In October 2009, Dr Diana Harper, the lead researcher in the development of both Gardasil and Cervarix, addressed a conference intended to promote vaccines . (Just in case it disappears, I've pdf'd it here.) Instead, the data she presented, left the doctors in the audience, wondering why HPV vaccines were used in developed countries at all.
Why did Dr Diana Harper, yet again, spill the beans? In her own words:
“I want to be able to sleep with myself, when I go to bed at night”
Before we discuss what she said, you need to read for yourself, what IMAC thinks of Diana Harper:
”A note on Diane Harper: After involvement with Merck and Gardasil ® clinical trials, Diane Harper disappeared and was found working for GSK on the Cervarix® clinical trials. Her position on Gardasil® may not be neutral.”
Obviously, IMAC can’t come right out and slander the lady, since that would lead to questions as to Harper's and IMAC's motives, and you can’t have people asking these obvious questions:
Is Nikki Turner’s position on Gardasil “neutral”?
Has Nikki Turner been considered scientifically worthy enough to be employed by BOTH Merck and GSK? (Not directly anyway...)
Why would any vaccine manufacturer provide funding for, or employ anyone who was neutral about vaccines?
Anyone who is employed to work for a vaccine company, administer, advocate and harass parents about not vaccinating their children, is ardently provaccine.
So what has Dr Diana Harper said that so gets up IMAC, Merck’s and GSK’s serial noses?
That, “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in US.”
And the same applies to New Zealand.
The doctors and participants from that conference left wondering why Gardasil was even marketed at all for developed countries, when Dr Diana Harper stated that four out of five women with cervical cancer are in the undeveloped world.
The answer as to why Gardasil has been first marketted in rich countries is very simple. Even though women in the developed countries don’t “need” this vaccine, only the governments of developed countries can afford this vaccine.
“From a purely business point of view, they’ve been facing some real interesting challenges over the Vioxx issue and they are looking at this as the foundation and the savior of the company. Believe me, they have a huge stake in this, just as we all do.”
Yes you read that right.
This vaccine has to succeed.
It’s Merck’s last gasp for both it’s financial existence and it’s reputation...
So you will now hear new stories about how wonderful this vaccine will be in preventing genital warts, anal cancer, vaginal cancer, throat cancer, in fact any cancer they can persuade FDA to advocate for. And FDA will comply, because as we know, all the good boys and girls from FDA and CDC have this revolving door existence where they get top spots in vaccine manufacturing companies once they leave regulatory organizations. Provided they have served the companies purposes well enough. Just like the ex-head of CDC, Dr Julie Gerberding did.. Oh, did you think Gerberding was neutral?
The stakes are huge. And why does Merck need Gardasil to be the foundation and saviour of their company?
Let’s rename the HPV vaccine. Let’s call it the Help Pay for Vioxx.
Merck has priced this vaccine high for several reasons.
Merck needs to somehow claw back everything it’s lost on the development and manufacturing costs of Vioxx, loss of income, pay for all the law suits to vioxx killed and injured persons, AS WELL AS pay massive royalities to Dr Ian Frazer and the other who developed Gardasil and Cervarix. They need to get as many of the RICH countries to shell out as much as they can, for a vaccine they don’t need, and then they will persuade Bill Gate’s GAVI, to fork out for the poor countries ... the very LAST people to get this vaccine, who will never be able to afford this vaccine. Even though according to Dr Diana Harper, and data in the medical literature, poor people are supposedly the ones that "need" this vaccine.
As happens now, in poor countries, any "Jasmines" amongst them wouldn't be noticed, since in poor countries, people die all the time. All vaccine reactions in poor countries are easily buried amongst the "normal" problems poor countries have.
There is one problem in that thinking though, and that’s this. Historically, Merck and all vaccine and drug manufacturers, (whether or not they believe, or know that their products are safe), usually count on people not connecting the dots. They count on the recipients believing the soldiers on the ground (doctors) who say, “Move on, there is no problem here.”
Prior to internet, it was possible for them to silently withdraw drugs and useless vaccines with no-one any wiser other than a personal nagging gut feeling and few to share that with.
Now that people can connect in cyberspace, such "luxury" is no longer possible.
What will the "corporate" next step be?
Censor and ban internet?
I can see that day coming, because internet allows people to speak their mind. Your democratic right to express an opinion guarantees that, as of 11 January 2010,
Eveyrone knows though, that when it comes to the almighty dollar, the truth is the first casualty.
Dr Diana Harper deserves a Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama ever did.
But in her own way, she too is a casualty, because you can guarantee she is blacklisted now. In medicine, you never get away with telling the truth without paying a price.
Vaccine companies won't employ her now, because how can they trust an honest scientist with a conscience, to keep their mouths shut?
Just as well for us.
Problem is, that thousands of vaccine-damaged girls won’t have heard her message, because it’s one lamestream media doesn’t cover.