Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

What Is Really in Childhood Vaccines

Lies are Unbekoming | June 23, 2026

Forty-Three of Forty-Four

Lead was identified in five of the vaccines: Typhim Vi, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, and Gardasil. Tungsten appeared in eight more, distributed across products from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, and Novartis. Twenty-five of the forty-four samples contained stainless steel. Across the full set, the elemental analysis cataloged bismuth, gold, silver, platinum, cerium, zirconium, hafnium, antimony, strontium, barium, copper, tin, and zinc in various alloy combinations. None of these materials appeared on any package insert. None had a declared role in the vaccines’ formulation.

The work was published in 2017 by Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, materials scientists at the Italian National Council of Research. They obtained the vaccines from pharmacies in Italy and France. The manufacturers included Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, and Merck. They examined a twenty-microliter drop of each under a Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope. They identified the elemental composition of every particle they found using X-ray spectroscopy. They photographed each contaminant and compiled the catalog.¹

Forty-three of the forty-four vaccines were for human use. One was for cats. That single sample, Feligen CRP manufactured by Virbac, contained none of the heavy metals or industrial alloys cataloged in the human samples. The authors classified it as free from inorganic contamination.

The contamination is consistent across manufacturers, batches, countries, and years. The veterinary production line, examined by the same instruments at the same resolution, produced a clean vial. The human production lines did not.

This is not an argument about disease causation. It is not a contested mechanism. It is materials science applied to a drop of liquid pulled from a syringe. The instruments resolved what was there. None of it should have been in an injectable medical product. The system that produces and regulates these products has not addressed what the instruments showed.

One Particle in Agrippal

Figure 6 of the paper shows a single object, photographed at high magnification inside a drop of Agrippal S1, batch 147302A. This was Novartis’s flu vaccine for the 2014-2015 season. The object is a few microns across. It is wrapped in a darker, less atomically dense outline that Gatti and Montanari identify as organic material, a protein layer adhering to the particle’s surface. The metallic core, brighter under the backscattered-electron detector, registered four elements on the X-ray spectrum: cerium, iron, titanium, nickel.¹

Cerium is a rare earth metal. It has industrial applications in catalytic converters and glass polishing compounds. It has no medical use. It is not a declared ingredient in any flu vaccine. The four-element combination Gatti and Montanari documented does not match any recognized industrial alloy and appears in no materials engineering handbook. The authors describe it as the kind of debris produced when industrial waste is incinerated.

The protein layer around the metal was visible in the photograph. Within seconds of a metallic particle entering a protein-rich solution, the body’s serum proteins bind to the particle’s surface. The composite is no longer simply a foreign metal. It is a hybrid object: metal core, biological coat.

That vial was administered. So were the others in batch 147302A. So were the rest of the production batches Novartis manufactured that flu season. The doses are no longer in the pharmacy. They are no longer in any database. They are in people. Whoever received that batch received some quantity of cerium-iron-titanium-nickel debris, wrapped in their own unfolded proteins, deposited into deltoid muscle, and from there carried wherever the lymphatics and the blood took it.

The vial contained 429 additional detected particles in the same twenty-microliter drop.

The Pattern Across the Catalog

The cerium particle in Agrippal is one finding among thousands. The particle counts vary by orders of magnitude across the forty-four vaccines tested. The anti-tetanus products produced the lowest counts: two particles in one Anatetall sample, four in Vivotif. The childhood vaccines produced the highest. Varilrix returned 2,723 particles per twenty-microliter drop. Infanrix hexa returned 1,821. Cervarix returned 1,569. Fluarix returned 1,317. These are counts per twenty microliters. A standard injection is half a milliliter, or twenty-five drops. The arithmetic is straightforward.¹

The composition is more difficult to absorb than the counts.

The alloy combinations Gatti and Montanari cataloged include gold-copper-zinc in Repevax, platinum-silver-bismuth-iron-chromium in M-M-R vaxPro, zirconium-aluminum-hafnium compounds in Vivotif, and the cerium-iron-titanium-nickel particle in Agrippal. The paper notes that these combinations “have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt.”

Three of the Meningitec batches in the table carry an additional notation: sequestered by Procura della Repubblica. Italian prosecutors had seized those batches before Gatti and Montanari obtained access. The samples were already evidence in a criminal investigation. The contamination Gatti and Montanari documented was present in the seized batches as well as the over-the-counter samples. Whatever the prosecutors were investigating, the physical evidence cooperated.

The pattern does not isolate to any single manufacturer or batch. It crosses Italian batches and French batches. It crosses production dates from 2004 to 2017. The pattern is structural to the industry, not anomalous to any one production run.

Feligen contained 92 particles in its twenty-microliter drop, but the elemental analysis identified only calcium and silicon-aluminum. This is the kind of low-toxicity material that could derive from saline or environmental dust. It did not contain the tungsten, lead, stainless steel, or rare earth metal compounds cataloged in the human samples. The veterinary production line, examined by the same instruments at the same resolution, produced a vial without industrial debris. The human production lines did not.

What the Instruments Show, and Why No One Looked

The instruments Gatti and Montanari used are not exotic. A Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope resolves features at the nanometer scale and accommodates wet or oily samples without the artifacts conventional electron microscopy introduces. The X-ray microprobe attached to it (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, or EDS) identifies the elemental composition of any particle the microscope can see. The combination produces two outputs for each foreign body: a photograph at high magnification and a spectrum showing which elements are present.¹

Sample preparation is routine. Twenty microliters of vaccine are released onto a 25-millimeter cellulose filter inside a clean cabinet. The filter is then dried, mounted on a carbon-adhesive disc, and placed into the microscope chamber. Observations are made under low vacuum at 10 to 30 kilovolts. The microscope’s two sensors distinguish organic from inorganic material by atomic density: metal cores appear bright, protein coatings appear dim. The EDS identifies what each bright region contains.

Any contract laboratory with the relevant instruments could replicate the protocol in an afternoon. The equipment cost is in the range of half a million dollars, a budget category that does not appear on any pharmaceutical manufacturer’s annual report under “material constraints.” Most major manufacturers already own instruments of this class for other purposes.

What pharmaceutical quality control for injectables actually examines is something different. Sterility testing checks for viable microorganisms. Endotoxin testing checks for bacterial cell wall fragments capable of producing fever. Potency assays confirm the declared active ingredient is present at the declared concentration. Visible particulate inspection involves a trained human holding the vial to a light and looking. Visible inspection cannot resolve particles below approximately fifty microns. Most of what Gatti and Montanari documented falls below that threshold.

The contamination went undocumented for a century because the question was not asked. The instruments existed. The samples were on the pharmacy shelf. The technique was routine in adjacent fields like materials science, semiconductor manufacturing, forensic analysis, and environmental toxicology. It had simply never been applied to vaccines. The first systematic survey produced the catalog above.

What Foreign Bodies Do in Tissue

A particle of cerium-iron-titanium-nickel is not a molecule. It is a crystal. Once injected into muscle, it does not dissolve or biodegrade in any meaningful timeframe. The body has no enzymatic machinery for breaking down rare earth metal alloys. There is no biochemical process that handles them.

The first event after injection is the protein corona. The surfaces of metallic particles bind serum proteins on contact. The proteins do not adhere in their natural folded configuration. The contact with the metal surface distorts them, exposing parts of the molecule that would normally remain tucked inside. The composite that results is a metal core wrapped in distorted protein. It is recognizable to the body’s repair networks as a problem but is not removable, because the metal at the center cannot be processed.

The body responds to the composite the way it responds to any persistent tissue injury. Inflammation builds at the site and does not resolve, because the source of the injury cannot be removed.

In the establishment’s framework, this is what gets labeled an autoimmune effect, with the body said to be “attacking itself.” Gatti and Montanari, working within that framework, note that the protein-corona composite is “capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way.”¹ The accurate description does not require any framework about systems attacking themselves. The body is responding to documented tissue injury caused by an inserted foreign object it cannot remove. The inflammation is the response, not the disease. The damage is the foreign body’s biopersistence.

The acute response can be cleared if the irritant can be cleared. A splinter or a bee sting resolves once the offending material is processed. A foreign body that cannot be broken down provokes inflammation that does not resolve. Granulomas form at the injection site. Some particles remain there. Others travel. Gatti and Montanari note that blood circulation can carry them anywhere, “including the microbiota, in a fair quantity,” and that particles of the size observed in the vaccines can enter cell nuclei.¹

Charles Richet documented the underlying sensitization mechanism in 1901. Injection of foreign protein into an animal produced a measurable response. On second exposure, the response was more severe. On third exposure, more severe still. Richet named the phenomenon anaphylaxis and received the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the work.² The finding has not been refuted. In clinical medicine it has been displaced. The route of administration is no longer treated as a primary variable, despite Richet’s demonstration that it is the only variable that matters. Foreign proteins encountered through digestion are processed and do not sensitize. Foreign proteins encountered through injection sensitize predictably.

Gatti and Montanari supply the physical substrate Richet’s mechanism predicted. The “foreign protein” in a contemporary injection is not a single contaminant in a controlled formulation. It is a protein corona: the recipient’s own proteins, unfolded and presented in unfamiliar configuration on the surface of a tungsten particle, a lead particle, or a stainless steel fragment. The sensitization mechanism is identical to the one Richet described. The physical agent has now been photographed.

On “Trace Amounts”

The standard defense of contamination in injectable products is that the quantities are below any toxicological threshold of concern. The defense does not survive examination.

Toxicological thresholds for these materials in injected products have not been established. Standard toxicology threshold work is conducted on oral or dermal exposure, with the intestinal lining and the skin filtering the dose. Injection bypasses these barriers. The pharmacokinetics of injected particulate metal is a separate body of work that, for the contaminants Gatti and Montanari documented, has not been performed.

Even if such thresholds existed, they would not apply to crystals. The relevant comparison for a soluble toxin is dose in micrograms per kilogram of body weight. The relevant comparison for a tungsten particle in muscle tissue is not. It is a foreign body. The mechanism of injury is not chemical toxicity at low concentration. It is the mechanical and inflammatory response at the site where the body cannot clear it. Threshold arguments built on solubility do not apply to objects.

For some of the elements cataloged, no threshold defense was ever available. Lead has no established safe exposure level in pediatric populations. The EPA, the CDC, and the AAP all state this. An argument that a small amount of lead in an injection is acceptable would require a separate regulatory framework specific to injected lead in children. No such framework has been published.

What the manufacturers have in place of threshold defense is the assertion that the contamination is not there. The Gatti and Montanari work establishes that assertion as false.

The HPV Cases

The paper’s discussion section opens with the HPV vaccines. Gardasil and Cervarix.

Cervarix contained 1,569 particles per twenty-microliter drop. The elemental analysis identified aluminum, silicon, magnesium, calcium, iron-chromium-nickel (stainless steel), zinc, copper-tin-lead bronze, and several additional combinations. Gardasil contained between 304 and 454 particles per drop, depending on the batch. The composition included calcium-aluminum-silicon, aluminum-copper-iron, lead, bismuth, titanium, and bismuth-barium-sulfur.¹ Both vaccines are administered to adolescents, predominantly girls and increasingly boys, between roughly ages eleven and fifteen, on the schedule recommended by national pediatric authorities and reinforced by school-entry requirements in many jurisdictions.

The adverse event patterns following HPV vaccination have been documented in the medical literature since shortly after global rollout. Brinth’s 2015 case series at Frederiksberg Hospital described fifty-three Danish girls presenting after Gardasil with severe headache, syncope, cognitive dysfunction, autonomic disturbance, episodic loss of consciousness, and impairment of gait.³ Kinoshita and colleagues at Shinshu University documented Japanese adolescent girls with peripheral sympathetic nerve dysfunction following Gardasil and Cervarix. Their symptoms included orthostatic intolerance, complex regional pain syndrome, severe headache, photophobia, cognitive impairment, and inability to maintain upright posture.⁴ Palmieri’s group at the University of Modena published a 2016 case series and literature review describing severe somatoform and dysautonomic syndromes after the same vaccines, including patients who had lost the ability to walk.⁵

The Japanese Ministry of Health suspended its proactive recommendation for HPV vaccination in 2013 following these cases. The Danish health authorities, after Brinth’s work, established specialty referral centers to handle girls presenting with the post-vaccination syndromes. The clinical labels the patients receive (POTS, CRPS, chronic fatigue syndrome, various dysautonomias) describe symptom clusters without explaining mechanism. They tell the patient she is sick. They do not tell her why.

Gatti and Montanari’s analysis supplies the missing piece. The Gardasil vials contained lead. The Cervarix vials contained stainless steel and copper-tin-lead bronze. The particles entered the deltoid. The particles do not biodegrade. The particles bind protein. The composite persists at the injection site or travels through circulation to lodge in distant tissue. The body responds to persistent tissue injury with sustained inflammation. Where the particles come to rest determines what the patient experiences. A particle lodging near the nerves that regulate heart rate and blood pressure produces orthostatic intolerance, the picture clinicians label POTS. A particle near a sensory nerve root produces regional pain syndromes. The clinical picture in any given patient maps to the anatomical distribution of damage.

This is not a single-source argument. The physical contamination has been documented by Gatti and Montanari. The sensitization produced by injected foreign protein was documented by Richet at the turn of the twentieth century and recognized in his 1913 Nobel Prize. The clinical syndromes following HPV vaccination are documented in patient registries across Denmark, Japan, and Italy. The lines converge on a single conclusion: injection of biopersistent foreign bodies into tissue causes sustained inflammatory injury, and the clinical picture depends on where the foreign bodies travel.

The girls did not get sick from a virus. They got sick from what was in the vial.

What “Unintentional” Requires

In the conclusion of their paper, Gatti and Montanari propose that the contamination is unintentional. “Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers.”¹ They are scientists. They stayed within what their instruments could establish. They did not assert intent they could not prove from a microscope image.

The hypothesis deserves examination. It requires us to believe specific things.

It requires that GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, and Merck (corporations with annual revenues in the tens of billions of dollars, employing thousands of quality control personnel, with full access to the same materials science instruments Gatti and Montanari used) have not, as a matter of routine practice, examined their own injectable products at the resolution where contamination would be visible. The omission would persist despite the instruments being standard equipment in their other research operations. It would persist despite the cost of physical-evidence quality control being a rounding error against the revenue these products generate. It would persist despite the documented sequestration of Pfizer Meningitec batches by Italian prosecutors having already established that the contamination question was live.

It requires accepting that the regulatory bodies (the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, the various national medicines agencies) have not required physical contamination testing of injectable products at any resolution finer than visible particulate inspection. This is documented. The regulations require sterility testing, endotoxin testing, and visual examination. They do not require electron microscopy. They do not require X-ray spectroscopy. They do not require any examination capable of detecting tungsten, lead, or rare earth metal debris below the threshold of unaided human vision. Particles below approximately fifty microns fall below regulatory scrutiny. Most of what Gatti and Montanari documented falls below that threshold.

It requires accepting that the contamination has continued, in the same products from the same manufacturers, since the paper’s publication in 2017. The studies to determine where the particles travel after injection, what damage they cause over what timescale, and what cumulative effect they have on the recipient population have not been commissioned. The contamination has not been investigated by the producers. It has not been addressed by the regulators. It has not been examined in any follow-up by the same teams that produced the original work. Subsequent reporting indicates that the authors have themselves been the subject of administrative action by Italian authorities in the years since publication. The findings have not been refuted.

“Unintentional” is a word that requires consequent action to mean anything. An accidental fire that is left to burn ceases to be an accident. A contamination problem identified, published in peer-reviewed literature, and left unaddressed for nine years is no longer a quality control oversight. It is a settled equilibrium between what the manufacturers produce and what the regulators require.

The veterinary production line is clean. Feligen contains no industrial debris because Virbac’s manufacturing process for animal vaccines produces vials without it. The capability exists. The standard exists. It has been demonstrated by an adjacent product line owned by the same broad industry.

Whatever word is appropriate for the difference between the line that produces a clean injection for a cat and the lines that produce contaminated injections for children, “unintentional” is not it.

After 2017

The Gatti and Montanari paper was published before the rollout of the mRNA products. The contamination they documented was in conventional vaccines, manufactured by conventional methods. The pharmaceutical manufacturing system they examined was the system in place before 2020.

Subsequent work on the mRNA products has documented the same baseline. Sasha Latypova’s manufacturing analysis identifies undeclared contaminants in injected materials and regulatory frameworks that did not require the testing that would have caught them. What Gatti and Montanari cataloged in 2017 continues in new products under new labels. The 2017 findings and the post-2021 findings are not separate stories. They are the same story, told in different chemistries by an industry whose quality control standards are set by what the regulators require rather than what the instruments can detect.

The Particle Is in Someone

The cerium-iron-titanium-nickel particle photographed in Agrippal batch 147302A is in someone now.

We do not know whose arm received the dose. We do not know whether the particle remained at the injection site, traveled through lymph to regional nodes, entered circulation, or lodged in muscle, spleen, liver, brain, or microbiota. We do not know what damage it has done or is doing. The studies to determine these things have not been performed. They will not be commissioned by the entity that produced the vial.

The particle is a few microns across. It is composed of four elements, only some of which appear in any technical catalog of recognized industrial alloys. It is wrapped in protein. The protein was the recipient’s own, bound on contact, unfolded by the binding, presented in a configuration the body has no template for. The composite is biopersistent. It does not biodegrade. The response to it is the one Richet documented in 1901 and was awarded the Nobel for in 1913.

The vial it came from was administered in the 2014-2015 flu season. The batches manufactured this year are being administered now. The instruments Gatti and Montanari used are still available. The procedure they described is still routine. The contamination they documented has not been investigated by the producers, named by the regulators, or addressed in any meaningful way.

The particle is in someone now. The vial it came from is gone. The vials in production this week contain debris of similar composition in similar quantities, headed for arms that have not yet been chosen.

If You Were Six

Some scientists looked at the shots that doctors give to children. They looked very carefully, using a special microscope strong enough to see things much smaller than a speck of dust.

They found tiny pieces of metal in the liquid inside the shots. Some of the pieces were lead. Some were stainless steel. Some were other metals that nobody had told anyone were in the bottles. The pieces were too small for your eyes to see. You would need the special microscope to find them.

The scientists looked at forty-four different shots. Forty-three of them had the metal pieces inside. One shot did not. That clean shot was the one made for cats.

Once a tiny piece of metal goes into your arm, your body cannot get rid of it. Your body knows how to clean up many things, like old skin or the food you eat or the cut on your finger from yesterday. It does not know how to clean up metal. So the metal stays. It sits where it landed in your arm. Sometimes your blood carries it to other parts of your body.

When the body cannot clean something up, the place around it gets red and sore. If the metal does not leave, the redness does not leave either. Some of the children who got these shots got sick afterward and stayed sick for a long time. Some of them stopped being able to walk properly.

The companies that make the shots have special microscopes too. They could have looked inside their own bottles. They did not. The people whose job is to keep the shots safe never asked them to look. The cat company looked at the cat shots, and the cat shots are clean. The companies that make shots for children did not look, and the shots are not clean.

That is what the essay is about.

References

  1. Gatti AM, Montanari S. New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. 2017;4(1):7–14.
  2. Richet C. Anaphylaxis. Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1913. Nobelprize.org, The Nobel Foundation.
  3. Brinth L, Pors K, Theibel AC, Mehlsen J. Suspected side effects to the quadrivalent human papilloma vaccine. Danish Medical Journal. 2015;62(4):A5064.
  4. Kinoshita T, Abe RT, Hineno A, Tsunekawa K, Nakane S, Ikeda S. Peripheral sympathetic nerve dysfunction in adolescent Japanese girls following immunization with the human papillomavirus vaccine. Internal Medicine. 2014;53(19):2185–2200.
  5. Palmieri B, Poddighe D, Vadalà M, Laurino C, Carnovale C, Clementi E. Severe somatoform and dysautonomic syndromes after HPV vaccination: case series and review of literature. Immunologic Research. 2017;65(1):106–116.

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on What Is Really in Childhood Vaccines

Gardasil on Trial: Did Merck Mislead the Public on Cervical Cancer Prevention?

Top expert delivers a damning report accusing Merck of misleading the public about Gardasil’s ability to prevent cervical cancer

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | February 24, 2025

With the landmark trial against Merck adjourned until September 2025, new evidence suggests the vaccine manufacturer may have deliberately misrepresented the necessity of mass HPV vaccination.

This revelation comes from an expert report by Dr Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist renowned for his expertise in molecular diagnostics. His findings raise serious concerns about Gardasil’s efficacy and the motives behind its aggressive marketing.

A person standing in front of a computer Description automatically generated

Dr Sin Hang Lee, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, Connecticut

Does Gardasil Prevent Cervical Cancer?

Since its introduction in 2006, Gardasil has been marketed as a breakthrough in the fight against cervical cancer.

Yet, as Dr Lee bluntly states in his report, “There is no conclusive evidence that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the past 18 years.”

No randomised controlled trial (RCT)—the gold standard for assessing efficacy—has ever demonstrated that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer.

Instead, Merck relied on surrogate markers of pre-cancers, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) to claim effectiveness. This is a significantly lower evidentiary bar that was used to fast-track FDA approval.

The problem with this approach is well-documented. Many CIN2/3 lesions resolve naturally.

A Dutch study, for instance, tracked 114 women with CIN2/3 found that nearly two-thirds of cases regressed without intervention. Only one developed adenocarcinoma in situ (pre-cancer) and none progressed to cervical cancer.

Moreover, those lesions that don’t resolve naturally typically take years to progress, and they are usually detected through routine screening.

If CIN2/3 is an unreliable proxy for cancer, how can it serve as valid proof of Gardasil’s claimed efficacy at preventing cancer?

Are HPV Strains Merely Being Replaced?

Another major concern is “type replacement”—the possibility that suppressing certain HPV strains through vaccination leads to the rise of others.

For instance, a Finnish study found that while HPV strains 16 and 18 (targeted by the vaccine) decreased following vaccination, non-vaccine strains such as HPV 52 and 66 became more prevalent.

This raises an important question: While Gardasil may alter the landscape of HPV infections, does it actually reduce the overall risk of developing cervical cancer?

When Merck developed Gardasil 9 to target five additional HPV strains, a study involving 14,215 women found that those who received Gardasil 9 developed high-grade lesions at the same rate as those who received the original Gardasil (which only targeted four strains).

Despite the expanded coverage, the additional strains had no measurable impact on pre-cancers overall, adding to the uncertainty about whether these vaccines truly reduce cervical cancer incidence.

The Questionable Swedish and Scottish Studies

Two widely cited studies—from Sweden and Scotland—are often heralded as proof that Gardasil significantly reduces cervical cancer rates. However, Dr Lee highlights critical methodological flaws in his report.

  • Swedish study

The Swedish study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared cervical cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

However, Dr Lee points out that many participants (born between 1995 and 2007) were too young to develop cervical cancer during the study period (2006–2017).

Since cervical cancer takes decades to emerge, including these young women (ages 10–22)—who had zero cases—introduced a statistical bias that exaggerated the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Moreover, the study failed to account for the “healthy user effect,” where vaccinated individuals are more likely to engage in preventive health measures like regular screening, which independently reduces cancer risk.

As a result, attributing the decline in cancer cases solely to the vaccine is misleading.

  • Scottish study

A 2024 Scottish observational study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, had similar methodological issues, and was met with sensationalist media headlines: “No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women.”

However, Dr Lee argues this claim is deeply flawed. First, the women studied were simply too young for conclusions about long-term vaccine efficacy to be drawn.

Second, Scotland’s screening programme, which detects and treats precancerous lesions before they develop into cancer, changed its entry age in 2016 during the study period.

The age at which women were first invited for screening was raised from 20 to 25, meaning there was a 5-year gap in screening for younger women. As most cancers in women under 30 are diagnosed through screening, this change could explain any decline in cancer rates, rather than the vaccine itself.

And third, just like the Swedish study, the “healthy user effect” further confounds the results.

Despite being frequently cited as definitive proof of Gardasil’s effectiveness, these studies contain serious limitations that undermine their conclusions.

Cervical cancer screening saves lives

In developed nations, around 93% of initial HPV infections resolve without medical intervention. Cervical cancer is slow to develop, with an average onset age of 54, making long-term data essential for assessing Gardasil’s true impact.

What remains incontrovertible is the lifesaving role of cervical cancer screening.

Since the widespread adoption of Pap smears in the 1950s, cervical cancer incidence in the U.S. has plummeted—from 44 per 100,000 women in 1947 to just 8.8 per 100,000 by 1970.

This dramatic decline predates the introduction of HPV vaccination in 2006.

In Australia, deaths from cervical cancer fell significantly along with incidence following the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Programme, and remained steady despite mass HPV vaccination.

Source: https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/prevention-of-cervical-precancer-and-cancer/

Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1999:

  • “Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable.”
  • “The most important risk factor for developing cervical cancer… is the failure to receive regular screening with a Pap smear.”
  • “For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment.”

Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC

Unlike cervical cancer, which is preventable through screening and treatable with early intervention, Dr Lee asserts the harms linked to Gardasil – such as autoimmune disorders and neurological complications – are unpredictable, difficult to treat, and often irreversible.

Did Merck Misrepresent Its Vaccine?

At the core of this legal battle is a critical question: Did Merck mislead the public about Gardasil’s true value?

Despite its widespread use, Gardasil’s long-term efficacy remains unproven, while growing evidence links the vaccine to serious harms, including autoimmune disorders and neurological complications.

For decades, cervical cancer rates have declined due to improved screening—not mass vaccination. Yet Merck has aggressively marketed Gardasil as essential for cancer prevention, even in countries where cervical cancer is already rare.

Dr Lee’s report suggests Merck selectively presented data to manufacture a false sense of necessity—one that collapses under scrutiny.

As the trial resumes in September, one question remains: Did Merck knowingly misrepresent Gardasil’s safety and efficacy, prioritising profit over public health?

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Global PR Giant Launches Provocative HPV Vaccine Ads Targeting Gen Zers

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 7, 2023

A multinational public relations firm last week launched a provocative advertising campaign — under the slogan “HPV Fucks Everybody” — designed to persuade Gen Zers to get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

The PR firm, Publicis Groupe, launched the campaign in collaboration with the nonprofit Fuck Cancer. The campaign doesn’t name a specific HPV vaccine brand name. However, Merck’s Gardasil vaccine is the only HPV vaccine brand distributed in the U.S., and Merck is a client of Publicis Groupe.

When asked if Merck was funding the campaign, a spokesperson for Fuck Cancer told The Defender, “This campaign has no connection with Merck and is a collaboration between Publicis Health Media and Fuck Cancer (a non profit). Please note that we are promoting a vaccine that is safe and saves lives.”

There are currently 80 cases pending in federal court against Merck alleging Gardasil caused injuries and the federal Vaccine Court has paid out more than $70 million to people making claims regarding Gardasil.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), also a Publicis client, developed the HPV vaccine technology, which it licenses, in the U.S., exclusively to Merck.

In addition to Merck and the NIH, other Publicis Groupe clients include the World Economic Forum (WEF), pharmaceutical giants including Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma and several pharmacy chains that administer the HPV vaccines, including Walmart, Rite Aid and CVS Health (owners of Target pharmacies and clinics).

Campaign ‘uses sex to sell its case’

The new campaign targets young adults directly through a series of ads featuring “diverse, sexy images” and edgy music, accompanying the message that it doesn’t matter who you are, you are at risk because “HPV Fucks Everybody.”

Photos of a black couple, a white couple and a furry couple kissing, and a multiracial group of young people partying are featured on the website and will be featured in the ads.

The images are accompanied by lines like, “Stop the spread. Get the shot. Keep doing you,” according to “Pharma & Health Insider” — a PR site that publishes promotional stories with a news-like appearance.

HPV transmission is likely to occur via sex, the PR story said, so the campaign “uses sex to sell its case.”

“Targeting all 18–26-year-olds who are sexually active (or who want to be), the campaign behaves just like its audience: honest, bold and unbounded by tradition,” said Alison McConnell, chief marketing officer at Publicis Health Media — one of Publicis’ “solution hubs.”

Michelle Stiles, author of “One Idea To Rule Them All: Reverse Engineering American Propaganda,” told The Defender that campaigns run by elite global PR firms may appear absurd to a skeptical observer, but they have tremendous power to shape global public health agendas.

She said:

“The trendy and provocative messaging targeting sexually active youth for yet another vaccination campaign should hopefully be met with ample amounts of skepticism or outright laughter for those who paid attention during the previous rollout of the COVID-19 shots.

“Unfortunately, these million-dollar campaigns are extremely dangerous because they are so effective.”

Ben Mallory, executive vice president/creative director for Digitas Health, another Publicis subsidiary collaborating on the campaign, said the campaign is designed to inform young people that they will be infected with HPV, that such infection will be risky and that vaccination is the answer.

“For a generation that doesn’t discriminate, it’s important they realize that HPV doesn’t either,” he said. “That’s what the campaign communications [sic]: It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’re into, if you’re not vaccinated, you’re at risk.”

Trying to reach ‘largest and most influential generation’

The campaign will air 30-second and one-minute ads on 150 college campuses and in 150 malls in major markets, and also post on lifestyle websites like Thrillist, PopSugar, the dating site Grindr.

An audio campaign will follow, along with advertising in “points-of-care,” which can include clinics or pharmacies.

On the campaign’s website, people can also sign up to “get the shot” at major retail pharmacies including Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, Walmart, Target and Kroger — companies Publicis Groupe also represents.

McConnell, Publicis’ marketing director for the campaign, said they are trying to reach Gen Z because it is “the largest and most influential generation.”

That makes this campaign different from most previous HPV vaccination PR campaigns that targeted parents.

This shift in focus reflects recent shifts in direct advertising by Gardasil maker Merck.

Merck’s early ads targeted parents of adolescents, but in 2022 they shifted gears and started targeting parents of young children with ads like this one, which appeals to parents of the older elementary school children.

These ads focused on marketing the vaccine as “cancer prevention” rather than as acting on a sexually transmitted disease, a strategy the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promoted to encourage more young people to get vaccinated.

Last year, Merck expanded its advertising campaign to target adults through age 45, in commercials like this one, marketing the vaccine as protecting against a long list of cancers.

Merck has invested heavily in shaping the market since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug in 2006. In October, it announced that its 2023 third-quarter Gardasil sales grew 13% to $2.6 billion.

Fact-checking the campaign’s claims

The campaign sample ad and its website, which provide no citations, make many misleading or erroneous claims.

The campaign’s approach appears to be rooted in the “fear-based” or “fear-appealing” messaging designed to “nudge” people into getting vaccinated, commonly utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic and in global public health more generally.

According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. and the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners.

But the vast majority of HPV infections are cleared by the immune system and less than 10% of infections are linked to any clinical symptoms. Clinical symptoms can include a variety of warts and cervical dysplasia, which may be benign or precancerous.

Yet the campaign website claims, “HPV turns into cancer about 10% of the time,” a claim public health agencies don’t make.

There are over 200 strains of the HPV virus, a subset of which are deemed “high-risk.” HPV can cause genital warts and some strains have been associated with some types of cancer. However, HPV is not the sole risk factor for any cancer, and cancers associated with HPV can also sometimes develop without the presence of the virus.

Methods like regular pap screening are highly effective and have been found to reduce the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer among women by at least 80%.

But the sample ad on the site presents HPV as something always scary and dangerous.

It says:

“HPV Fucks Everybody. In fact, there are more than 14 million new HPV infections in the US each year, because HPV doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t care who you are, what you look like who you love or what you’re into. HPV will infect more than 85% of sexually active people of all races, ethnicities and genders. It can lead to genital warts, or worse, over ten types of cancer. So it doesn’t matter if your status is single, committed, or complicated. It doesn’t even matter if you’re not currently sexually active.”

The website also claims the HPV vaccine can prevent a whopping 33,700 types of HPV-related cancers. Even Gardasil 9’s package insert and the CDC website only indicate the HPV vaccine for some cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, penis, anus and back of the throat with the HPV virus.

The campaign also repeats Merck’s claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” and that the side effects are “mild.”

But a series of ongoing lawsuits against Merck allege the drugmaker fast-tracked Gardasil through the FDA’s approval process and deceptively conducted clinical trials to mask serious side effects and exaggerate the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Some of the signature impacts observed following HPV vaccination in thousands of adverse events reports worldwide include permanently disabling autoimmune and neurological conditions such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.

To date, there are no valid studies showing the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.

Finally, the campaign promises that getting vaccinated can “put an end to HPV. For you, for us, for them. For everyone.”

However, the Gardasil 9 vaccine is designed only to suppress nine of the over 200 strains of HPV, and recent research has shown that when the HPV vaccine suppresses certain types of “high-risk” HPV strains, those strains are replaced with other strains associated with some cancers.

While the World Health Organization has launched a global campaign to eradicate cervical cancer as a public health threat, it has not indicated a similar project for HPV.

Publicis is part of ‘the propaganda arm of the global elite’

The campaign is spearheaded by Publicis Health Media and Digitas Health, which are both part of Publicis, along with Fuck Cancer.

According to the campaign publicity, Publicis Health Media is particularly concerned with HPV because the company CEO Arthur Sadoun was diagnosed and treated for HPV-associated cancer.

Last year, the company published a holiday video where board chair Maurice Lévy and Sadoun were joined by actor Michael Douglas, who was diagnosed and treated with throat cancer a decade ago, to promote the HPV vaccine and the Publicis Groupe.

As part of its cancer marketing focus, Publicis Groupe launched its Working with Cancer initiative, at the WEF. In partnership with 30 of the largest global companies, including Pfizer, Sanofi, PepsiCola, Meta and others, the campaign seeks to “abolish the stigma and insecurity that exist for people with cancer in the workplace,” according to the campaign website.

During Super Bowl LVII in February, it ran a commercial about the campaign that won a Gold Lion from the Health & Wellness jury at the 2023 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in June.

Publicis Groupe is an ad holding company, which recently rebranded “for the connected age” itself as a “platform,” according to its website.

As Stiles details in her book, just a few such companies — including Publicis, Omnicom, WPP and Interpublic Group — dominate the global media landscape.

Each ad-holding company has billions of dollars in revenue and serves thousands of corporate clients along with universities, nonprofits and governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

As public relations firms, they design ad campaigns and they develop and strategically place print and broadcast media content in mainstream news and PR publications for their clients. They also create public relations campaigns like those described here to develop, promote and defend the reputations of their clients.

They design their strategies in part by collecting data “on virtually every U.S. consumer” and on journalists, politicians and scientists.

Other tactics include flooding the media landscape with spin, developing talking points for “experts” to use in public appearances and generally “using underhanded tactics to promote and defend their clients,” Ecowatch reported.

According to Stiles, an estimated two-thirds to 80% of the content broadcast and published by corporate media comes from public relations firms.

She said:

“There is no doubt that the top three PR holding firms WPP, Omnicom, and Publicis, whose collective revenue is over 44 billion, function and should be thought of as the propaganda arm of the global elite.

“The finely-tuned, targeted messages not only create revenue for the transnational capitalist class but just as importantly define the global problems to be solved and the way in which they should be solved, leaving very little room for other creative options.”

Each agency has smaller subsidiaries and PR affiliates under the same corporate ownership, creating the appearance that there are more players in the media field than there actually are. More recently, they have also begun to “gobble up” data companies.

For example, in this campaign, two of three collaborators are part of the Publicis Groupe.

The public relations site Pharma & Health, where one of the “stories” about the “HPV Fucks Everybody” campaign was posted by MediaPost Inc., a marketing company that posts up to 50 different industry blogs.

“Adding together the global revenue of the top 250 independent PR firms ($17 billion) with the PR holding companies ($44 billion) and we are literally swimming in marketing messages intended to consolidate capital for the mega-corporations,” Stiles said.

“The medical messaging repeatedly advises us to outsource health and wellness to drugs or vaccines, poor choices indeed,” she added.

A Defender investigation into Publicis’ clients last year, found it serves a wide range of corporate, governmental and supra-governmental agencies including the WEF and U.S. government agencies like the National Security Agency, tech giants like Google, Amazon, Disney, Microsoft and Meta, and corporate clients PepsiCo, Phillip Morris and Saudi Aramco.

Publicis Groupe was implicated in the “Monsanto File” scandal, where the company was found to be using Publicis Consultants and FleishmanHillard, an Omnicom subsidiary, to launch a PR offensive to rehabilitate the image of genetically modified organisms and pesticides.

Newsguard, a for-profit fact-checking organization backed by Big Pharma, Big Tech, the U.S. government and the American Federation of Teachers — a staunch advocate of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and masks for schoolchildren — is also a client.

So is the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a politically driven service consistently attacking anyone who raises questions about vaccine efficacy or safety, and the organization responsible for creating the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” list.

In her book, Stiles also explains that asset management firms Vanguard and BlackRock are among the top 10 shareholders in the top four ad agency holding companies.

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

December 8, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Gardasil Lawsuit – Deaths and Serious Injuries Linked to HPV Vaccine

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman Trial Lawyers

The Gardasil vaccine, manufactured by Merck & Co., was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006 for use in preventing infection from only a few of the hundreds of types of human papillomavirus (HPV). Since hitting the market, however, thousands of adolescents and adults have reported serious and disabling Gardasil side effects after receiving the HPV vaccine, including death.

Gardasil was fast-tracked to the market, achieving FDA approval in six months, which usually takes three years. Even one of the principal investigators of the Gardasil clinical trials (the human testing that precedes FDA approval) said the process “went too fast.”

The clinical trials for the Gardasil HPV vaccine reveal several disturbing side effects that were not disclosed on the package insert:

  • The miscarriage rate for subjects who were injected with Gardasil was 25%. The miscarriage rate for women under 30 in the U.S. is 12.5%.
  • In the Gardasil group, 5 babies were born with congenital abnormalities. There were none in the control group (the group that does not receive treatment).
  • 10.9% of women who took Gardasil reported reproductive and breast disorders within 7 months. In the Protocol 18 placebo group, that figure was 1.2% (through 12 months).
  • The rate of Gardasil deaths in the clinical trials was 8.5 per 10,000, nearly double the background U.S. death rate for young women ages 15 to 24.

There are more than 64,000 case reports of HPV vaccine adverse reactions in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database.

It is estimated that only 1% of serious adverse events are actually reported to VAERS.

Researcher Peter C. Gøtzsche in his book Vaccines: Truth, Lies, and Controversy noted some of the research inadequacies in the HPV vaccine clinical trials

“It is a requirement for registration of drugs that randomized trials have been carried out where one group received the drug and the control group received placebo or nothing. This allows assessment of both the benefits and harms of drugs. I have done research on non-vaccine drugs for decades and was shocked when I learned through my work with vaccines against human papilloma virus (HPV) that the regulatory requirements are much less for vaccines. Almost all the HPV vaccine trials have a control group receiving a hepatitis vaccine or a strongly immunogenic adjuvant, which makes it impossible to find out what the harms of the HPV vaccines are.”

Today, the Gardasil shot has left many young women and men suffering (FDA also approved Gardasil for boys), and it has been a living nightmare for parents whose children have experienced severe adverse reactions to the vaccine. They all trusted Gardasil, never suspecting the grave illnesses and disabilities that could follow. […]

What is the Gardasil Controversy?

Underlying the entire Gardasil controversy are clinical trials (human testing) that victims allege were fraudulently conducted and reported. Preliminary evidence compiled by a team of Gardasil attorneys and investigators suggests that the clinical trials Merck conducted for the Gardasil HPV vaccine were flagrantly deceptive and unscientific.

According to Mary Holland and Kim Mack Rosenberg, and Eileen Iorio, co-authors of the book, The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For a Generation Betrayed, “none of the participants in the [Gardasil] clinical trials received a true saline placebo,” which means the clinical trials failed to measure the effects of Gardasil against a true control. Instead of receiving a placebo, some clinical trial subjects received aluminum-containing adjuvants, chemical mixtures, and other vaccines, which masked adverse events and made Gardasil seem safer than it would have otherwise.

According to Holland, Mack Rosenberg, and Iorio, “HPV vaccines have never been proven to prevent against cervical or other cancer.” … Full article

August 29, 2020 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Medical Journal Lancet Discloses Financial Interest of Pro-HPV Vaccine Article Author

By Sharyl Atkisson | July 19, 2015

As a result of my inquiry for the article “What you didn’t know about a doctor’s stance on the HPV vaccine,” the medical journal Lancet has now issued a correction to its publication.

The correction acknowledges formerly undisclosed financial conflicts of interest between the article’s lead author and makers of the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccine.

The article by Dr. Sharon J. B. Hanley defended the vaccine and criticized the Japanese government’s decision to stop promoting the vaccine amid concerns about injuries. It also implied patients are incorrectly blaming the HPV vaccine for unrelated ills.

Hanley did not disclose in the original version that she receives funding from entities supported by makers of both HPV vaccines: Gardasil and Cevarix. In addition, she has previously said the vaccine makers are among those who have paid her “lecture fees.” But Hanley implied the lecture fee disclosure was not required for the recent article because Lancet only asks publishers to account for monetary gain in the most recent three year period.

Critics said it’s an example of hidden cronyism among physicians and corporations who use medical journals to influence public policy.

Read Lancet’s correction in full.

Read my article from July 1.

July 20, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment