A Merck insider forced a scientific journal to remove a peer-reviewed study outlining the dangers of the HPV vaccine from its publication.
A damning study, entitled “Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil”, outlining the dangers of the vaccine had originally been published by the scientific journal Vaccine.
The January 9, 2016 report concluded that the vaccine triggered “neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes” in the mice that received the vaccine during the study.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
Thefreethoughtsproject.com reports:
The study was conducted by eight scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel, co-authored by a University of British Columbia professor and neuroscientist, and a doctor of biochemistry. When it was originally submitted, the group was told that the study was accepted. However, one month after it was published “with revisions,” the study was completely withdrawn from the international journal.
The Vaccine Reaction reports that when Vaccine first pulled the article, the publisher offered no explanation, saying the article was “temporarily removed.”
Weeks later, the page where the article used to be was updated to read:
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified. As an international peer-reviewed journal we believe it is our duty to withdraw the article from further circulation, and to notify the community of this issue.
The Editor-in-Chief who found this “seriously flawed” methodology just so happens to be an industry insider.
Jeffery Jaxen, writing for Health Impact News points out the serious conflict of interests surrounding the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief of Vaccine is Dr. Gregory Poland who personally rejected the recent Gardasil HPV study. The Mayo clinic’s website has this to say about Dr. Poland:
“Dr. Poland is the chairman of a safety evaluation committee for investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. Dr. Poland offers consultative advice on new vaccine development to Merck & Co., Inc.”
Dr. Poland has conducted four studies to date with direct affiliation to Merck.
One such study that now comes into question was the pro-HPV trial from 2005 published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings titled Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a novel vaccine for human papillomavirus 16: A 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Dr. Poland’s 2005 pro-Gardasil study was published one year before the approval of Gardasil by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006. In addition, Dr. Poland acted as a Safety Monitor for two other clinical trials of HPV vaccines funded by Merck Research Laboratories
In 2012 Dr. Poland and Dr. Jacobson authored The Clinician’s Guide to the Anti-Vaccinationists’ Galaxy published in the journal Human Immunology. Poland’s co-author on the article, Dr. Jacobson, is himself a member of a safety review committee for a post-licensure study funded by Merck & Co. concerning the safety of a HPV vaccine.
Regardless of one’s views on the issue of vaccines, the censoring of an independent study that shows the potential harms of a widely-distributed vaccination, by a person affiliated with the group directly responsible for said vaccination, is inherently unethical.
What does it say about the peer-review process when one well-connected industry insider can retract an entire study conducted by nearly a dozen professionals in the field?
It seems that observation and experimentation have morphed into controlling the narrative by blacklisting any conflicting information. How is it that people can see the corruption involved in the manufacturing and marketing processes of prescription drugs, but when it comes to vaccines, merely questioning the claims of safety by the very same companies, is tantamount to witchcraft?
