensible and sometimes truly insipid content of many of the submissions. True, it is a barometer of sorts but no follow-up analysis of any case is required. The CDC has other fine programs to monitor vaccines. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) program is a cooperation with 8 large managed care organizations which has links to medical records of recipients of almost a half million doses of Gardasil. Information concerning possible reactions to vaccinations is collected by medical professionals and analysis of data from this program has not produced any viable safety concerns with this vaccine. Related to VSD, the “Rapid Cycle Analysis” program monitors 8.8 million people, almost 3% of the U.S. population. Additionally, the CDC monitors Gardasil safety studies from many foreign countries.

      • Yes… It IS amazing research.

        For the first time, a causal relationship has been uncovered between vaccination and unexpected death of 2 individual who were (almost) perfectly health before submitting themselves to the medical treatments which ultimately lead to their deaths.

        Even if the research involved “only two” cases, can you imagine what it means for the family of the diseased to know that finally ‘the science is in’, giving a perfect explanation as to why and how their beloved ones have been taken from them.
        Can you comprehend the emotional significance of this compared to the numerous cases where Gardasil was administered, after which the treated subjects ‘just unexpectedly’ died without ever knowing the exact cause of their deaths?

        (Excerpt from the research article: “For example, Carvalho and Shoenfeld described a case of polyarteritis nodosa, a rare, life-threatening, necrotizing vasculitis that affects medium-sized arteries following the administration of the hepatitis B vaccine in a 14-year-old boy who had no relevant previous history and who was not taking any drugs [5]. There have been numerous other case reports of vasculitis post-hepatitis B vaccination.”)

        And this article isn’t about VAERS, it is about Gardasil and its deadly, and until now vehemently denied possible detrimental if not fatal consequences.

        It is especially appalling to find out that already for some time the (‘aluminum’) adjuvants have been well known initiators of auto-immune disorders in general and vasculitis more specifically.
        So where is the ‘informed consent’ if nobody is told about this?

        Excellent research indeed!
        But my prayers go out to Lucija Tomljenovic1and Christopher A Shaw who dared to research such a controversial subject and now most probably will fall victim to the wrath of the pharmaceutical multi-billion dollar industry with their promising careers utterly destroyed by the medical establishment as a result.

      • only two cases or not, cause of death or not, the presence of HPV-16-L1 where it is NOT supposed to be able to be is indication of a serious problem with the vaccine.

  3. Sandy Lunoe says:

    Excellent article which should be widely spread.
    Two tragic cases after Gardasil, and it is known that many more have lost their lives due to this scandalous vaccine.

    There is very little support and often resistance regarding thorough autopsies after Gardasil deaths. This is no doubt because vaccine promoters do not wish to be presented with information which signals the cause of death after Gardasil.
    Perhaps a fund should be started to support the sorrowful families who wish for autopsies to be carried out after Gardasil deaths?

  4. Glenda Smith says:

    I too thank God for these 2 admirable researchers who could saves hundreds of lives! …but how do we get our gov’ts to listen and take action? I pray these 2 researchers have triggered an avalanche of research that noone can turn a blind eye to! ..nobody wants to listen to the mere mom at home whose daugher lives a debilitated life!! Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!! (having the link to the actual study is great! -it’s the 8th study down the list).

  5. Sandy Lunoe says:

    Manufacturers formulate vaccines giving prior consideration to product stability rather than safety issues for the recipients.

    Emulsifying agents are used in drug targeting injections in order to render the blood-brain barrier permeable so that chemo and psychiatric drugs may pass through the barrier and gain contact with brain tissue.

    The emulsifying agent polysorbate is present in Gardasil for stability reasons. However, there is the possibility that the presence of polysorbate has contributed towards increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier and thus has facilitated passage of HPV-16-L 1 through the barrier and into the brain tissue.

  6. Thank you for this research and game changer, without you this most likely would have never come out.It is people as yourself that are blessed the most. I guarantee you God will greatly reward you.God Bless you and your families.

  7. Angus Files says:

    Now wait for the poo pooing of the evidence by the Pharma..just as they did Wakefield with the MMR vaccine..Great work guys keep it up our kids deserve more than to die in this manner all for profit and all for Offit shame on Pharma

    • First, my COI statement: I do not work for “BIG PHARMA” and I never have. An astute scientific analysis of a study is not a “poo poo”! Ponder these questions about the scientific validity of the Shaw and Tomljenovic study:

      – Plausibility that microgram sized particles of fragmented HPV DNA can cause a massive immune response resulting in death?
      – Plausibility that any tiny bits (probably nanograms or even picograms) of HPV DNA could find its way from an IM injection site in the arm to the vasculature of the brain and cause a massive immune response? (Reserch “Toll Like Receptor 9 (TLR9)” triggering and learn how much foreign protein must be present to trigger a significant immune reaction.)
      – Does the forensic pathologist’s findings in either case confirm cerebral vasculitis present in the brains? (NO)
      – The researchers admitted in the study: “The obvious limitations of our study are that the tissues examined represent two individuals against which there were no control samples.” Does the absence of controls used in the IHC staining procedure affect the vality of the study? (Renders the data useless)
      – Did the interpretations of the IHC staining conform with scientific standards for that procedure? (NO – Only presence noted, no quantification or grading)
      – Do endothelial cells always show a high level of non-specific background staining? (YES – and controls would have mediated this)
      – If there was a significant immune vasculitis present would the staining only show in the endothelial cells? (NO)
      – Was the researchers’ interpretation of the IHC staining reviewed by a qualified neuropathologist? (NO)
      – Was the recognized symptomology of cerebral vasculitis (not found in the autopsies) present just before the sudden death in the shower? (Coma is typically seen preceding death.)
      – Imagine how much real and virile non-fragmented HPV is introduced into someone’s system when they have a wart. Why aren’t there reports of massive numbers of cerebral vasculitis deaths?

  8. I have a question. Is polysorbate, or any other suspected chemical, also used in other vaccines? Do we know whether other vaccines also leave a footprint in the brain, or is there something particular about Gardasil that makes it more dangerous than other vaccines?

    • There are many ‘suspect’ chemicals used in vaccines that have never been tested for safety. They were ‘presumed safe’ because they were already in use and no substantial damage was noticed. Aluminum is in many, thimerosal (mercury) is still in most multi-dose flu vaccines, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde in some….all known toxins – but ‘presumed safe’ in vaccines – not to mention many other toxic chemicals.

      Another potential problem may be the fact that Gardasil and Cervarix are genetically modified, using untested compounds. They are not the only genetically modified vaccines. This is only the beginning of testing that needs to be done to prove any vaccine currently in use is SANE (safe, affordable, necessary and effective).

      The most important thing is to make it safe for scientists and medical professionals to voice their concerns as they arise – so the issues can be resolved one way or another. Everyone in the world needs the safety of sound scientific investigation to remain healthy. Medical consumers cannot afford to trust the manufacturers, or apparently their government health officials, to make sure adequate investigation takes place before marketing. We can no longer afford to let ethical scientists and medical professionals be crucified because they express a valid scientific concern.

    • Just because it’s a chemical doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dangerous. Many chemicals, in small quantities, are useful and even essential to human life. Yes, in large quantities, some can be “toxic”. The amount of Polysorbate 80 that’s found in a given vaccine is really quite small, on the order of 100 micrograms per dose. Polysorbate 80 is an emulsifier and it can be found in many foods. The quantity in foods is very large when compared to that in a vaccine. But, the amount you would have to ingest do you any harm is GIGANTIC.

  9. Youdeservewhatyouget says:

    Oh, I’m sure it’s all a big accident. Don’t worry, be happy. “Just do it.”
    Sexual promiscuity must be maintained. UNESCO says so and THEY ARE THE EXPERTS, so genuflect when you think of them or mention them. Julian Huxley (a nice, kind eugenicist) was the first CEO of UNESCO and he stated promiscuity would be maintained. Aldous Huxley (his eugenicist brother) stated people could be “made to love their servitude”.
    The debasement and degeneracy of society must move forward. That’s why “the pill” came out when it did; just in time for the so-called “sexual revolution” which was pushed by (among many other bureaucracies) the CIA which (among other many other “legal” fronts) helped to fund Gloria Steinem and her “MS” magazine. Steinem admitted this herself.

    Hey, don’t believe anything I type here: Watch Maurice Hilleman (former Merck big whig) on you tube, stating unequivocally that he and Sabine and Salk (our polio saviors) KNEW that the polio vaccines marketed and distributed at tax payer expense, by the millions, in the 1950s and 60s contained SV40, a cancer causing virus, because the monkeys used to grow the disgusting concontion were carriers of SV40 —but hey — Hilleman states with a smirk, it was “the best science we had at the time”.
    Which means, YOU don’t count, you HAVE NEVER counted. You are a unit of energy (a human resource) and you live only so long and at the sufferance of those who OWN you and FARM you and then slaughter you.

    Oh, but never mind…just do it….don’t worry, be happy.

    • While I do agree that vaccines may carry an inherent risk, the benefits far outweigh these isolated incidents. Even if there are several more affected by this vasculitis, do you have any idea how vicious cervical cancer can be? Well I do. Being in pathology, I see (almost every single day) the devastating effects cervical cancer can have on your body. Most kids nowadays don’t even know that so many people have HPV they may not ever know if they’ve contracted it. I realize that the goal is to educate the public about vaccines, but stop scaring people into not vaccinating their children! When I see a 33 year old woman having a pelvic exenteration because cervical cancer has ravaged her uterus, rectum, and bladder, I wonder where this vaccine was before. You have to look at both sides people — open your eyes to the benefits as well.

  10. Janet Shapiro says:

    I’ll wager that most of you are too young to have seen children with polio, measles, diptheria, tetanus, etc. I’m 65 and have been a RN for 40 years. Vaccines have saved millions of lives and saved millions from the complications of these, once quite common, diseases. Children are vunerable to communicable diseases since they love to “share”. It’s heartbreaking to hold a child, who is struggling for breath, because his parents decided not to protect him from whooping cough. As a parent, you are responsible for protecting your child from harm. I have also seen a newborn, whose mother had chickenpox during the pregnancy (due to an unvaccinated neighbor’s child). That child was born blind and deaf. I challenge all of you to try to find an iron lung and see if you would like to spend your life in one. Not only do you put your child at risk by not vaccinating, but you put pregnant women, infants and others at risk. Unfortunately, science/medicine is not perfect, but smallpox has been irradicated from the WORLD because of vaccines.

    • Wonder what you’ll say if your grandaughter or grandson was perm. disabled or died from the HPV shot? Your in the medical profession. Its your kind that has lied to us and decieved us. Your attitude is , so what if a few hundred of you humans have died or become perm. disabled from the HPV Vaccine. Thousand others will be saved. Would not want to be in your shoes when your time comes to meet our maker!!!

  11. janice espo says:

    If people want to vaccinate fine. Just give us all the facts first and then let us decide. And stop trying to cover up all the deaths and adverse effects. A large percentage of kids with whooping cough today have been vaccinated. These bugs are morphing into something that won’t be able to be treated. There is so much more you need to learn about this gardisil before looking at it as a cure and so much more you can do to prevent these cancers other that this vaccine. Start reading everything you can that is not backed by big pharm and you will find some other answers.

    • Debbie Hurr says:

      That is what I tell people…EDUCATE yourself. Research. You can find out what damage has been done. My daughter was affected and has not been the same since. Her life is…well, not as bad as some, but certainly not the girl she was. I wish I could do it all over again. There is so much technology now days. She would have rather even gotten the cancer and died than be like she is, and while that is extreme, that is how she feels because the damage, in her eyes, ruined her life. To the RN above, yes, vaccines have saved lives, but they have also taken them. Doctors and Nurses just need to be honest with their patients and let them decided, not push them and scare them. Until you have had a child directly affected by a vaccination such as this, you have no idea and can only speculate what you would have done. I know I would not have done this had I known the possible side affects, which were NEVER told to me. I won’t judge one way or another, I will only pray that anyone’s child getting this vaccination remain normal and side affect free. Just research before you choose.

      • Lucija Tomljenovic says:

        My greatest concern is over the fact that parents and children are not being told the truth about the real benefits and legitimate risks on HPV vaccines and that the medical authorities and regulators rely exclusively on information provided by the vaccine manufacturers as a base for making vaccine policies and recommendations.

        This practice is disturbing to say the least, especially in the light of independent research which has repeatedly warned that drug companies may manipulate clinical trial designs and subsequent data analysis and reporting to make their drugs look better and safer. The reporting of results from clinical trials on HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix illustrates this point

        In brief, here is for example what we know versus what is claimed in terms of HPV vaccine efficacy:

        We don’t (yet) know if the vaccine will prevent any cases of cervical cancer. It might, but this fact has not been demonstrated. This is because the disease takes years to decades to manifest from first infection, if it manifests at all. Given the time frame of the initial trials, virtually none of the women in these trials will have reached the age where cervical cancer will occur. What we do know is that the vaccine may prevent some of the pre-cancerous lesions associated with HPV infection, a large fraction of which would spontaneously resolve regardless of vaccine status. The lesions are considered to be a “surrogate markers” for vaccine efficacy, yet do not really justify the claim of cervical cancer prevention. In this regard, Drs Gerhardus and Razum have recently noted that the,

        “unwarranted confidence in the new [HPV] vaccines led to the impression that there was no need to actually evaluate their effectiveness” (J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010; vol 64, no 5).

        In spite of this Merck, states on their website that,

        “Gardasil does more than help prevent cervical cancer, it protects against other HPV diseases, too.”

        Similarly, the US CDC and the FDA claim that

        “This [Gardasil] vaccine is an important cervical cancer prevention tool that will potentially benefit the health of millions of women” and “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer”.

        The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) describes Gardasil as,

        “a life-saving vaccine that can protect girls from cervical cancer.”

        All four of these statements are demonstrably false as they imply that Gardasil can indeed protect against some types of cervical cancer.

        Consider also the fact that although the results from the 3-year follow-up pre-licensure trials inspired much confidence in Gardasil’s prophylactic potential as they showed >97% vaccine effectiveness against HPV-16/18 related CIN 2/3+ lesions, the corresponding figures against CIN 2/3+ caused by all HPV types were well below 40%. This information is frequently overlooked even though it is crucial for assessing the long-term protective effi­cacy of the vaccine. Indeed, because of the possibility of infections with HPV types not covered by the vac­cine and/or multiple infections including these types, any meaningful assessment of a true prophylactic value from Gardasil vaccination, which would likely result in a real clinical benefit (i.e., a global reduction of the cervical cancer burden), must take into consid­eration analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN 2/3+ caused by all relevant (high risk) HPV types. When taken together, the results from pre-clinical trials that the true HPV vaccine efficacy lies anywhere between 16.9% and 70%. Given the demonstrable success of Pap screening programs in achieving a 70% reduction in cervical cancer mortality in developed countries, it is unlikely that vaccination with Gardasil would have a notable impact in reducing further the global cervi­cal cancer burden beyond that accomplished by Pap screening.

        for more details see:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=gerhardus%2Csurrogate
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23061593
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22813421
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188159

        Bottom line is that the optimistic claims made by the world’s leading health authorities (that HPV vaccines will prevent 70% of cervical cancers) rest on assumptions which are misinterpreted and presented to parents as factual evidence.

        A second, and equally fallacious claim often told to parents is that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile, a notion which is only supported by highly flawed designs of safety trials. This notion is further contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases worldwide and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). For example, compared with all other vaccines, Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil alone is associated with > 60% of all serious adverse reactions (including 63.8% of all deaths and 81.2% cases of permanent disability) in females younger than 30 years of age. Placed into context, while females in this age group have a near-zero risk of dying from cervical cancer, they are faced with a risk of dying and a permanently disabling condition from a vaccine that has not prevented a single case of cervical cancer to date.

        Although a report to a passive vaccine safety surveillance system does not by itself prove that the vaccine caused an adverse reaction, the unusually high frequency of adverse reactions related to HPV vaccines reported worldwide, as well as their consistent pattern (i.e. nervous system-related disorders rank the highest in frequency), points to a potentially causal relationship. Furthermore, matching the data vaccine surveillance databases is an increasing number of case reports documenting similar serious adverse reactions associated with HPV vaccine administration, with nervous system disorders being the most frequently reported.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869467
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388462
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20211914
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=CNS%20demyelination%20and%20quadrivalent%20HPV%20vaccination
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23061593
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22813421
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188159
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22540172

        In summary: the vaccines may not work as well as advertised and their safety profile is not as good as claimed.

        A clear evaluation of risks is important for vaccines, which, contrary to other drugs, are administered predominantly to healthy individuals and often to prevent a disease to which an individual may never be exposed. Because of this, according to the U.S. FDA, “there is low tolerance for significant adverse events associated with vaccines-that is, caused by vaccines.”

        Thus in view of the above information, it may be worth re-considering whether it is prudent to put pre-adolescent girls at risk of death or a life-long neurodegenerative/autoimmune condition for a vaccine of still uncertain efficacy against cervical cancer, when the same can be demonstrably prevented with regular Pap screening and loop electrosurgical excision procedure, neither of which carry such risks.
        Medical ethics demand that vaccination should be carried out with the participant’s full and informed consent. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable vaccination benefits and risks. The way in which HPV vaccines are often promoted to parents indicates that such disclosure is not always given from the basis of the best available knowledge.

        I personally know several mothers whose daughters have died following HPV vaccination. One of them stated the following:

        “My daughter and I and millions of others were deceived by false marketing and a failure to be informed of the true risks and benefits. Be informed. Investigate, don’t just inoculate.”

        Yet another mother emailed me with these words:

        “I have to tell you I have never seen a more promoted vaccine, EVER!!!
        On TV, magazines, inserts in news papers. After my daughter passed I even got an advertisment in the mail to have my children vaccinated. It was like pouring salt into a wound. I wanted to scream at them!!!!! It is all about Money!!!”

        …..

        “I had even contacted the CDC about the tissue sample that had been sent to them. They never contacted me back after so many attempts to get that information!!!!!! The head of the medical examiner stated,”he did not know what had caused XX’s death but he did not think it was Gardasil”. Does that make sense? How would he know that it was NOT the Gardasil when he did not know the cause of death.”

        Unwillingness to investigate legitimate concerns is a re-current theme I encounter on a weekly basis receiving emails from parents whose children have either died or were severely disabled following vaccinations. They continually express their frustration over the FACT that the health authorities have by large without adequate investigation dismissed even the possibility that the vaccine might have caused harm.

        One mother mentioned that she approached 60 medical and research professionals and they all declined to investigate. Obviously, no answers will be found if scientist refuse to look for them.

        It is easy to see how the view that vaccine only cause severe adverse reactions on rare occasions has been generated.

        It is because this possibility is simply dismissed and no research is undertaken.

        Lucija

        Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD
        Faculty of Medicine
        University of British Columbia
        VGH Research Pavilion
        828 West 10th Ave
        Vancouver, BC V5Z 1L8, Canada

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Breaking News: Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples October 23, 2012 By admin 7 Comments [...]

  2. [...] the first time in history, a biologically plausible mechanism of action has been discovered linking a vaccine to a serious [...]

  3. [...] News: Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples October 23, [...]

  4. [...] Breaking News: Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples [...]

  5. [...] Décompte effectué par Sanevax : http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ [...]

  6. [...] Raport przygotowany przez Sanevax: http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ [...]

  7. [...] Raport przygotowany przez Sanevax: http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ [...]

  8. […] Décompte effectué par Sanevax : http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ […]

  9. […] Contabilisación hecha por Sanevax : http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ […]

  10. […] Décompte effectué par Sanevax : http://sanevax.org/breaking-news-gardasil-fingerprints-found-in-post-mortem-samples/ […]

  11. […] Inc. “Breaking News: Gardasil Fingerprints Found in Post-Mortem Samples” October 23, 2012 (Aktuelle Nachrichten: Gardasil Fingerabdrücke in post-mortem Proben […]

Speak Your Mind