A team of scientists at the World Health Organisation have been caught covering-up evidence that proves the HPV vaccine is dangerous.
The team, working for the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), deliberately misled the public on the dangers posed by the Gardasil HPV vaccine when reporting on it’s safety to Japanese health officials.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
According to the complaint Dr. Lee filed January 14, 2016, “multiple individuals and organizations deliberately set out to mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil® and Cervarix®, which were being promoted at that time.” Dr. Lee goes on to say,
Should the information in this letter [16 pages] prove to be accurate, nothing short of an Immediate independent investigation resulting in appropriate disciplinary actions for those involved will be able to restore the public trust. Therefore, I implore you to act quickly and decisively regarding this critical public health issue.
As part of his introduction, Dr. Lee cites the names of individuals involved [Pless, Nabae, Wharton, Petousis-Harrs, including WHO GACVS officials] who “may have been actively involved in a scheme to deliberately mislead the Japanese Expert Inquiry on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety before, during and after the February 26, 2014 public hearings in Tokyo.”
What’s it all about?
Dr. Lee believes “the information supplied by this group led directly to the issuance of the GAVCS [sic] statement on the continued safety of HPV vaccination on March 12, 2014 which contains the following paragraph:
Several papers have also been published pertaining to the finding of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in clinical specimens following HPV vaccination. These papers claimed an association with clinical events of an inflammatory nature, including cerebral vasculitis. While the GACVS has not formally reviewed this work, both the finding of DNA fragments in the HPV vaccine and their postulated relationship to clinical symptoms, have been reviewed by panels of experts. First, the presence of HPV DNA fragments has been addressed by vaccine regulatory authorities who have clearly outlined it as an expected finding given the manufacturing process, and not a safety concern. Second, the case reports of adverse events hypothesized to represent a causal association between the HPV L1 gene DNA fragments and death were flawed in both clinical and laboratory methodology. The paper described 2 fatal cases of sudden death in young women following HPV vaccine, one after 10 days and one after 6 months, with no autopsy findings to support death as result of cerebral vasculitis or an inflammatory syndrome. Thus the hypotheses raised in these papers are not supported by what is understood about the residual DNA fragments left over following vaccine production: given the extremely small quantities of residual HPV DNA in the vaccine, and no evidence of inflammation on autopsy, ascribing a diagnosis of cerebral vasculitis and suggesting it may have caused death is unfounded.” (the references 13-17 quoted were those listed in the GACVS Statement)
Is a scientific web of deceit being spun to validate a scientific non sequitur?
Dr. Lee explains in no uncertain scientific terms what the alleged collaborators apparently had trouble with:
‘Several papers have also been published pertaining to the finding of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in clinical specimens following HPV vaccination’ was apparently constructed for dissembling and designed to mislead, referring to the Tomljenovic and Shaw paper “Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental?” Pharmaceut Reg Affairs 2012, S12:001 about HPV L1 VLPs.
Lee declares, “The authors of reference 13 never mentioned HPV L1 gene DNA fragments at all.” [Something is beginning to smell a little scientifically fishy.]
Apparently, Dr. Pless knew the difference between HPV L VLPs and HPV L1 gene DNA fragments because he addressed his concerns to others involved in the snowballing scheme, especially to Dr. Petousis-Harris, when he said “statement regarding alleged role of aluminum biding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects” in his February 18, 2014 email. Lee claims that “One cannot help but conclude that Dr. Pless intentionally put these two unrelated articles together and claimed that both articles studied HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in order to mislead the non-scientific readers and vaccination policy makers.” [Whoa!]
Furthermore, Lee goes on to challenge this:
‘These papers claimed an association with clinical events of an inflammatory nature, including cerebral vasculitis’ is not true because the author in reference 14 (Lee, SH. Detection of human papillomavirus L1 gene DNA fragments in postmortem blood and spleen after Gardasil® vaccination—A case report. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 2012, 3, 1214-1224) never claimed clinical events of an inflammatory nature, including cerebral vasculitis. Dr. Pless in fact misstates the author’s words in this document apparently to create a target to attack. [Hmmm!]
If the facts don’t fit, how about just changing them?
According to Dr. Lee, “The purpose of Dr. Pless intentionally combining two unrelated studies and two unrelated chemicals show up in the following sentence: ‘the finding of DNA fragments in the HPV vaccine and their postulated relationship to clinical symptoms, have been reviewed by panels of experts.’ Who were these panels of experts? Dr. Pless presented none of their names.” [Okay! What don’t I understand here?!]
Furthermore according to Lee, “’Second, the case reports of adverse events hypothesized to present a causal association between the HPV L1 gene DNA fragments and death were flawed in both clinical and laboratory methodology,’ is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The authors quoted in Reference #13 never presented any data on HPV L1 gene DNA fragments. Reference #16 never reviewed the potential harm of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in the HPV vaccines when injected into humans.” [Gotcha!]
A plea for help—anyone—PLEASE!
Now, here’s where Dr. Lee feels that Dr. Pless could not find any scientific reviews on the HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in HPV vaccines, as illustrated in the email Pless sent to Dr. Petousis-Harris on February 18, 2014 along with a plea for help:
We are seeking your advice on someone who may be able to address the more detailed questions around HPV DNA – specifically the hypotheses you have address [sic] in your statement regarding the alleged role of aluminum binding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects. While the issue of whether the fragments constitute ‘contamination’ has been dealt with, your statement was the only one to address the more obscure alleged consequences of the presence of those fragments. The GACVS has not yet had a chance to delve into the DNA question.
Now here’s where the wicket gets even stickier.
Lee says, “The FDA declaration confirming HPV DNA fragments in Gardasil® as an expected finding (Ref.15), but providing no safety data on these HPV DNA fragments after being injected into animals or humans, obviously does not represent a review by panels of experts because it does not refer to any animal or human experimental data on ‘aluminum binding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects,’ which was supposed to be Dr. Pless’ major concern.”
So, what happens next is scientific “pie-in-the-sky,” I’d conjecture.
Dr. Petousis-Harris apparently had the chutzpah to try to demonstrate to Dr. Pless that she had experience using similar procedures, when in her February 18, 2014 email to him, she said,
To the best of my knowledge the rebuttal on our website is the only attempt to address this particular issue which Shaw and Lee presented at a coronal enquiry here. Placing the rebuttal in the public domain was the only means of providing the information to the crown representatives involved in that process at the 11th hour. [Really!?]
The plot thickens.
Under pressure to issue some type of statement before the public hearing in Japan, Dr. Pless had to find a panel of experts to “declare the safety of aluminum bound to DNA fragments after being injected into humans.” Isn’t that like trying to prove the world is square and not a round globe? So what did they rely on?
The only publication remotely related to the subject Pless could use, according to Lee, was Reference #16, a Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network Technical Report titled “Review of a published report of cerebral vasculitis after vaccination with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine” dated November 9, 2012.
There was a likely technical flaw in that report, though: That CDC report had unnamed authors, which should have disqualified it from being published as a valid scientific paper, in my opinion, but apparently not according to the CDC’s scientific wisdom. That document had a purpose—apparently to question the data on HPV-16 L1 particles, never HPV L1 gene DNA fragments because the Lee paper reporting the finding of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments (Lee, SH. Detection of human papillomavirus L1 gene DNA fragments in postmortem blood and spleen after Gardasil® vaccination—A case report. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 2012, 3, 1214-1224) – get this – was not published until December 27, 2012, one and a half months after the CISA Network Technical Report was issued.
No peer review credibility—what next to do?
Dr. Lee offers that the CISA report (Reference #16) with unnamed authors began with the following paragraph:
Recently there was discussion on a federally-sponsored vaccine safety listserv of a report in the literature of cerebral vasculitis after vaccination with the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine (HPV) (Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental? Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs: Open Access 2012,S12:001). To address questions about the findings and conclusions reported in this manuscript, CDC convened a CDC-Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) working group. Researchers from Vanderbilt Medical Center, Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, Duke Clinical Research Institute (Duke University), CDC and FDA participated in the call.
That report was the only Technical Report issued in the last 12 years, according to Lee, that has NEVER been published in peer-review journals. Why? Did they know they couldn’t deal with the scientific challenges it would offer? The Disclaimer at the end of that report, I think, says it all:
The information and conclusions in this report are those of the work group participants addressing this issue and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC.
You have to give credit when credit is due: CDC realized it was in a “check-mate” position. It apparently was a sham report and, as Dr. Lee offers, was written by unnamed ghost writers based on phone conversations. Is that the way science is done? That apparently beats computer modeling.
Dr. Pless was up a scientific tree, out on a limb and had no choice but to misbrand two unrelated articles and two unrelated chemicals in the vaccine Gardasil® in order for his ability to use the CISA Network Technical Repot on HPV-16 L1 particles to support his declaration of safety of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments after injection into humans. However, Dr. Lee offers that Pless had to make policy makers believe that “HPV-16 L1 particles” were synonymous to “HPV L1 gene DNA fragments” in chemistry. Lee says that once that was done, Pless apparently thought he could use the opinion on HPV-16 L1 particles to uphold the safety of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments bound to aluminum adjuvant.
Unable to find a scientific report in published peer review journals, Dr. Pless shrewdly had to MISQUOTE the CISA report on HPV-16 L1 particles as evidence to support Dr. Petousis-Harris’ blog published on SOCIAL MEDIA as he wrote in the GACVS statement:
Thus the hypotheses raised in these papers are not supported by what is understood about the residual DNA fragments left over following vaccine production.
And why did Dr. Pless say that?
Dr. Petousis-Harris was the author of Reference 17. She was the only writer brave enough to claim publicly “extremely small quantities of residual HPV DNA in the vaccine” to be harmless without any supportive data, according to Dr. Lee. Dr. Pless questions Petousis-Harris in his February 18, 2014 email saying,
A meeting has recently been organized in Tokyo for February 26th, where Dr. Lee will present his findings…
…We are seeking your advice on someone who may be able to address the more detailed questions around HPV DNA – specifically the hypotheses you have address [sic] in your statement regarding the alleged role of aluminum binding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects. While the issue of whether the fragments constitute “contamination” has been dealt with, your statement was the only one to address the more obscure alleged consequences of the presence of those fragments. The GACVS has not yet had a chance to delve into the DNA question.
Dr. Petousis-Harris accepted the role and assignment of presenting at the Tokyo hearing. On February 18, 2014, after receiving Pless’s email, she wrote back and copied several others too. Take note of who they are.
From: Helen Petousis-Harris [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:19 AM To: ‘Robert Pless’ Cc: Robert Pless (Robert.Pless@phac-aspc.gc.ca); 難波江 功二(nabae-koji); ZUBER, Patrick Louis F.; Wharton, Melinda (CDC/OID/NCIRD) Subject: RE: URGENT: Regarding the posted commentary on the coronial inquiry expert witness testimony
“Dear Rob Oh dear! I am so saddened to hear how extensive the impact of Lee, Shaw and Tomljenovic’s activities has become. I will certainly do anything I can to assist. [Is this a conspiracy/collusion confirmed in writing?] To the best of my knowledge the rebuttal on our website is the only attempt to address this particular issue which Shaw and Lee presented at a coronal enquiry here. Placing the rebuttal in the public domain was the only means of providing the information to the crown representatives involved in that process at the 11th hour. Prof David Gorsky has written prolifically on some of the experiments in his science blog over the past few years so I assume he has also given the material some thought.
“I do not know if I am expert on this but certainly have some experience in considering aluminium in vaccines and its role in inflammatory responses and local AEFI as part of my PhD some years ago. I assume you are referring to the VLP tightly bound to the adjuvant and the Shaw and Tomljenovic ‘hypothesis’ that it somehow finds its way to the brain carried by macrophage?” [CJF emphasis added]
When an expert witness isn’t an expert witness.
Dr. Petousis-Harris’s email above obviously indicates that she’s out of her realm of expertise and that she had absolutely no idea or clue as to what Pless wanted her to address at the February 26, 2014 public hearing in Japan. [OMG!] Dr. Lee points out that she apparently and mistakenly assumed she was being asked to comment on “the VLP tightly bound to the adjuvant.” Now here’s an expert witness’s conundrum: Petousis-Harris did not know that VLP is a protein, which cannot be tightly bound to the aluminum adjuvant as the DNA molecules can—so says Dr. Lee.
Holy moly! What an expert witness—but that’s the way consensus science apparently is done, folks!
Furthermore, Petousis-Harris’s qualification was that she had written a social media blog much like Professor David Gorski had done. He’s an apparent well-known online “character assassin” masquerading as a science defender according to Dr. Lee’s complaint letter to Dr. Chan. But Petousis-Harris lauds his work with this,
Prof David Gorsky has written prolifically on some of the experiments in his science blog over the past few years so I assume he has also given the material some thought.
Dr. Pless obviously found himself between a scientific rock and a legal hard place. He knew that the CISA Network Technical Report of November 2012 did not address the presence of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in the vaccine Gardasil® so he wrote this to Dr. Petousis-Harris,
…We are seeking your advice on someone who may be able to address the more detailed questions around HPV DNA – specifically the hypotheses you have address [sic] in your statement regarding the alleged role of aluminum binding to DNA fragments and subsequent effects. While the issue of whether the fragments constitute “contamination” has been dealt with, your statement was the only one to address the more obscure alleged consequences of the presence of those fragments. … [CJF emphasis added]
It would seem that Petousis-Harris is now in the same position as the “dog that caught the bus.” What do I do now, since my expertise regarding HPV L1 gene DNA fragments is writing on social media blogs and not in peer-review journals?
What is “Plan B”?
Numerous emails traveled among those involved in this apparent collusion until finally Dr. Koji Nabae of the Japanese government wrote to those listed at the very beginning of this article, the following:
I talked to my boss and we agree that it is better not to have WHO GACVS presence during the public hearing session [numerous words redacted, i.e., blacked out and unreadable] and there is no need to hurry for a statement. We are hoping the statement to come out a week or two weeks later so that our expert committee can refer to it when they finalize the report in March (or a bit later) (if things go smoothely[sic]) [CJF emphasis added]
Was Dr. Nabae, a Japanese government official who presided at the February 26, 2014 public hearing, also colluding with potential witnesses at WHO GACVS in order to avoid cross-examination and scrutiny at the forthcoming hearing?
Dr. Lee, in his complaint, makes this most incriminating of comments, I think:
I believe this maneuver was orchestrated by the Chairperson of the WHO GACVS and others as nothing more than a very cunning means of avoiding having to supply scientific evidence to decision makers. Actions like this corrupt the entire concept of science-based medicine.
Unbelievable at it may sound, Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris was selected as the spokesperson for the Tokyo public hearing. However, someone attached a ‘leash’ on to her PowerPoint presentation, which had to be reviewed by the group before the hearing to ensure she presented the proper message. However, not everyone was satisfied.
Dr. Nabae was concerned about one of the PP slides which stated“immune activation on uptake of HPV vaccine does not include an increase of inflammatory factors (incl TNF) even in vaccinees with large injection site reactions at time of local inflammation” because such claim contradicted the data presented by another expert at their previous meeting which in fact confirmed that cytokines following vaccines increased particularly at injection site after Cervarix® compared to other vaccines (including tumor necrosis factor –TNF), per Dr. Lee! Dr. Nabae also deleted some questionable “Japanese Wildcard” data from the PowerPoint slides to be presented at the hearing. What are Japanese Wildcard data? Does the U.S. CDC/FDA also have wildcard data? How about Big Pharma? I guess they probably may have some Jokercard data too.
Petousis-Harris PowerPoint Presentation
This is a direct quote from Dr. Lee’s complaint letter:
The Powerpoint slides Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris presented at the public hearing claimed Dr Lee’s case report had no controls to prove that unvaccinated New Zealand teenage girls do not have HPV DNA in non-B conformations in their blood, therefore the findings are not scientifically valid. She said, ‘There are no controls used (unvaccinated). This is a vital part of the scientific process.’ [original emphasis.]
Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris evidently does not understand the difference between a case report and a clinical trial; nor does she seem to know how hard it is for pathologists to find any HPV DNA in blood samples of patients, even those known to have HPV infections, let alone HPV DNA in non-B conformations. This shows how little, if any, experience she has in laboratory medicine.
I find Dr Petousis-Harris blog which was quoted as Ref. 17 by Dr Pless in the GACVS statement in support of the declaration of HPV vaccination safety, to be more concerned with character assassination than in disputing the science of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments in Gardasil® or in postmortem materials.
So much for expert witnesses and science-based medical research, especially when it comes to vaccines!
Dr. Lee asserts that Dr. Petousis-Harris used her PhD thesis as the authoritative research to support her theory of “No elevation of any cytokine associated with reactogenicity.” Is that how consensus, science-based-medicine is pushed in journals and on to healthcare consumers regarding vaccinology?
The emails – and there are close to 236 pages of them, many with lots of redactions – confirm the ongoing collusion among various individuals at WHO, GACVS, and vaccine researchers in other countries’ health agencies. I always have to wonder what’s been redacted and why they wouldn’t want anyone to see redactions. Good question?
Dr. Lee, in summarizing his opinions in his complaint letter, talks about those emails. He says,
[T]his group of WHO officials and government employees charged with the responsibility to advise the expert committee of the Japanese government on HPV vaccination safety knew before the February 26, 2014 Tokyo public hearing that one of their own experts showed scientific evidence that HPV vaccination does increase cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), particularly at the injection site compared to other vaccines. Yet, they chose to suppress this information at the public hearing.It is my contention these people have not only violated the Terms of Reference of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS); they have violated the public trust. Immediate, independent and thorough investigations into their actions with appropriate disciplinary action is the only option available that might restore the public’s confidence in worldwide health authorities.
The above is as patently obvious as it can be, as to what goes on regarding vaccine science that ‘validates’ toxic vaccines ‘safety’, which are mandated to be given to neonates, infants, toddlers, teens, adults and senior citizens.
Vaccines harm and even kill, especially the HPV vaccines given to pre-teenage boys and girls. Healthcare consumers need to become “proactive,” as the saying goes.