So, here was the problem that they had. They have a vaccine that they have to show is going to prevent cancer, but the cancer isn’t going to hit you for 50 years, and it only is going to hit 2.3 hundred thousand people, so the only way you could see it is if you had a study involving millions and millions of people, and then you watched them for 50 years. Right? Am I right? Am I missing something? There’s no way to—So, what they said is “Well, we’re going to do something different, which is we think that cervical cancer is caused by these—There’s 200 varieties of HPV, 9 of them have been seen in tumors and all we’re going to do is we’re going to show that we can prevent those 9.” The National Institute of Cancer said, “That is an imperfect way of doing the study.”
I’ll just show you this. Hold on. We got this in a lawsuit. This is an internal document from Merck’s lawyers to their marketing department, and if you see what it says here, what they said is Gardasil is a surrogate endpoint. We can not show that we can prevent the cancer because that’s not going to happen for 50 years, and by the way, how sweet a deal is this for the Merck executives? Because none of them are going to be around in 50 years. I wish I had this kind of deal where I could say, “You drink this stuff, and in 50 years, you won’t die.” Who would buy that? Well, guess what? We’re all forced to. So, here’s what Merck’s lawyers told their marketing department: Many products are approved for surrogate end-points. That means you can prevent that HPV, that particular brand. A surrogate endpoint is a regulatory stand-in for the ultimate endpoint, which would be preventing cancer, based on the assumption that the drug that affects the surrogate endpoint will also affect the ultimate endpoint.
Often surrogate endpoints are risk factors for ultimate endpoints. Surrogate endpoints are used when the effects on ultimate endpoints have not been demonstrated. For these products, which is here, for these products the indication is the surrogate, not the ultimate endpoint. Promotion can not make any claim vis-à-vis the ultimate end point. Their lawyers told them, “You can not claim that this is going to prevent cancer”, but nevertheless, Merck says it’s going to end cancer in our lifetimes. These are recent studies that show only one-third of cervical cancers are even associated with HPV, so at best they can claim that one-third of those are going to be stopped. This is one-third. A lot of people believe that HPV—HPV has a lot of risk factors, smoking cigarettes, etc—and that the HPV may just be a free rider. In other words, an inflamed piece of tissue that colonizes. It’s not actually causing the cancer. Nobody knows.
There is an association between yellow fingers and lung cancer, right? If you cut off people’s yellow fingers, they’re still going to get the lung cancer. Okay, so now we don’t know whether it actually causes cancer so the deal’s looking really weak. Now, Gardasil says “Gardasil has not been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenic toxicity.” Okay, so this is a drug that they say cures cancer, but we have never tested it to see if it causes cancer. Now, this is the worst crime. This shows that during their clinical studies, when they looked at 20,000 women, some of those women had already been exposed to HPV, and they tested them before they got the shot and what they found was rather shocking, which is for those who had been previously exposed, who were seropositive, in other words, they had a blood level that showed that they had at some point in their life been exposed, it had a negative efficacy of 44.6%.
You guys know what a negative efficacy is? It means it causes cancer in those people. 44.6% if you’ve been exposed prior to getting the shot. So, everybody I know feels like “Well, at least I’ve never been exposed.” These are all studies that show you don’t have to have gotten the HPV in sexual intercourse in order to have it. In fact, for kids under 10 years old, 34% have been exposed to it, are seropositive. They got it in the birth canal. They got it from being handled by nurses or mothers who didn’t wash their hands. 34%. For those kids, these are below 10. They now have a 44.6% greater chance of getting cancer than if they never had the vaccine. When you get to older women, it goes up to 70%. For most women, this vaccine is more likely to give you cancer than to prevent it by any theory. Show your doctor that slide. You want to see the number of it? Ask him if he knows what negative efficacy is.
Okay, so look at this. This is what HPV rates look like prior to the introduction of the vaccine. They were dropping like stones because of pap smears. 85% drop in our country because of pap smears. Look at all of these countries, the drop in HPV prior to the introduction of the vaccine. Now look. This is in Australia. The HPV among 30-34 year olds went from 9.9 to 13, or 25-29 year olds, from 5.9 to 8. It’s going up a third. Look at this, and if you look at the year it starts to climb—This is the UK. It’s 2006. That’s the year they introduced the vaccine. Every place that they’ve mandated this vaccine, the cervical cancer rates have gone through the roof. This is in Sweden. Again, look at 2006. 2010, 11. That’s when they introduced the vaccine in Sweden. 2011 it starts to shoot up. Norway, 2011, look. Look how clear that line is.
This is an interesting one. The red line is France. The French hate vaccines. I think they have only 40% of them have taken this vaccine, and the red line is the only place it continues to go down. In the other nations that are taking it, it’s going up. Sweden, again, doubled. Okay, so now this really sucks, this deal. Okay, I’m going to go through these really quickly. You weren’t supposed to get pregnant during this study, but a lot of women did and the miscarriage rate among women who did was double the background rate. The birth defects was through the roof. Five babies—Look at the reproductive disorders. 10.9%, that’s 5 times the background rate. Now, if you were to go watch CNN, and they’ll tell you in 2006, the fertility rates for American women have dropped like a stone. I think 12 or 13%. The biggest drop in fertility in history.
They have experts. Every couple of weeks, a new study will come out saying it’s worse and worse. People aren’t having babies anymore. Women aren’t having babies. They have people on CNN saying, “Well, we think it’s cell phones, or social media. Girls aren’t interested in sex anymore. They’re on the social media.” Look at the clinical studies. Clinical studies show that if you give this vaccine to girls, that the infertility rates are going to quintuple, and then they give it population wide. What do you think is going to happen? The other thing is they say the suicide rate for girls—The suicide rate in this study was enormous. Nine of the girls in both those columns died, and a lot of them died—Some of them suicidal. A lot of them died in accidents, which happens to people who are extremely depressed and distracted.
Yale has done a study that shows vaccines are linked directly to depression, and there’s a lot of animal studies that show that including this brilliant one about Gardasil, about the Gardasil adjuvant by Luján, who did it in sheep and it sent the sheep into—basically made them suicidal. So, the suicide rates now in girls have shot up more than anytime in history. They haven’t caught boys but they’re approaching the rate of boy suicide. Again, it started in 2006 and it’s like a red line. Everybody goes on CNN and says, “Why are these girls killing themselves?” Again, look at this clinical study when in 2006 we started giving mass population application of this drug and we knew it would cause people to kill themselves and get terribly depressed. The background rate, the deaths, and again, a lot of these deaths were accident deaths and suicide deaths. The background death rate is 4.37, the death rate in the clinical trial is 8.5. Double. The death risk for this vaccine is 37 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.