Forbes’ Matt Herper Cites Misleading Gardasil Press Release


Editor’s Note: Above is the abstract of a study which was misrepresented by the drug company press release that Herper cited to endorse the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil; click to enlarge.

By Jake Crosby

Mainstream media’s coverage of the disputed safety and effectiveness of human pappilloma virus (HPV) vaccination is a shameful repeat of its coverage of the vaccine-autism cover-up.

Following Katie Couric’s recent investigative report on the safety and efficacy of vaccination against HPV, many familiar media mouthpieces of the vaccine industry came out of the woodwork to chastise Couric for her journalism. Included among those was Matt Herper, senior editor of Forbes Magazine. Using Twitter to cite a press release from Gardasil’s manufacturer, Herper challenged HPV expert Dr. Diane Harper’s contention to Katie Couric that HPV vaccine Gardasil only provides protection for five years. His tweet:

It appears that the claim on @katiecouric that vaccine efficacy wanes at 5 years is incorrect. …

Herper’s tweet was retweeted dozens of times, including by vaccine industry media go-to guy Seth Mnookin. Herper also cited and linked to the drug company press release from his Forbes article attacking Couric for her program on Gardasil. According to the press release:

“The interim data, presented at the 28th International Papillomavirus Conference (IPV) in Puerto Rico, showed that young women[1] and adolescent girls and boys[2] vaccinated with Gardasil were protected from HPV-related diseases for up to eight years following vaccination.”

The press release also included quotes from Professor Susanne Krüger Kjær, lead investigator of one of the studies:

“These latest data show an encouraging trend of continued protection with Gardasil against HPV-related cervical, vaginal and vulvar disease in women through eight years,” said Professor Susanne Krüger Kjær, Danish Cancer Society. “These studies provide further evidence for the ongoing efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of Gardasil.”

Absent from Sanofi Pasteur MSD’s press release, however, is the conclusion from Professor Kjær’s own study which reads:

“The qHPV vaccine shows a trend of continued protection in women, although there is as yet insufficient data to confirm that protection is maintained.”

If Matt Herper can go to the trouble of digging up a drug company press release from a year ago on research presented at a conference, then why couldn’t he go to the extra trouble to dig up the abstract of the actual research the press release was about? Why did he instead settle for the misleading press release written by a PR person employed by Gardasil’s manufacturer to second-guess the statements of Dr. Diane Harper – an international authority on HPV who was involved in clinical trials of Gardasil? Perhaps because the abstract would prove that the press release Herper cited is a misleading representation of research.

Herper’s use of a misleading drug company press release over actual research to push Gardasil is minor in comparison to his record of reporting on the vaccine-autism cover-up. He has endorsed Salon’s removal of “Deadly Immunity” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (which exposed CDC’s cover-up of the dangers of mercury in vaccines) prompted by a bogus rumor spread by Seth Mnookin that Rolling Stone Magazine secretly retracted Kennedy’s article. Salon is run by the brother-in-law of Arthur Allen, Mnookin’s predecessor as vaccine industry media go-to guy who vetted and ultimately approved of Mnookin’s since-dispelled rumor. So Matt Herper has a history of promoting scientific fraud to protect the vaccine industry. Even worse, such apologists now appear to dominate mainstream media’s coverage of vaccine safety issues, Katie Couric notwithstanding. Not surprisingly, Herper has not responded when informed on Twitter of what the actual research said.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

79 Thoughts on “Forbes’ Matt Herper Cites Misleading Gardasil Press Release

  1. Good catch on Herper’s sleazy “reporting,” Jake. Oh people like Katie Couric will learn what sleazeballs some of these people are. Thank you for reporting about this and caring about those girls, Jake. It took trendous guts for Couric to do this show. I must say that the one thing that bothers me about some of the discussion is that some (certainly not all) of the far right people seem to want to only dismiss the Gardasil problems as being a moral issue, nothing to do with actual safety or efficacy. Heck, if a vaccine really did to what it set out to do in a case like this and it was perfectly safe, I would hope anyone would be on board.

    • That Matt Herper and Seth Mnookin would attack Katie Couric and Dr. Diane Harper with drug company PR in lieu of science shows just how much contempt Herper and Mnookin have for science as well as journalism.

  2. White Rose on December 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    Larry , Diane harper , a leader in science and medicine , says the gardasil vaccine is a fraud

  3. @White Rose – please cite exactly where she said that? Also, please feel free to let us know exactly what her position was (because it isn’t “lead Gardisil Researcher)….

  4. Doug Troutman on December 9, 2013 at 1:42 am said:

    I used to read Forbes magazine because I was interested in business. I don’t read it now because of the Nazi vaccine propaganda. What else do you a system where the people take on all of the liabilty and the corporations take all of the profit? I have gut feeling the HPV vaccine will cause what it supposed to prevent. Vaccines definitely affect the immune system and I don’t think is for the better. They are wonderful money makers for the “health system” and people who believe in population control.

    • Letthembegot on December 9, 2013 at 10:45 am said:

      Doug, I know exactly what you mean. I used to avidly read the business pages too ! Now it is a light interest, enough to keep currently only. It is very hard to put time into that when there are far bigger issues at stake.

      There is a slow trickle of people starting to realise the wider implications of large scale vaccination, questions about the population agenda keep arising and control of the worlds food supply through GMO and the nasty tricks of that industry too. However I am so heartened to see the millions marching against Monsanto, I am also this week reminded of those who boycott South African products and services back at the height of Apartheid. It gives me hope that people will always seek out the truth and make conscious decisions to reject the companies and products which have debatable intentions.

      All the information is out there, people just need to read it.
      Autism Investigated does a good job at publishing information to the wider audience without compromise or distortion. For that I am thankful.

    • The money being made from the sale of vaccines, is nothing compared to the money being made from the illnesses they create.

  5. Letthembegot on December 9, 2013 at 9:21 am said:

    Larry, I believe it is Gardasil (sp)

    Dr Diane Harper has repeatedly called into question the efficacy of the vaccine. The you tube recordings of the meeting in Reston Virginia in October 2009 where she spoke frankly about the vaccine have been removed from the web. They will resurface.

    Dr. Harper told CBS News on August 19, 2009 that “young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine” and that a girl is more likely to die from an adverse reaction to Gardasil than from cervical cancer.

    • Wasn’t there also a study (not necessarily without some problematic aspects) that showed a higher number of serious adverse events compared to a similar age vaccine- Menactra?

  6. Rebecca Fisher on December 9, 2013 at 12:50 pm said:

    Hi Jake,

    Do you have a link to that study by Professor Susanne Krüger Kjær please? Searching for the full text of the conclusion you quoted brings up the following:

    Which has a very similar conclusion – in fact word for word the same, with the addition of the phrase “who were vaccinated up to 7 years previously”. Might this be the research referred to?

  7. Rebecca Fisher on December 9, 2013 at 2:17 pm said:

    Thanks. Will take a look.

  8. Rebecca Fisher on December 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm said:

    Yes. You’ve missed the last line from the quote. The full quote from your source reads:

    “The qHPV vaccine shows a trend of continued protection in women, although there is as yet insufficient data to confirm that protection is maintained. The qHPV vaccine continues to be generally safe and well tolerated up to 7 years following vaccination. “

    • No, because unlike Matt Herper, Seth Mnookin and Sanofi Pasteur MSD, I never misrepresented the study’s conclusions.

      • Rebecca Fisher on December 10, 2013 at 9:18 am said:

        What are you saying no to? I haven’t accused you of anything other than missing a line from the conclusion.

        • I never said that sentence was not in the conclusion; I only quoted the sentence in the conclusion relevant to the topic of this article – that a pharma press release cited by a senior editor of a national business magazine was a misrepresentation of research.

  9. @Jake – one should never assume “facts not in evidence.” No one has said that Gardasil lasts a lifetime, because the evidence does not exist yet that it does – up to this point, HPV Vaccine studies have shown that protection has been maintained as long as the studies have gone on – so at 5 years, we could confirm 5 years, at 7 years – 7 years, etc…..

    • No, we cannot confirm that based on this study. If you look in both the Results as well as the Implications and Impact in the abstract, it clearly says the data is insufficient.

      • Rebecca Fisher on December 10, 2013 at 9:28 am said:

        Yes, it does, but that’s not the same as saying there’s any serious doubt. Let’s look at what the results actually say:

        “In the initial analysis of effectiveness after the first 7 years, there were 1,080 subjects that contributed to the follow-up period out of a total of 2,195 eligible subjects in the per-protocol population in Cohort 1. In these subjects there were no cases of HPV 16/18-related CIN 2 or worse observed. There were also no cases of HPV 6/11/16/18-related CIN, vulvar cancer, and vaginal cancer observed. However, the follow-up time in person-years is insufficient to make a definitive statement about the effectiveness of the qHPV vaccine for the current time period. ”

        So, after seven years, out of the 1,000+ subjects observed, there were no cases of the disease that the researchers are hoping to prevent. None. Now, although that number of people is not enough (statistically) to make a definitive statement that the vaccine has prevented those cases that would be expected, it’s a fairly good indicator. Hence the statement in the conclusion; “The qHPV vaccine shows a trend of continued protection in women”.

        In essence, as many studies do, it says more study is needed, but it adds quite a bit to the evidence that yes, the vaccine is still effective after seven years.

        Remember – 100% of those studied showed no HPV-related infections after seven years.

        • No matter what your interpretation is of an abstract of unpublished research, the fundamental point is that no drug company should use that research to argue for the efficacy of its product when the research says itself that the data is insufficient. And journalists should report on what the actual study says – not what a drug company says about it.

          • So Jake, you take issue with a report that shows that 100% of what was supposed to be prevented was prevented? And follow-up research continues to be conducted…..with published results that continue to be very much in line with the initial safety and efficacy studies….

            • No, I have a problem with drug companies and business magazine editors who misrepresent research before it’s even published.

              • Rebecca Fisher on December 11, 2013 at 8:40 am said:

                In the same document, you’ll also find this paper:
                8 year data was presented at the conference, although not available at the time of abstract submission.

                Also this: A REGISTRY-BASED LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE SAFETY OF THE QUADRIVALENT HPV (qHPV) VACCINE IN SCANDINAVIA – a safety study over eight years, which concludes: “The qHPV vaccine continues to be generally safe and well tolerated in young women 8 years following vaccination.”

                • Which does not change the fundamental point that research was misrepresented by a drug company press release and by journalists as showing the HPV vaccine provides longer protection when if anything the research has said the data is insufficient.

                  • Rebecca Fisher on December 12, 2013 at 8:15 am said:

                    No Jake. One individual study has said that the data it has is insufficient to make a definitive statement, although it strongly indicates that protection is maintained. But you know that science doesn’t work that way – very rarely does one study demonstrate that something is definitively true. However, the sum of knowledge – ie, the data gathered for multiple studies will show a very high probability that a hypothesis is true, or that a treatment works or doesn’t work.

                    In this case, the data gathered from multiple studies is showing that yes, protection is maintained for eight years.

                    Don’t forget that what Professor Kjær said was; ““These latest data show an encouraging trend of continued protection with Gardasil against HPV-related cervical, vaginal and vulvar disease in women through eight years, These studies provide further evidence for the ongoing efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of Gardasil.”

                    She did not say “these studies prove definitely…”, she said “encouraging trend of continued protection” and “further evidence for…”

                    Which they do.

                    • And what Professor Kjær stated was not in any way a contradiction of what she concluded in her own study – that data is still insufficient to say whether or not protection is maintained. For Sanofi Pasteur MSD to quote her and use her study in the press release to claim her research shows Gardasil protects against HPV infection for eight years when her own study said the data was insufficient to show that protection is even maintained for seven years is a misleading representation of trial data to promote a product. By citing this press release rather than the research itself, Forbes’ Matt Herper basically turned his column into an advertorial for Gardasil, as well as a smearditorial against Katie Couric.

                    • Rebecca Fisher on December 13, 2013 at 9:59 am said:

                      Jake, the press release says “The interim data, presented at the 28th International Papillomavirus Conference (IPV) in Puerto Rico, showed that young women[1] and adolescent girls and boys[2] vaccinated with Gardasil were protected from HPV-related diseases for up to eight years following vaccination.” – which is absolutely true, That’s exactly what the data showed.

                      100% of the people studied were still infection-free. The press release does not say “This is absolutely definite”, it says that the interim data showed that vaccinated subjects were still protected.

                      There is no misrepresentation here.

                      Additionally, his tweet, stating that protection doesn’t wane after five years isn’t misrepresenting anything either. The data shows that, in 100% of cases in the study, 100% of subjects were still protected after eight years.

                      No-one has claimed that this study is absolute proof, no-one is misrepresenting anything.

                    • According to the Sanofi Pasteur MSD press release linked to and cited by Herper to refute what Dr. Harper said, the research showed protection from HPV. However, the actual research says:

                      “….there is as yet insufficient data to confirm that protection is maintained.”

                      Ergo making the press release and Herper’s use of it a misrepresentation of the actual research.

    • So what you’re saying, is that when the HPV vaccine was released to the public, the developers really had no idea if it was going to be effective … or for how long. And presumed vaccine efficacy is based on nothing more than year after year checks, and the standing assumption that any vaccinated person who doesn’t develop the virus, must be enjoying protection from the vaccine.

      Doesn’t sound much like science to me. How can you tell the difference between a vaccinated person who was protected by the vaccine…. and a vaccinated person who simply didn’t come in contact with the virus??

    • Letthembegot on December 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm said:

      Again Larry listen to the words of Dr Diane Harper and hear her say its efficacy wanes after 5 years. Her words not mine.

  10. Doug Troutman on December 10, 2013 at 12:11 am said:

    The Pharma companies always have studies that say their products work and are safe. These young girls had their lives ruined by a vaccine for a disease that affects 1 in 6400 women. What are chances to have your life ruined by the shot? We have only seen the tip of the iceberg on this damage.

  11. Cherry Sperlin Misra on December 10, 2013 at 1:44 am said:

    thanks for the good research Jake. I wonder when oh when are people going to start talking about keeping ones immune system in good shape, and how to do it, rather than imagining that life means being surrounded by vicious and malevolent viruses and bacteria with vaccines being the only way out. Has anyone noticed as I have, the increase in media articles , perhaps designed to terrify us further- the story is always the same – Some hot shot public health person or doctor talking about the day when antibiotics no longer protect us !! As an aside, does everyone here realize how Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen damage the immune system?

  12. White Rose on December 10, 2013 at 7:53 am said:

    Hey Jake , can we load up the pictures of what Gardasil does to poor young girls in their prime for Larry & Rebecca ? The vicious maiming of young girls in their prime is a crime and the parents of the vaccine damaged demand prosecutions of the guilty .

    The pictures provide irrefutable evidence of the neurological damage vaccines cause , and yet these jokers will still try and talk the usual nonsense “cause and effect defence” .

    Remember you guys , keep up to date with all your vaccines , for you and your entire extended families .
    You will see soon enough who is telling the truth and who is not .

  13. Cherry Sperlin Misra on December 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm said:

    Once their vaccine is established in the pipeline, what does the manufacturer care if their vaccine is effective as originally hoped for. One thing many of you may not have thought of (I hadn’t) is that in a country where science education is poor (such as India, where I live), most women would not know what cervical cancer is and its easy to confuse them that it is uterine cancer- and therefore Gardasil goes from being a vaccine for a rare cancer to a vaccine for a very common one ! You can even confuse them that it protects against cancer in general. Hate to say it, but those pharma guys ain’t dumb.

  14. 7 years vs 5 years – Give me a break, splitting hairs over nothing. We are talking about advertising to teens and preteens a solution about a cancer problem that is diagnosed on average, at least based on some info already available in 1999, in people in their early 50s!!!! 5 years or 7, the manufacturers have MISREPRESENTED to the public what was known vs unknown. Even if they could show it effective without unacceptable risks for 7 years, it’s the same as some other vaccines – pharmaceutical companies bring it to market AFTER the major decline in numbers attributed to mitigating other risk factors, known and unknown. And it’s going to be years before more accurate info comes in.

  15. @Jenny – women (like yourself) may not get diagnosed with Cervical Cancer until your 50’s – but you will probably come in contact with the HPV virus in your mid-teens to mid-twenties (when women are most sexually active).

    Since the vaccine is shown to be effective for at least 8.5 years now (and counting as new research comes in) this covers a goodly portion of when this virus would be initially contracted….if the efficacy holds – and the continuing research shows that it does seem to be, then it will be a powerful tool to not only reduce deaths from Cervical Cancer, but will have the added benefit of eliminating genital warts as well.

    Given the lack of solid information on these “stories” of reactions – including such bogus reports in VAERS that include “I saw a report on the Internet that a person died” or a girl who died in a car accident six months after receipt of the vaccine, it is shear fear-mongering to suggest that there is any serious rate of adverse reactions – when all of the available safety studies instead show that this is a very safe and effective vaccine.

  16. Larry: Not to be rude, but you need to enlighten yourself on this issue. I’m going to post a link to this story, but I’m going to take the time to type some of this out. I don’t know who you are or where you’re getting your information from, but you’re just plain WRONG re: your comments, above.


    *Note: And I don’t want to hear insults heaved toward Dr. Tenpenny. Just read through this site and PLEASE take the time to read the links she’s provided on this site.

    i’ll provide more than a few SNIPS from the above link:


    …”This story begins at a company called HiFi DNA Tech, LLC ( a company involved in the manufacture of portable HPV testing devices based on DNA sequencing analysis. HiFi DNA Tech has been pushing to get the FDA to classify its HPV detection technology as a “Class II” virology testing device. To understand why this is a big deal, you have to understand the differences between “Class II” and “Class III” virology testing devices.

    Based on FDA rules, a Class III virology testing device is one that is considered by the FDA to have “premarket approval,” meaning that it cannot yet be sold to the public. In order for such a device to be marketed to the public, it must be downgraded to Class II status, which is considered a “special controls” status. Class II devices are, “…those devices for which the general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance, including performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines, recommendations, and any other appropriate actions the agency deems necessary.”

    In other words, a Class II device may or may not actually be safe, but the FDA considers is safe enough to release to the public.

    HiFi DNA Tech has been trying to get its HPV detection device downgraded to a Class II device based on the following arguments:

    • For more than 20 years, the FDA had regulated the HPV test as a “test for cervical cancer.”

    • But since at least 2003, the FDA has changed its position on the relationship between Human Papilloma Virus and cervical cancer, stating that the HPV strain is “not associated with cervical cancer.”

    • Accordingly, HiFi DNA Tech is arguing that the HPV test it has developed is no longer a test for cervical cancer, but is merely a test for the presence of Human Papilloma Viruses — a shift that makes the test far more reliable in its primary purpose. In other words, the test is merely detecting the presence of a virus, not making a diagnosis of a disease (which would be a much higher standard to meet).

    On October 12, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech sued the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to force it to downgrade its HPV detection technology to Class II (see ). Earlier in the year — on March 7, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech filed the HPV PCR test reclassification petition with the FDA. It is the information in this petition document that led us to the FDA’s knowledge that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer.

    Got all that? This is a somewhat complex story to follow, so here it is again in summary:

    • A company that manufacturers a DNA testing device that can detect the presence of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is petitioning the FDA (and suing the FDA) to get it to reclassify its medical device as a “Class II” device based on the revelation that the FDA has already adopted the position that HPV infections do not directly cause cervical cancer.

    • This would mean that the FDA has been aware for years that HPV does not cause cervical cancer, which means that the FDA’s approval of the Gardasil vaccine — as well as the national push for Gardasil vaccinations — is based on a grand medical hoax that, not surprisingly, appears to be designed to exploit the fear of cancer to sell vaccines. The victims in all this, of course, are the young girls who are apparently being subjected to a medically useless (and potentially dangerous) vaccine.

    • None of this information was apparently known during the more recent debates over the safety and efficacy of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine now in use. This means that the public debate over mandatory HPV vaccinations lacked key elements that now seem essential to reaching rational, evidence-based conclusions over the safety and efficacy of such vaccines.

    Next, we reveal the FDA’s statement that HPV is “not associated with cervical cancer.”

    The Text of the PetitionThe Reclassification Petition, dated March 7, 2007, is still posted on the FDA’s website:…

    In case the FDA removes this document (as it has been known to do), we’ve posted a backup copy of the document on our own servers:…

    This document reveals the following text:

    The FDA news release of March 31, 2003 acknowledges that “most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer”, in recognition of the advances in medical science and technology since 1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.

    NaturalNews sought to verify the existence of the FDA news release referenced by this petition reclassification document and found that, indeed, the FDA news release exists. In fact, it’s still posted on the FDA website at…

    In it, the FDA says, “The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.” (Emphasis added.)…”


    …”As the reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting — meaning that they are controlled naturally, without requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines. It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to persistent infections.

    As the petition states:

    “Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer . Most acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. …Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when caused by “high-risk” HPVs, are characteristically not associated with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer.

    A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk.”

    The FDA agrees with this assessment of the relationship between HPV and cervical cancer, as evidenced by its 2003 news release quoted above.

    Next, we reveal evidence that HPV vaccines actually cause precancerous lesions in women.

    Do HPV Vaccines Increase the Risk of Precancerous Lesions?The reclassification petition cited above also reveals that Gardasil vaccines may increase the risk of developing precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent in some groups of women. This is found in a quote referencing a document mentioned in the petition, which states:

    “PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting.…

    NaturalNews tracked down the correct URL of the document referenced above and found it in the FDA docket archives. We have placed a safe backup copy at:…


    ““Concerns Regarding Primary Endpoint Analyses among Subgroups

    There were two important concerns that were identified during the course of the efficacy review of this BLA. 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 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.

    1. Evaluation of the potential of Gardasil™ to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination. The results of exploratory subgroup analyses for study 013 suggested a concern that subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases as demonstrated in the following table:

    Observed Efficacy
    – 44.6%

    It appeared that subjects in this subgroup of study 013 who received Gardasil™ might have had enhanced risk factors for development of CIN 2/3 or worse compared to placebo recipients.””


    This revelation should be quite shocking to anyone who has been following the debate over Gardasil and mandatory vaccinations of teenage girls. First, it reveals that Gardasil appears to increase disease by 44.6 percent in certain people — namely, those who were already carriers of the same HPV strains used in the vaccine.
    In other words, it appears that if the vaccine is given to a young woman who already carries HPV in a “harmless” state, it may “activate” the infection and directly cause precancerous lesions to appear. The vaccine, in other words, may accelerate the development of precancerous lesions in women.

    This is information that has simply not been made available in the debate over Gardasil vaccination policies. The pro-vaccination rhetoric has always been about “saving lives” and it carried the implied statement that Gardasil is perfectly safe for all women, posing absolutely no increased risk of cancer. What these documents reveal, however, is that Gardasil may, in fact, pose a serious increase in the risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine.

    Interrogating Young VirginsThe FDA directly admits the vaccine is utterly useless in these women, stating in the same document, “Finally, there is compelling evidence that the vaccine lacks therapeutic efficacy among women who have had prior exposure to HPV and have not cleared previous infection (PCR positive and seropositive).”
    What this essentially means is that the “safe” administering of the Gardasil vaccine requires that it be administered only to virgins (because virtually all women who are sexually active carry HPV strains). That, of course, would require the direct questioning of the sexual habits of all young girls before administering the vaccine.

    Is this what the Governor of Texas really had in mind when he mandated such vaccinations for all young girls in Texas? … a male doctor with a vaccination needle in his hand and a thirteen-year-old girl sitting in a private clinic room behind closed doors, with the male doctor asking her, “Have you ever had sex?”

    Clearly, this kind of patient questioning crosses all kinds of ethical barriers when such vaccinations are made mandatory (as they have been made in Texas). It puts the State in the positioning of ascertaining the sexual habits of very young teenage girls and then potentially causing them harm. It’s not hard to suppose that most sexually active teenage girls would claim to still be virgins (especially if their parents were present), creating a situation where vaccines would be routinely administered to precisely the HPV carrier subgroups for which it has been demonstrated to greatly increase the risk of precancerous lesions…”

    ALARMED YET, anyone? You should be. If reading the above doesn’t make you spitting mad, I don’t know what will.

    I’ve spoken with the Moms of these DEAD GARDASIL GIRLS myself – on the phone, a couple of years ago. There are many more girls on a global basis who have suffered untold serious, life-threatening reactions from this damned vaccine. Please don’t sit there – and a male at that – and tell me or anyone else that this vaccine can SAVE lives. The opposite is true.

    It is morally reprehensible to me that this type of marketing chicanery has been perpetrated on a highly unsuspecting and TRUSTING populace. Then, on the other hand, perhaps it takes something such as this massively fraudulent marketing scheme to get the masses to WAKE UP to the dangers of vaccines.

  17. *Note: Governor Perry was soundly thwacked with his HPV mandate. Forces within the general public were on to him and managed to overturn this highly questionable mandate. Ties to Merck and Big Pharma were found to be had with one of Perry’s political colleagues before Perry suddenly jumped on the HPV vaccine bandwagon.

    HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer. There are many viral strains which can impact a woman’s uterus and, if left in a perpetually unhealthy state, ‘contribute’ to ovarian cancer. The strains included in this study, were STRAINS FOUND IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES – NOT THE UNITED STATES!

    Dr. Tenpenny has studied this HPV vaccine in more depth than anyone else I’ve uncovered in my own research.

    Do your homework, folks (or anyone here believing the marketing crud with this vaccine). That old saying my Dad used to say to me, “This world is not as it seems.” He had that right. And all is certainly ‘not as it seems,’ with these MARKETING PLOYS re: vaccines, most especially THIS one.

  18. Guess I’d better put this here under comments, as well, with reference to the above:

    Please share this article with others.

    Permission is granted to reprint this article in its entirety, for any non-commercial purpose, as long as full credit is given to the author (Mike Adams) and a clearly visible clickable link is placed back to this URL at You may also freely quote from this article with proper citation.

    Sources CitedHiFi DNA Tech files lawsuit against FDA
    Reclassification Petition – Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection Device (K063649 )…

    FDA Approves Expanded Use of HPV Test…

    VRBPAC Background Document, Gardasil™ HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine, May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting…

    Effect of Human Papillomavirus 16/18 L1 Viruslike Particle Vaccine Among Young Women With Preexisting Infection.

    Journal of the American Medical Association, August, 2007

  19. White Rose on December 12, 2013 at 7:38 am said:

    Vaccine Trust has been lost . We are on the cusp of the “Vaccine spring” .That is why Larry & Rebecca are here . A couple of pro-vaccine mercenaries . But its sad to see them fighting for a lost cause .

    Vaccines cause Autism , on an industrial scale . There will be a reckoning for the vaccine holocaust .
    There will be trials along the lines of Nuremberg . Be careful you guys , that you don’t get caught up in that . Killing and maiming people’s babies as part of some sort of CULL will NEVER be tolerated .
    The size of this Hg-enocide is so large , I am sure it is beyond all our comprehension , this is the largest medical disaster of all time – this one is off the scale . This is a medial tsunami holocaust .

    Larry , you , like all your ilk , use the word “conspiracy” to try to invalidate all our arguments .
    Well pick the conspiracy out of sv40 , the Maurice Hilleman recording , and Vioxx and now Gardasil (a vaccine which I predict today that will ultimately be withdrawn in huge controversy – Gardasil has failed already but Muck just wont give it up – furthermore Gardasil , through its obvious carnage , will likely be the reason for the “vaccine spring” that I talk of .

    FarceBook has tried & failed to censor us and to close us down . But FB has given that idea up now, such is the strength and depth of our anger , we are at least 200,000 strong on there , (parents who say vaccines cause autism , and who say vaccines are a fraud) . The BBC is constantly censoring all vaccine news with a 100% news blackout and the same seems to be occurring across the Western world , media censorship , media blackout , so what exactly are we looking at here . Well whatever it is , I am sure Larry \ Rebecca that you are in their “sights” too .

  20. @White Rose – I use the word “conspiracy” because that is exactly what you claim is occurring…that millions of people around the world, governments, corporations, researchers, educators, doctors, nurses, etc. etc. etc. are all involved in some gigantic cover-up.

    I would love to know exactly how you think that works?

  21. Doug Troutman on December 14, 2013 at 5:53 pm said:

    One should know there is something wrong when the producer’s of a product do not want any liability for it. One should know there is something wrong when the government sets a system that has a 3 year statute of limitations and it starts running from the first sympton of a disorder. The whole thing is rigged up so the corporations make all the money and the injured get screwed. I don’t call this conspiracy this is collusion. We had no idea that this is how things were rigged up when my children were vaccinated. Most of the population is not aware how the system is operated. There is no informed consent. Yes, there a giant cover up run by the government and the drug companies.

    • You’re absolutely right Doug. It’s unbelievable to read about any company who seeks freedom from liability for the products they produce.

      And the scarier issue for sure, is the state of corruption in any country who’s judicial system actually allows them to have it.

  22. White Rose on December 16, 2013 at 11:02 pm said:

    I was shocked & dismayed to read of the decision by the out going NY mayor (is he stupid or a scoundrel ?) to mandate flu vaccines for all children 0-6 in New York City .
    This is murder ! This is sickening ! This is bio terrorism of the highest order .We have to have a show of force – we have to resist these vacci-nazi’s .Time is running out . The situation is becoming ever more desperate – Hg-enocide . Themiserol is the ZyklonB of our time. And Murck , the IG farben equivalent.
    Please someone tell me this ruling can be overturned ? Please tell me it will be resisted ?

    And that wicked cruel man Offit and his book “how the anti vaccine movement threaten’s us all”.
    Yes Paul , we are threatening all of your kind , with imprisonment , with the stripping of your entire ill gotten wealth , with the complete destruction of your reputation .

    I truly am very afraid for all out futures now . Their plans grow ever more ambitious & despicable .
    For those silly deluded people who still think this is simply about $$ , god bless you and watch over you .
    Ask yourselves what kind of business model would take such huge risks with its own very existence .
    This is no legitimate business . This is a de-population program .
    How is it our resistance is little more than a small candle of light against a vast evil darkness ?
    I just don’t understand the apathy .Yes the infiltration is being managed very well but that shouldn’t be enough to stop us storming over the top to swamp their barricades .

  23. I had the posters for both studies; I linked to the press release because it was what I had available online. Both show pretty clearly that as long as you can measure it the immune response is maintained (at least six years, and up to eight years.) That’s important because, as Dr. Schaffner said in my story, that would seem to indicate that the immunity will last many, many years. It would be unlikely to just suddenly drop off. Also, I was very careful with my wording in that paragraph of my story: ““is effective up to 6 years following vaccination with a trend of continuing protection up to 8 years following vaccination.”

    There’s just no evidence that this vaccine suddenly stops working at five years, which is the impression that Dr. Harper and Katie Couric gave.

    • Matt, the press release was not all that was available online. You had internet access to abstracts for both studies, including the abstract for Kjær et al. on display here. From what I can see, the verbatim quote you attributed to Kjær et al. in your article is neither in the abstract of the study nor is it attributed to the study by the Sanofi Pasteur MSD press release you linked to. From what I can find online, the quote appeared to come from a presentation given last month in India by a Dr. Shyam Kukreja, who was not involved in the study.

      Dr. Kukreja’s quote about Kjær et al. reads in full:

      “Sufficient follow-up time has been accrued to definitively conclude the qHPV vaccine is effective up to 6 years following vaccination with a trend of continuing protection up to 8 years following vaccination.” (slide 40)‎

      But in the results section of Kjær et al.’s abstract, the following is stated:

      “However, the follow-up time in person-years is insufficient to make a definitive statement about the effectiveness of the qHPV vaccine for the current time period.”

      So while Dr. Kukreja claims Kjær et al. made a definitive statement about the effectiveness of the vaccine, Kjær et al. specifically states that the follow-up time is insufficient to make a definitive statement about the effectiveness of the vaccine for the time period studied. Also, Dr. Kukreja’s presentation said the study showed a trend of protection up to eight years of follow-up, but the Kjær et al. abstract only discussed results from seven years of follow-up time. Apparently, you’ve taken part of Dr. Kukreja’s quote misrepresenting the study – without attribution to Dr. Kukreja – and falsely attributed it to the study itself in your article while linking to a drug company press release that also misrepresents the study.

      • Again, Jake. I had the presented posters, which are better than the abstracts. As anyone who has ever covered a scientific meeting knows, the presented data are often updated from that in the abstract. So I was using more current data. It’s incorrect to keep insisting that I was wrong or that I have not responded to you.

        • Matthew, you cited a Sanofi Pasteur MSD press release which claimed a trial showed Gardasil conferred protection two years longer than what the trial actually purported to show. I never said you have not responded to me; from my latest article, I hyperlink back to this post where you have responded in a comment once already.

          Speaking of my latest article and the need for corrections, your contributor Emily Willingham has conflated two entirely different analyses by CDC – one showing an association with autism and one not showing an association – writing about the former as if it were the latter. She still refuses to correct her piece. Are you going to do anything about that?

  24. From what I can find online, the quote appeared to come from a presentation given last month in India by a Dr. Shyam Kukreja, who was not involved in the study.

    Jake, given that Kukreja cites Kjær et al., has it occurred to you that the text might have been in the poster itself?

    • Yes, but there is no copy of the poster anywhere online.

      • Yes, but there is no copy of the poster anywhere online.

        And therefore the source of the quote must be Kukreja? Mr. Herper states that he “had the posters for both studies”; one would hope that he would return to clarify the matter, but it’s not as though Dr. Kjær’s E-mail address is difficult to ascertain.

        • No, and Matthew Herper has said on Twitter that the source of the quote came from the poster. However, that’s not clear in Herper’s Forbes article.

          • However, that’s not clear in Herper’s Forbes article.

            But that has no bearing on the subsequent assertion that “apparently, you’ve taken part of Dr. Kukreja’s quote misrepresenting the study – without attribution to Dr. Kukreja – and falsely attributed it to the study itself.” Apparent to whom?

  25. “….There’s just no evidence that this vaccine suddenly stops working at five years, which is the impression that Dr. Harper and Katie Couric gave….”

    As far as I can tell , there is no real scientific evidence to show that this vaccine works at. Which is opposite to the impression that the medical community has been giving to the public.

    As a journalist who supposedly specializes in science and medicine… shouldn’t be just a little more concerned with that ???

  26. As far as I can tell , there is no real scientific evidence to show that this vaccine works at [all].

    Seems like a strong case for HPV-16, which is the highest-prevalence oncogenic strain.

    • If you throw enough money at the right \statistician, they’ll make the numbers say whatever you want them to say.

      What I said, is there is no REAL scientific evidence to show that this vaccine works. And you’ve produced nothing so far to change my opinion on that.

      • If immunity from the vaccine does not last long enough to prevent cervical cancer cases as Dr. Harper warns, then the severe and lethal adverse events following vaccination may well be the only significant impact this vaccine has on public health.

      • What I said, is there is no REAL scientific evidence to show that this vaccine works. And you’ve produced nothing so far to change my opinion on that.

        Perhaps you’d like to define your terms, in that case.

        • I already did.

          If you need me to explain what real scientific evidence looks like, then is argument is already over.

          • I already did.

            Not that I’ve noticed. Do you mean invoking the ‘term’ “\statistician”? You do know what Jake is getting a Ph.D. in, right?

            If you need me to explain what real scientific evidence looks like, then is argument is already over.

            I “need” to to explain what you think “real scientific evidence looks like.” If you have some sort of gripe with the very notion of statistics, essentially the entire study of the natural world is off-limits to you.

            • I have nothing against statistics, or anyone who chooses to study it. I have trouble with people who think statistics can be presented as scientific proof of vaccine efficacy. Because they can’t .

              For what it’s worth , you don’t “need” to explain anything to me. I know vaccines have never prevented a disease of any kind, and I’m not too worried if you agree with me or not.

              But if you’re honestly interested in changing my mind, you’re going to have to do it with something other than statistics.

  27. Did some more research and ran across an interesting paper by Janine Roberts called:


    The paper itself is very informative and provides more information than I’ve read elsewhere but I find particular interesting this:

    MAKING A VACCINE FOR AN ABSENT VIRUS. Why is HPV virus thought to cause this cancer? It seems only because Harald zur Hausen found certain genetic codes in or near the cervical cancer cells; for, in about 90% of cases, ‘DNA and transcripts of specific HPV types are regularly detected in biopsies from cervical cancer and in its precursor lesions.’ [2]

    He presumed these codes were from proteins that were unique to this
    virus. We have to say, “presumed,” as most viruses have not yet been studied
    so logically it is impossible for us to be certain that a protein is unique
    to any virus. Also, finding them in these cancer cells does not mean that
    they cause the cancers. The cells may produce them for other purposes.

    Thus, because this virus cannot be grown, the vaccine is instead based on
    ‘Virus-Like Particles;’ made from synthetic versions of proteins said to be
    parts of HPV. In reality, human skin cells make these proteins – but these
    same cells have not confirmed their ability to make HPV itself by doing so
    in the laboratory. This makes it near impossible to prove that these
    proteins come from this virus.

    The ‘P’ of HPV stands for papillomavirus. This is described as containing
    a double strand of circular DNA 8 kb long. So far some seventy different
    proteins thought to come from variants of this virus have been found in
    human tissues, and some 20 in animals. It seems that they are “highly host
    specific” meaning that they do not move between animal species.

    Where are the genetic codes identified as papillomavirus found? Zur
    Hausen did not find them in viruses produced in cell cultures, not in
    isolated viruses, but in the human genome, the most protected part of our
    cells.[3] He did not find there the whole code of his virus, but only part
    of the code. He postulated from this that the virus must exist and must have
    transported this code to our cell. But it is hard to distinguish these
    sequences from our normal DNA, as they seem to be in nearly all of us.

    PCR tests suggest nearly 80% of healthy human adults in the USA have
    these proteins, meaning their cells make them, but far less than 1% of women
    get cervical cancer, suggesting the proteins normally do not cause cancer.
    Furthermore, an antibody test for the virus has also proved difficult to
    develop as ‘antibodies to early HPV proteins have been detected in patients
    with HPV-associated diseases as well as in healthy individuals.’ [4]

    So, why were these proteins linked to the cancer? Some HPV scientists say
    these proteins might affect a normal protein found in cells called p53 that
    helps protect us from cancers. “The E6 protein (one thought to come from a
    certain form of HPV) binds to p53 and this interaction results in a decrease
    in the half-life of p53 within cells,” [5] but this is very much an argument
    from association. There seems to be less p53 in circumstances where this
    protein is present. This does not prove that one causes the other.

    These proteins were presumed pathogenic after an experiment in which
    these proteins (not the virus) ‘were transiently transfected into HeLa
    Cells’. The cells that died after this were counted. Their death rate went
    up by ‘about 5%.’[6] HeLa cells are malignant human cervical cancer cells.
    If they died after these proteins were added, surely this might indicate why
    our cells make these proteins when threatened by cervical cancer – it seems
    far more likely that they do so to protect us by destroying cancer cells,
    not to cause them!

    Many retroviruses are similarly reported to have strong anti-tumour
    effects. It has been suggested that cells use retroviral particles to
    transport genetic codes that the damaged cells can use to repair themselves
    – or to induce apoptosis, natural death, in the damaged cells as is
    suggested by this HeLa experiment.

    The question is then, why do our cells make the “HPV” proteins? Why do
    nearly 80% of adult western females have them without getting cancers? ‘By
    age 50, approximately 80% of U.S. women have or have had a genital HPV
    infection.’ [7] So why do most of us have these proteins – when nearly all
    of us never get cervical cancer.

    It seems that the entire focus of research up until now has been on
    discovering if these proteins might cause diseases – not on discovering if
    they might be valuable to us in some way – such as protecting women from
    cervical cancer.

    ******If this is so, then there is utterly counterproductive to take a vaccine
    aimed at making our bodies produce antibodies against these proteins, for if
    this were achieved, it would create an autoimmune disease – it would make
    the body attack itself.*****

    What if this is what’s happening to the people who have been killed or damaged by this drug? The body is attacking itself in self defense. Since it isn’t a real virus but a synthetic construct, the body is defending itself from an invader. Also, nominating Harald zur Hausen for a Noble prize and making sure he wins would only validate the rouse that a virus actually exists.

    Just some thoughts. Read the entire chapter. Also, Roberts has an article on:How Vaccines Are Made:….

    After I typed this post I did a quick search and ran across this:
    HPV Virus Infects the Nobel Prize Committee?… and ran across this:

    A pharmaceutical representative from AstraZeneca sits on a board which votes on Nobel Prize candidates in medicine. That board voted for Dr. Hauser because of his discovery that the human papilloma virus causes cervical cancer. In turn, AstraZeneca gave several million dollars to Nobel-affiliated corporations to spread the word about “medical breakthroughs.” Just by coincidence, the vaccine patents against the human papilloma virus are owned by AstraZeneca.

    Maybe a few positive words from the Nobel committee might be just enough to make some parents ignore all those reports about bad reactions, including death from the Gardasil vaccine.

    • The cells may produce them for other purposes.

      Yay, it’s Geert Hamer time.

      • Or:
        Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The “Viral Fraud”

        • Jake, given that you did not see fit to pass through my previous reply to Rhonda regarding Hamer, I was wondering whether you might state whether you concur with her endorsement of Lanka, who frankly states in the link that Rhonda provided that there is “no such thing as HPV at all” and that “other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous — in fact do not exist at all.”

          • I am not going to be drawn into an argument you are having with another reader, but I will say that any insulting comments you submit like your previous reply to Rhonda will not be posted.

            • I will say that any insulting comments you submit like your previous reply to Rhonda will not be posted.

              I believe that my actual insults were directed at Hamer. Certainly, the observation that GNM necessitates the proposition that bacteria are as much a fiction as viruses is not in dispute, nor is his blaming his wife for her own cancer death. I didn’t even mention his claim that Iwan Götz is the “chief rabbi” of Israel and the predictable conspiracy theory. I didn’t link to this. I didn’t provide photos of Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert’s eaten-through chest wall.

              But I was “insulting to” Rhonda, who immediately demonstrated not just satisfaction with but promotion of this business operation. And I’m on the wrong side of a public-health professional. Check. Are you willing to publicly clarify whether referring to Hulda Clark as a fraud would also be unacceptable in your perception?

  28. Pingback: Forbes' Emily Willingham Pretends CDC Study Results Don't Exist

  29. Pingback: Emily Willingham: Forbes' Formerly Contributing "Contributor" | Autism Investigated

  30. Pingback: Gov. Pence - Opponent of Eli Lilly and HPV Vaccine Mandate - Autism Investigated

  31. Pingback: Corrupt Kaine Mandated STD Shot For 6th-Graders After Merck Investment - Autism Investigated

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation