GSK admits to using girls as guinea pigs

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
GSK admits to using girls as guinea pigs
Wed, 07-08-2009 - 4:09pm
Girls used as Guinea Pigs in HPV Trials Admits GSK
Christina England

July 05, 2009

We have always suspected it and now they admit it,GSK are using young girls (as young as 9 in some areas) as human Guinea Pigs in HPV vaccine Cervarix trials. This was only discovered after reading a document that was meant for 'Scientific Background and Informational Purposes only'

Cervarix GlaxoSmithKline´s Cervical Cancer Candicate Vaccine Mandate. Media Backgrounder makes very disturbing reading as it states exactly what trials are to be carried out, with one particular very interesting line

"Phase III Trials Phase III studies are underway in 37 countries with more than 39,000 subjects planned."

So this appears to prove that all our children are part of one big experiment to enable the drug companies to line their pockets whilst they sit back and watch what happens to our children.

Whilst trawling the Internet a fellow member of ICAP also came up with this gem of a document which also appears to prove that our children are part of trials.

The document is the Presentation of advisory report Vaccination against cervical cancer from the health Council of the Netherlands to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport

This is an official political document. It is called 'Vaccination against Cervical Cancer' and it was accompanied with a letter addressed to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport in the Netherlands, from the Health Council. Interestingly the report outlines some very alarming points. The report discusses the differences between the two HPV vaccinations Cervarix and Gardasil.

It States:-

"Both vaccines are designed to provide immunity against HPV-16 and 18: the two types of the virus responsible for about 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases. Gardasil also provides protection against HPV-6 and 11, which together cause nearly all genital warts. Broader-spectrum vaccines capable of protecting against hrHPVs other than HPV-16 and 18 may become available in due course. The vaccines differ from one another in terms of the adjuvants (vaccine-aiding agents) they utilise. Gardasil uses the well-established adjuvant aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate, while Cervarix uses the equally widely employed aluminium hydroxide, but in combination with monophosphoryl lipid A, a chemically modified lipopolysaccharide, that influences the innate immune system. The latter complex is known as ASO4. Cervarix stimulates higher levels of antibody production, but the significance of this phenomenon for its protective effect is not known."

The report states that there is no real knowledge to how long the vaccine lasts or if a booster will be needed or if in fact it does protect against cervical cancer.


Vaccination protects against persistent infection and the precursors of cervical cancer

The initial effect of vaccination is favourable: vaccination leads to the formation of antibodies against the target hrHPVs and thus to protection against infection by those hrHPVs. This in turn brings about a major short-term reduction in the incidence of the precursors of cervical cancer. It is known that the development of such precursors is a prerequisite for the subsequent development of the cancer. Vaccination against cervical cancer itself. However, whether vaccination does in fact protect against cervical cancer will not be known for many years to come."

Lovely isn't it? Then it states:-

"It is not yet clear whether booster vaccinations will be needed

The duration of the protection afforded by vaccination has yet to be determined.It is known, however, that high antibody levels persist for at least five years and that immunological memory is created. Protection is required, however, for several decades. The possibility that re-vaccination will be needed in order to provide such prolonged protection cannot be excluded at the present time."

It carries on

"Although the available data provide an incomplete picture of the effectiveness of HPV vaccination, they are sufficient to support the expectation of significant health benefit: vaccination leads to fewer infections and thus to a reduced incidence of the precursors of cervical cancer. We may therefore move on to the next criterion. Thus, this chapter of the report considers whether vaccination might have any adverse effects that offset the attainable health benefit.

Although the trials so far conducted have involved the administration of HPV vaccine to thousands of women (nearly 12,000 have been given Gardasil and more than 16,000 Cervarix),the numbers are small compared with those that would be involved in general vaccination.If vaccination were made available to all twelve-year-old girls in the Netherlands,that would mean treating roughly 100,000 young people a year. Certainty regarding the vaccine´s safety and insight into any rare side-effects that it might have are therefore very important."

For me however, the hightlight of whole report and letter is in the Executive Summary at the beginning where it states quite clearly:-

"With regard to safety, the third assessment criterion, there is currently no reason to suppose that the vaccine has any adverse events that might preclude its inclusion in the NIP. Nevertheless, the possibility cannot be excluded that, if it were administered to large numbers of people, relatively uncommon adverse events might come to light in due course. This underlines the importance of careful monitoring following the introduction of this form of vaccination."

I would particularly like to draw your attention to this phrase "relatively uncommon adverse events might come to light in due course" In other words the more they vaccinate the more likely it is that a serious adverse reaction will show up. That is really great news to all parents out there with children about to be vaccinated with Cervarix or Gardasil. Your children are part of a nationwide test but it is OK because if your child gets very bad reaction it will help determine the safety of the vaccine. I am sure that will be a great comfort to mothers of children like Ashleigh Cave who is still in hospital after a Cervarix vaccination. She has now been in hospital for 9 months, is just beginning to be able to put a very small amount of weight on her legs, cannot stand unaided and has recently lost bladder control at 13.

The news gets better for all you parents out there because Suzanne Garland who is the director of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the Royal Woman's Hospital in Melbourne has decided she wants to include babies in the HPV vaccine trials. She is on the advisory boards for both rival companies Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline and has proposed to test cervical cancer vaccines in babies, with a view to adding the vaccine to the infant immunisation program. This is according to The India Times in 2007

Suzanne Garland has a special interest in the management of herpes in the pregnant woman and the neonate. She is an advisor to World Health Organisation in the area of sexually transmitted infection diagnosis and the prophylactic HPV vaccine Obs-Gyne Exhibition & Congress Speakers Tackle Cervical Cancer Vaccine Issues And Encourage Advocacy

So she has no real conflicts of interest there then does she? Not only is she on both boards of advisers for Merck and GSK but she is an advisor to WHO! It appears that no matter who advises Governments on vaccinations whether it is WHO or the JCVI,the members have strong links and alliances to the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines, therefore, how can the general public trust the people who tell us the vaccines are safe? As we have seen we are all just human Guinea Pigs to them, of course they are safe!


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2008
Wed, 07-08-2009 - 5:21pm

I think I must be cynical or something because this doesn't surprise me at all. Whether they come right out and say it or not, the general population is being experimented upon whenever new vaccines come out and get added to the schedule. How can that not be the case? Studies do not include true control groups, for one thing. And, my understanding is that studies are not being done to show the "safety and effectiveness" of combining so many vaccines. I absolutely do not understand how people can just blindly follow the norm, plop their kids up on the table, and allow some nurse to inject a bunch of junk into their kids all to make them "healthy." Nothing that goes into our body (meds-wise) is free of unintended effects.

I'll just stop here. I could go on but for those who agree w/me, I'm preaching to the choir. For those who disagree, it's not like I'm going to change their minds anyway.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
Wed, 07-08-2009 - 7:54pm
yep I agree. I just wanted to put it up here so it is in black and white for the people who still have faith that the pharma companies are working for the "good of humanity".


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Wed, 07-08-2009 - 9:02pm

Ugh! My heart skipped a beat this afternoon when my 22 year old sister said "I went to the doctor last week .. they gave me the guardasil vaccine .. she told me the side effect could be death, but that it's only happened twice" .. it was all part of a story she was telling me about how she went to my other sister's house before that and fell asleep out on the deck but was thinking "what if I just died here, no one would know I got that vaccine.." ...AAAAGGHH!!!

My LO got his Pentacel vax at the last appointment .. the individual vaxxes aren't available in our area -- I still haven't gone back for the others that are "due" at 4 months. I know I have to, b/c DH and I agreed that we would vaccinate, but on my schedule :-p I hate them jabbing my poor little baby, though. We still haven't done any Hep B (no reason, not in day care, and no risk factors) .. and I've already told DH I won't vaccinate for Hep A (unless we're traveling) or Varicella (unless he has to go to school and they absolutely won't accept him without it) .. Our state only accepts religious exemptions, though by the time he is in school we'll be living somewhere else .. we'll see ;)

Whew.. as if you wanted to know all of that :)




iVillage Member
Registered: 12-14-2005
Fri, 07-10-2009 - 11:18am

Just a bit on Hep A:

"The likelihood of having symptoms with HAV infection is related to the infected person’s age. In children younger than 6 years old, most (70%) infections are asymptomatic; if illness does occur, its duration is usually less than 2 months." CDC Yellowbook.

I suppose it depends on your risk tolerance but Energix (hep B only) and Twinrix were the causes our adverse events. I carry Hep B which is why as per public health she was vaccinated the moment she was born (though I know differently now and would do differently in the future).

You might want to delay Hep A till when you travel past a certain age - I am not certain I would be concerned about a child under 6 contracting Hep A but my definition of risk is different from others.

DD's also had her immunity checked and after the full series of Energix B and two of the Twinrix shots she has ZERO immunity - primary vaccine failure on all counts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-27-2005
Fri, 07-10-2009 - 12:08pm

hey tash, what's it called when someone has failure after 2 rounds? or 3 rounds?


Tracy - wife to Ron since 9/9/03, mom to college sophomore, Jason (18), high school Junior Chase
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-14-2005
Fri, 07-10-2009 - 12:48pm

Technically called "Primary" vaccine failure when no immunity is induced. "Secondary" is when the vaccine's conferred immunity "wanes".

I call it something else entirely ;)

Well you are suppose to have partial and then full immunity after a series of shots - I suppose that's why the series.

What's interesting is - how do we actually know the level of primary vaccine failure once a vaccine is introduced into the general population? We have those rates for the very controlled studies on ideal populations.

I happen to know because DD did blood tests. But everyone else gets their shots and "assumes" they must be immune.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-27-2005
Fri, 07-10-2009 - 12:58pm

lol, yup ...

Kimmy had the series in the mid 90's and then again in early 2000 after having her son ..... they wanted her to have it again for nursing school and she was like, um .. no thanks!


Tracy - wife to Ron since 9/9/03, mom to college sophomore, Jason (18), high school Junior Chase