Tag: adverse

Letter to Dr Nikki Turner Regarding IMAC Whitewashing Gardasil’s Serious Adverse Reactions

This letter was e-mailed to Dr Nikki Turner and Helen Petousis-Harris of the Immunisation Advisory Centre of Auckland University on the 25th of February regarding Ms Petousis-Harris’ letter to The Whangarei Report and Dr Turner’s public presentation regarding the Gardasil vaccine in Whangarei on the 24th.

25th of February 2009

Dr Nikki Turner,
Immunisation Advisory Centre,
Auckland University.

Dear Dr Turner,
In regard to your e-mail dated the 25th of February, your having stated that the HPV vaccine caused the reactions in the girls in Spain during the public forum on the 24th of February did contradict the letter Helen Petousis-Harris wrote to The Whangarei Report.  You also contradicted her when you acknowledged you were aware that in October 2008, over 10,000 adverse reactions, including 27 deaths had been reported to VAERS in relation to Gardasil.
IMAC can not sweep the multitude of serious adverse reactions to the vaccine under the carpet. There is too much evidence in the public arena.  The FDA reports Judicial Watch acquired about Gardasil under the Freedom of Information Act, that were described by Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton as “a catalogue of horrors,” [1,2], being a good example.
I have not found mention of  “motor vehicle accidents” being responsible for what is occurring to those vaccinated as Ms Petousis-Harris tried to claim to The Whangarei Report. There is mention of reactions occurring shortly after vaccination though.  For example, in one case a 14-year old girl took 6 steps after being injected with Gardasil before collapsing and becoming unconscious. The girl regained consciousness after “a 60 second grand mal seizure” and had pale clammy skin and blood pressure of 60/40.
In another case a 23-year old woman was vaccinated with her first dose and went into anaphylactic shock.  The report says that she experienced this 2 minutes after vaccination.
A VAERS report from a physician stated a female patient was inoculated with Gardasil and “Subsequently, the patient experienced a coma and is now paralyzed.”
Eleven deaths occurred less than one week after receiving the vaccine. Seven died in less than 2 days. The most common diagnosed cause was blood clotting.
The VAERS reports Judicial Watch acquired included 78 separate cases where, after receiving the vaccine, patients experienced outbreaks of warts, [1].  When I asked you about people developing warts after vaccination, you denied it was occurring during your talk in Whangarei Dr Turner.
Furthermore, while the Gardasil insert, which can be found on Merck’s website, mentions that the vaccine may lead to pre-cancerous lesions, you did not.
It [did] state[s] on page 14 [top of page 15] of the insert:
“Infected women may already have CIN 2/3 or AIS at vaccination onset and SOME WILL DEVELOP CIN 2/3 or AIS during follow-up, EITHER RELATED TO A VACCINE…”
In relation to this matter the Judicial Watch report states:
“The possibility that Gardasil could make HPV infections worse is very serious, and a matter of concern with both critics of the vaccine and the FDA.  A background document
produced by the FDA’s VRBPAC in May 2006 states:
There were two important concerns that were identified during the course of the efficacy review of this BLA [biologics license application]. One was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects
who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine relevant HPV types at baseline. The other concern was the observations of CIN 2/3 [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, abnormal cell changes in moderate stage] or worse cases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine. These cases of disease due to other HPV types have the potential to counter the efficacy results of Gardasil for the HPV types contained in the vaccine . . . The results of exploratory subgroup analyses . . . suggested a concern that
subjects who were . . . positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases.
It further states on page 6 of the Judicial Watch report:
“A chart in the committee’s report revealed that efficacy in subjects already exposed to “relevant HPV types” had an observed efficacy rate of -44.6%. The disturbing efficacy rate raises questions as to who should be receiving the vaccine, and why the FDA allows Gardasil to be administered without prescreening for HPV..”
Why did you not mention all these serious problems associated with the vaccine to the group of women in Whangarei and why did Helen Petousis-Harris claim that: “There is no evidence that Gardasil increases the risk of precancerous lesions” in her letter to The Whangarei Report?  Given the rate of sexual abuse of children in New Zealand, and thus potential infection with the HPV, one would think that this matter would be of concern to a caring medical professional.     And what ever happened to informed consent?
Thank-you for your attention to the contents herein.
Clare Swinney

1.  http://uncensorednz.wpengine.com/2009/03/27/a-judicial-watch-special-report-examining-the-fda%E2%80%99s-hpv-vaccine-records/

(and  http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf )

2.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil