Bad science over gardasil

Dr. Weeks’ Comment:  Gardasil is a bad vaccine. It doesn’t help and it hurts.  Bad ration of risk/ benefit.  Read more about it HERE.

And what is exciting is that the scientific community is stepping forward and in a rare display of criticism agains their own, they have spoken out against the shoddy science – the industry paid for pseudo-science – which brought this nightmare vaccine to market.

“…This was an open and shut case of scientific fraud that should have led regulatory agencies such as the FDA to throw out those flagrantly  flawed studies and immediately (and retroactively) deny marketing approval…”

If you or a loved one has had or is considering having the gardasil vaccine – read on.  Also protect or remedy the damage with a trio of detox products from – your source for premiere “centisble” products: safe, effective and cost-effective.


“…the number needed to vaccinate (with Gardasil) to prevent one case of cervical cancer would be 9,080.”


Ms Woodruff, given the PBS NewsHour’s recent interest in reporting on one narrow aspect of the stampede to get every pre-sexually active teen-age girl (as well as every sexually-active one – mission creep) in the world to receive the series of 3 human papilloma virus vaccine inoculations, I submit the following information describing malfeasance involving the various for-profit, pro-(over-)vaccination groups such as the CDC, the NIH, the AMA, the AAP, and, of course, Merck & Co (the makers of Gardasil). Merck has performed or paid for the performing of all of the lab animal and human clinical trials.

Many concerned, highly-skilled and very knowledgeable scientists – as well as many parents of vaccine-damaged or vaccine-killed children – have been concerned about how the multitude of serious vaccine injuries and deaths have been totally suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry-co-opted mainstream media, which, until now seems to also include PBS and NPR, both of which are also being co-opted by donations from major corporate funders, including those with major financial interests in America’s over-vaccination programs.

Just naming one highly scandalous act that led to the FDA granting marketing approval to Gardasil, Merck’s paid “researchers” actually used an “active comparator” in the supposed placebo-controlled human Gardasil trials! In those trials the neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant was scandalously added to both the placebo and the active vaccine, thereby causing reportable adverse effects in the placebo group that approximated the adverse effects from the aluminum in the active vaccine!! As anybody with a smidgen of science background should know, a placebo should have only inactive ingredients [such as saline] and never a toxic substance.

This was an open and shut case of scientific fraud that should have led regulatory agencies such as the FDA to throw out those flagrantly  flawed studies and immediately (and retroactively) deny marketing approval.

At the very least, Merck should have been forced to go back to the drawing board and re-do every flawed trial with intense scrutiny from un-biased observers. And, of course, every professional involved in the fraudulent trials should lose their licenses, be fired and then be prosecuted, along with everybody in Merck management all the way to the CEO.

In addition, every one of the hundreds of young girls who have died from the human papilloma virus vaccines or made chronically ill from the shots, should be fully compensated, even if Merck & Co goes belly up.

If more information is needed to convince you that investigative journalism on the topic is demanded, I urge you and any of your science and statistics-minded journalists to read the Canadian Medical Association Journal article that is accessible at this site: (

The article was actually authored by Merck company employees, including a statistician. Here is one of the damning conclusions (comments in parentheses are mine): “If vaccine protection (from Gardasil) is assumed to wane at 3% per year(a very modest prediction)the predicted number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one case of cervical cancer would be 9,080. In other words 9,079 girls will have to be inoculated in order to prevent just one case of cervical cancer 20-30 years from the series of shots. If your daughter’s doctor revealed that statistic, you would just laugh at him and leave the office as fast as you could for just suggesting such an absurd idea. Of course, your doctor has had that statistic carefully kept from him or her. I will be emailing further information concerning the NNV (Number Needed to Vaccinate) in a separate mailing.

I plead with you to assign your best, most courageous investigative journalists to fully investigate this situation, thoroughly interviewing (live, on the NewsHour program) some of the articulate researchers and whistle-blowers as well as some of the hundreds of affected children and their families.

As always, journalistic ethics needs to be exercised when guilty parties such as the CDC, the NIH, the AAP, the AMA, Big Pharma, legislators that have taken campaign money from Big Pharma, or other conflicted groups with financial or professional conflicts of interest want to get involved. Their conflicted points of view need to be questioned and doubted because those groups will want to keep this important issue from being aired.

I am cc’ing this message to several hundred highly ethical, highly knowledgeable scientists from around the world( as well as some parents of vaccine-damaged children who want their stories to be told.

From the list of scientists that I know, I could recommend any number of them who would be very willing to be interviewed by you or your journalists for the NewsHour program.

Thank you for you attention. We will be awaiting your response.

Gary G. Kohls, MD, Duluth, MN




Garbage In, Garbage Out: Researchers Dress Down Cochrane for Its Flawed and Biased Review of HPV Vaccines


By World Mercury Project Team – AUGUST 02, 2018


In May 2018, Cochrane, the research organization that bills itself as the “international gold standard for high quality, trusted information,” released a flattering review of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. The Cochrane review methodology involves pulling together data from clinical trials and reviewing the assembled evidence in what is supposed to be a standardized, systematic and neutral manner.

In June, we reported that Cochrane’s sources of funding—agencies and foundations that are unwilling to brook any questions about vaccine safety—raise reasonable doubts about Cochrane’s conflicts of interest and ability to remain independent from its funders’ agendas. Now, researchers affiliated with one of Cochrane’s regional member centers (the Nordic Cochrane Centre) and with the Oxford-based Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) have come out with an exhaustive critique of Cochrane’s HPV review, published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. Not mincing their words, the authors state, “We believe that the Cochrane [HPV vaccine] review does not meet the standards for Cochrane reviews or the needs of the citizens or healthcare providers that consult Cochrane reviews to make ‘Informed decisions,’ which…is part of Cochrane’s motto” [emphasis added].

The Nordic Cochrane Centre and OCEBM authors dress down Cochrane’s review on seven counts:

  • The Cochrane review missed nearly half of the eligible trials.
  • No included trial in the Cochrane review used a placebo comparator.
  • The included HPV vaccine trials used composite surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.
  • The Cochrane review incompletely assessed serious and systemic adverse events.
  • The Cochrane review did not assess HPV vaccine-related safety signals.
  • The review ignored industry trial funding and other conflicts of interest.
  • Cochrane’s public relations of the review were uncritical.

For example, using the Cochrane review’s own inclusion criteria, 42 clinical trials (involving 121,704 randomized participants) were eligible to be included in the HPV vaccine review, but the reviewers only included 26 trials (with 73,428 participants). One of the studies that they “inappropriately excluded” was a trial of Gardasil-9—the newest HPV vaccine that includes nine types of HPV rather than the four or two in Gardasil and Cervarix—even though many countries are now shifting to Gardasil-9. Because the nine-strain Gardasil-9 contains more than twice the amount of neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant as Gardasil, assessments of its safety are vital.

One of the most significant observations is that “all 26 trials included in the Cochrane review used active comparators”—either various aluminum adjuvants or hepatitis vaccines—rather than genuine inert placebos.

The BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine authors make several important points about biases in the vaccine manufacturers’ design of the original HPV vaccine trials—factors that the Cochrane reviewers overlooked or discounted. One of the most significant observations is that “all 26 trials included in the Cochrane review used active comparators”—either various aluminum adjuvants or hepatitis vaccines—rather than genuine inert placebos. The Nordic and OCEBM authors also note that the Cochrane reviewers “mistakenly used the term placebo to describe the active comparators,” that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers adjuvants to be “unreliable comparators,” and that the Cochrane reviewers’ only comment about this key clinical trial design flaw was one brief statement slipped in “after 7500 words about other issues.” Nor did the Cochrane reviewers address the most important downside of using active comparators:

“The use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms in the comparator groups and thereby masked harms caused by the HPV vaccines.”

The Nordic and OCEBM authors make many other solid arguments about the Cochrane reviewers’ omissions and errors, including the reviewers’ inexplicable characterization of the higher death rate in the HPV group as “a chance occurrence.” They also note that the Cochrane reviewers relied “on the HPV vaccine manufacturers’ own unverified assessments” in making the decision not to investigate potential safety signals in the clinical trial data.

Finally, the critique of the Cochrane HPV vaccine review notes the importance of gathering all relevant data and information (including unpublished data), rather than cherry-picking only some of the data. This is a crucial observation in light of the recognized limitations of clinical trial journal publications:

“The Cochrane authors ‘planned requesting data…to fill in gaps with available unpublished data,’ but ‘due to constraints in time and other resources’ they were unable to do so. Considering that seven years passed from the publication of the Cochrane protocol in 2011 to the Cochrane review in 2018, lack of time seems a poor excuse for not trying to obtain unpublished trial documents and data. More importantly, harms cannot be assessed reliably in published trial documents—especially in journal publications of industry-funded trials where even serious harms often are missing.” [emphasis added]

For anyone interested in gaining an improved understanding of “behind-the-scenes” industry machinations and the biases of industry sock puppets, it is well worth taking the time to read the full critique of the Cochrane HPV vaccine review.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *