It Couldn’t Happen Here: Consent to “Treatment”

October, 13, 2017 | 26 Comments


  1. India: HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix make it to the Supreme Court

    Even, I, made a comment about my young daughter’s experience at the hands of the authorities .. plse read all 95 comments

    The Couric Incident: HPV Vaccine & Mass Bullying

    May, 5, 2015 | 95 Comments

    The P Jays and the Bar of Soap ..

  2. David,

    The controlling bureaucracy – on behalf of whom, and why? Perhaps it is just to make money out of a captive population, but since you invoke the shadow of Nazi Germany we can certainly circle the issue of informed consent as part of the Nuremberg Code, its denial and why it might be absolutely critical to the survival of a “free” society.

    In regard to the bureaucracy (to leave behind the MHRA for the second, a body entirely financed by the pharmaceutical industry which garbages adverse reports) it is scary to note that an Act of Parliament of 2009 actually made the Secretary of State for Health answerable to the JCVI, the committee that recommends vaccines to the schedule thus placing a sovereign Parliament in its hands. This may not be legal, but it was also not voted upon: just added to the statute book and never challenged.

    In 2013 the situation deteriorated with JCVI’s new Code of Conduct which introduced rules relating to conflict that were so complex they were virtually impossible to interpret. And as I have tried to highlight this was followed soon afterwards by the appointment of Oxford vaccine developer Andrew Pollard as chair: at the second meeting at which he was chair the committee agreed to recommend the Bexsero Men B vaccine, of which he was lead developer – no one voted at the meeting and no one recused themselves. Pollard’s relationship with the EMA has also been challenged by Nordic Cochrane in its complaint to the European Ombudsman about HPV vaccine.

    Recently, again, Pollard associated himself in the Guardian and Oxford University website with calls for vaccination to be made compulsory in the UK without disclosing that he was either a vaccine developer by profession or the chair of the JCVI which thereby might obtain dictatorial powers directly over citizens.

    He is also an advisor to the MHRA:

    But this by no means some personal vendetta of mine against Prof Pollard. It obviously suits the agencies themselves that this is happening: it obviously happens because it suits lots of people. And politically every time you go near the vaccine business no one wants to know.

    The other fearful point that I would make is that the industry has become very ambitious in targetting young women – if they go over like skittles people start to notice. But if infants fail to develop it just gets dismissed even as the rates of autism (as just one neurological condition) soar.

    All this has been made a taboo area, quite deliberately, with agencies such as Science Media Centre and Sense About Science as the instruments of the pharmaceutical government complex in largely silencing the mainstream media.

  3. Another thing to be said is that the practices described in the article above almost certainly fall well outside the law, even if it proves impossible to do anything about it. No one is being given adequate information and children are being manipulated – so for that matter are school staff and health professionals who may not know any better and probably just think they are being good and high minded citizens. The real legal position was laid out by retired nurse Wendy E Stephen in BMJ Rapid Responses recently (24 September 2017), and manifestly what goes on here is well outside the spirit and letter of the law (and that could slip too unless we are very careful):-

    Re: Debating the future of mandatory vaccination

    I applaud Dr Thomas for his openness, not only in sharing his thoughts, but also the fact that he has introduced them for consideration in this discussion.

    That said, the very idea that the medical profession may, in some instances, be neglecting to follow the guidelines set down in the Judgement from the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board 2014, although a cause for concern in itself, and a potential violation of what is required in law to secure informed consent, it is somewhat overshadowed by the more alarming prospect that doctors may not have the required level of knowledge re vaccine safety to share with their patients and furthermore, may not be aware of what Dr Thomas describes as, the extent of their ignorance.

    One must surely question how such a situation could ever come about.

    Patients are entirely dependent on doctors and health care providers being fully cognisant of the potential risks to the individual in consenting to the administration of a vaccine and for the recognised risks to be conveyed to the potential recipient, (in their entirety), prior to the vaccine being administered. Not only is that a safety net to the patient and a lawful requirement for informed consent to be engaged, but it is also a must from the point of view of the doctor, who is required to not only meet the standards set by the regulatory body, the General Medical Council, but also the recently clarified issues considered in Montgomery. (Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: SC 11 Mar 2015)

    “The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.”

    An omission in conveying the correct degree of information re the potential risks of vaccination, whether as a result of ignorance on the part of the doctor, the fact that he does not have the requisite level of information available to him, an act of ‘cherry picking’ which information to disclose, or for any other reason, is not compatible with what is required to engage informed consent.

    From the Judgement in Montgomery we learn……..

    “the assessment of whether a risk is material cannot be reduced to percentages. The significance of a given risk is likely to reflect a variety of factors besides its magnitude: for example, the nature of the risk, the effect which its occurrence would have upon the life of the patient, the importance to the patient of the benefits sought to be achieved by the treatment”

    From the doctors perspective there is an additional issue………..

    “The judgment also states that it cannot be left to the doctor to determine what is reasonable to disclose; the move is to what a patient would attach importance to….(1)

    It is clear that a failure on the part of a doctor (for whatever reason) to meet the requirements as laid down in Montgomery will, according to the Medical Defence Union, have very serious consequences.

    “Of course, failing to obtain consent from patients is not just a concern from the perspective of potential civil claims or disciplinary action. In some cases it may also raise the spectre of criminal liability for assault and/or battery. These are the high stakes for the medical professional, and they necessitate require careful adherence to the relevant guidance from regulatory bodies.”(2)

    The risks to a doctor in not having the requisite knowledge re vaccine safety and meeting the requirements to engage informed consent, is very obvious, the risk to the patient even greater, so how could such a situation ever come about?

    Vaccine manufacturers provide a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) for their products with a recommendation that the patient have access to, and read the information, which includes potential adverse effects and risks, prior to receiving the vaccine. It seems logical that in making the PIL available to the individual, together with a face to face consultation, a doctor would go a long way in ensuring that he had covered what is required to secure informed consent. Additionally, doctors will have access to all manner of pharmacopoeia, regulatory bodies and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry in order to gain the relevant knowledge re vaccine safety which would not be available to the man on the street. They will also receive regular updates from relevant regulatory bodies alerting them to adverse events and problems with individual products.

    Against that backdrop, it seems virtually impossible that a doctor would not have access to the required level of knowledge allowing them to convey the requisite level of information on vaccine safety to their patients or, that a doctor would risk all manner of sanctions arising from his conduct in failing to make himself aware of the relevant information.

    Perhaps the root of the problem lies elsewhere. From my own experiences I would suggest that, irrespective of how clear the law is as to the correct procedure to initiate to obtain informed consent, there is unwillingness and in some cases, a determined resistance to disclose all the potential adverse effects and risks associated with vaccination prior to obtaining consent, lest it deter the patient from accepting the vaccination.

    Of course, any conscious decision to regulate which information to disclose from the entire material available on vaccine safety and adverse events, is a very different matter and not one which will be directly affected by the extent of an individual doctor’s personal knowledge on the subject.



  4. In August 2010 my daughters came home from school with a form seeking consent for an HPV vaccine, and a pamphlet from the Scottish Government entitled “All you need to know about the HPV vaccine that reduces the risk of cervical cancer”

    In response to the question “Will there be any side effects?” this pamphlet advised that..

    “The side effects of the immunisation are quite mild – mostly soreness in the arm that soon wears off.”

    At that time, the manufacturer’s Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC), for the only HPV vaccine in use, Cervarix, contained a list of “undesirable effects”. The list included myalgia, arthralgia, lymphadenopathy, angioedema and numerous others, all of which were very different from the “soreness in the arm” quoted in the Scottish Government pamphlet, and could not, in all conscience, be described as “quite mild”.

    How could there be such disparity between what was acknowledged as a potential side effect by the manufacturer and the information disclosed by the Scottish Government?.

    I raised the issue with the Scottish Government, particularly the issue of whether or not, in these circumstances, it could be lawfully argued that informed consent had been obtained.

    By return I was advised that…..

    “In discharging our duty to ensure persons are able to give informed consent, we recognise that there is a need to employ an element of discretion in the disclosure of information. At times, as you will appreciate, it is possible that giving too much information or placing too much emphasis on minor risks may cause unnecessary confusion or alarm. To ensure the information given is constructive it must accurately reflect the balance of benefit and harm —associated with the treatment. In providing information on side effects to a vaccination, we consider it is our responsibility to alert the individual to the possibility of side effects, whilst not placing undue emphasis on minor risks so as to unduly exaggerate them. The decision as to how we achieve the correct balance is, ultimately, a matter of judgment.”

    It was clear from both the response, and in contrasting the SPC with the HPV vaccine schools pamphlet, that a conscious decision had been taken to filter the information disclosed regarding potential side effects.

    Even before the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2014), it was perfectly clear that such practices fell short of what was required to secure informed consent, but if there was ever any doubt, Montgomery made it crystal clear.

    It is not for those implementing or advocating vaccination programmes via pre formatted publications to determine the nature of the side effects to disclose in their literature.

    Those seeking informed consent to vaccination are required to disclose concise details of all known potential side effects coupled with the rate at which they occur. There is no discretionary element allowing for the cherry picking of which reported side effects to disclose. There is no support for the tailoring of the list of potential side effects to present a “balance of benefit and harm” by those advocating vaccination. That, is for the patient to determine when presented with an accurate list of potential side effects and benefits from the proposed vaccination.

    There is no support for the exclusion of what is viewed to be a minor risk on an argument that its inclusion would unduly exaggerate the significance. Montgomery tells us that it is not acceptable to exclude the existence of a risk based on the likelihood of it occurring.

    That the Scottish Government was indulging in a selection exercise as to which side effects to disclose was obvious when they said in defence of their 2010 leaflet that…

    “By its terms, the leaflet addresses the possibility of severe side effects but is careful not to place disproportionate emphasis on uncommon or minor risks.”

    A fear of attaching undue significance to a side effect, identified as a minor risk or an uncommon risk, and a practice of casually suggesting the existence of such side effects, as opposed to openly declaring them in the campaign pamphlet, is not supported by the findings in Montgomery.

    It is not acceptable for the Scottish Government to “employ an element of discretion in the disclosure of information”. That, according to the Judgement from Montgomery, is not a role that can be assumed by the Government and a practice which must surely raise questions over the validity of the consent obtained.

    Earlier this year, I revisited the issue of informed consent with the Scottish Government. Sadly, even with the recent findings in Montgomery it is absolutely clear that even now they are still not willing to change their current practices. In their most recent response, they appear resolute in placing responsibility for information gathering re HPV vaccine (beyond what is provided in their pre formatted pamphlet) on to the patient.

    From the Scottish Government in September 2017………..

    “The HPV Leaflet also contains a section on side effects and sign posts the reader to the immunisation Scotland website for more information.

    The Immunisation Scotland website includes a link to the Gardasil Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) which means parents and carers are able to access this information prior to deciding whether to consent to their daughter having the vaccine”

    From Paragraph 90 in the Judgement from Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (July 2014) we are reminded of how this is not acceptable.

    “The doctor’s duty is not therefore fulfilled by bombarding the patient with technical information which she cannot reasonably be expected to grasp, ….

    It is not as a result of an oversight or for any other reason that parents, guardians and young people are not being supplied with all available information about a vaccine at the point where consent is sought. It is more as a result of conscious decision making to vet what information to disclose. I have to wonder, with potentially so many penalties and serious outcomes resulting from a failure to secure informed consent, why this conduct is not being addressed.

  5. The Costs of Consent .. It Doesn’t Happen Here ..

    £3.5m paid out in vaccine damages

    The government has paid out £3.5m to patients left disabled by vaccinations since 1997, it has been revealed.

    However, the DWP said it did not have any information on which types of vaccination were involved in the compensation payments. It said no such records were kept.

    Isabella Thomas, of campaign group Jabs, welcomed the release of the information but said more openness was needed.

    “Why can’t we have information about exactly what the vaccinations were?

    “That happens in the US. Unless the government is fully open about this parents will never have confidence in vaccinations.”

    Data & Statistics

    US Department of Health and Human Services

    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

    Monthly Statistics Reports

    “This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.”

    Currently 325,114,561 is the pop of the US, so I individual per million is pretty good ..

    No such data is available in the UK, that I can find, on monthly statistics reports .. or any reports .. since 2005 ..

    The current vaccine damage payment is £120,000 with the caveat that any benefits or entitlement accepted – could be curtailed ..

    • Hi Annie,

      I wrote some of this up on Age of Autism a few weeks ago using a not published letter from BMJ Rapid Responses (below). In fact there were 842 settlements from 1978-8, 89 in the following 22 years and none at all since 2010 (using a blatant Catch 22 technique to deny payments which has recently been overturned by the Court of Appeal). Back in the early period it all came under the Department of Health and Social Security which was split up in 1988. You are I think right in suggesting that British government opted not to remove consent because mandates or compulsion would have left liability with the state. Of course, now they are trying to have it every which way.

      Hit and Run Vaccine Policy of the British Government Revealed: Damage Settlements Go from Hundreds to Zero in Four Decades.
      Broken-britain-finalBy John Stone

      Bad faith through and through: we have reached a point with the vaccination program where it is impossible to draw attention to or discuss openly even government published data. Information which has recently to come to light concerns the way the British parliament moved to recognise vaccine damage nearly forty years ago, making many – if modest – settlements, but then the government machine massaged the problem out of existence by silently changing the criteria.

      In the first two complete years of the scheme in 1979-81 – when the program itself was much less ambitious – the United Kingdom Vaccine Damage Payment Unit recognised 573 cases. Settlements had reduced to a trickle by the end of the 1980s, and by the beginning the present decade (the years 2011-14) there were none at all. Indeed, earlier this year even the Court of Appeal was forced to reject the absurdly flawed and contradictory criteria of the United Kingdom Department of Works and Pensions.

      Sad to report that once again the British Medical Journal has so far failed to publish a letter drawing attention to this issue. I submitted a letter twice adjusting the language the second time to make sure it could be no obstruction to publication, while the information I cite is in government documents. This is the second submitted letter:-

      Request for an open discussion

      If we look at the table of damage settlements from the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit provided under Freedom of Information in December 2014 it tells a pitiful and disturbing story [1]. In the first full year of the scheme, 1979/80, there were 317 settlements, and in the second 256. It is not to be supposed the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then, paid out frivolously. But it must also be reflected that in those day there were only 5 or 6 infant vaccines on the schedule, with relatively low compliance.

      It is evident that the VDPU then began to play by different rules or use different criteria for assessment. By 1988/9 – the year Social Security was split from Health – they had got it down to just three settlements, and after 2010 until the end of 2014 there were none at all, even though the schedule just kept on expanding and compliance was generally over 90%. Bureaucratically speaking there was indeed no vaccine damage at all during this period, though even on the basis of manufacturers’ data you would expect some. We also, of course, know from the Court of Appeal earlier this year that the Department of Works and Pensions was subverting the spirit and letter of the act by employing logically contradictory rules [2], and unfortunately what we fear is that they will seek out new pretexts to deny compensation, because this means has failed. It can only be said that this is a profoundly opaque culture, and one which could lead to untold damage, because major checks have been removed from the system.

      Does anyone want to answer for this?



      • J .. Sacrificial Virgins ..

        HC Deb 17 February 1977 vol 926 cc879-90

        Mr. Ashley
        “That was a shabby and squalid speech. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. He did not answer a single question that I put to him. It was shocking.

        Unpublished dataset – review please
        Posted by Grace Filby on Thu, 12/03/2015 – 10:50

        Your website states that this dataset is “Not due to be released Contains personal and sensitive data. Will be reviewed in the light of demand and prioritisation.”
        It appears that now there is some demand for this sort of information – not names, NI numbers or addresses but medical information – simply the name of the vaccine, and the date that the claim was registered.
        Evidence of this demand is in Hansard as of this week:
        “Richard Benyon Conservative, Newbury 11th March 2015
        To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many HPV vaccine damage claimants have been registered in each year since 2008.
        Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 11 March 2015, cW)
        Mark Harper Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions) (Disabled People) 11th March 2015
        Information regarding claims in respect of a particular disease/vaccine is unavailable.”

        I would like to add my name to this demand, and request that it is prioritised since I am aware that hundreds of young people have been injured by the HPV vaccine since 2008.

        Ref: also my MP’s parliamentary debate: Crispin Blunt MP 13 May 2009 and several questions in the other house from Countess of Mar.
        Signed: Grace Filby BA(Hons) CertEd
        Churchill Fellow of 2007

        Human Papillomavirus: Vaccination:Written question – 70973

        The HPV scandal: pain and suffering for young women. Sacrificial Virgins II

        “The leading HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are widely administered, often freely in schools or through national immunisation programmes. In the UK, the uptake in adolescent girls is well over 85%(1); in the US, it’s 60% of adolescent girls and boys(2). Japanese rates were comparable with the UK’s until the government suspended the programme in 2013 because of the number of adverse reactions(3).

        by April 2017, such reports had reached nearly 9,000, including more than 3,000 “serious” reports(4). No other vaccine comes close.

        • Unfortunately, there is no one like Jack Ashley anymore (and mark you this was a Labour MP attacking a Labour minister) and even he took his eye off the ball during the Blair era, where everyone was being buzzed to be on message all the time.

  6. I read that NHS staff (England I presume) who refuse the flu jab this winter will have to explain their reasons to their employers !

  7. David, you say: “At the end of the leaflet on HPV, 12 year old girls are told if they have any problems they should report to MHRA (the regulator). This is about as useful as telling a Boy in Striped Pajamas c 1943 to write to the Vatican.”

    According to this NHS HPV vaccination consent form: “Any side effects following the HPV vaccination should be reported to the school nurse or your GP.”

    • E

      No – the last bit of the Leaflet – Your Guide to HPV vaccine – ends with a link to how to report side effects to MHRA. This guide features teenage girls on its front.



      • Mind you, it is very unlikely that there would be anyone within the normal state apparatus it would be remotely useful to tell. Anyone would tell you you were mistaken, it was a coincidence or it will just blow over (reach for the paracetamol). Not to mention the threat of MSbP or the GMC for doctors, for those who don’t jump into line.

      • Here’s a link to the latest leaflet:

        No direct mention of MHRA that I can see, although there is a link to the Patient Information Leaflet.

        Note also the cover of the leaflet says “I just had my cervical cancer jab”. This is blatant misleading advertising, by the UK NHS, it’s actually a HPV jab.

        As I understand it there is as yet no evidence that HPV vaccination prevents cancer, we won’t know the outcome of HPV vaccination for decades.

  8. “The case between Dr. Donegan and the GMC was very much like that of David and Goliath, and was another rare example of David actually winning.

    The Doctor Who Beat The British General Medical Council By Proving That Vaccines Aren’t Necessary To Achieve Health

    “I would like you to have a really serious think about this trial – the claims that were made – the eventual outcome and what it might mean about the entire vaccine industry:

    Dr. Donegan was called upon as a witness to provide evidence that children do not need vaccines to be healthy and that many are unnecessary and unsafe.

    This brought unwanted attention to her from the British General Medical Council who then took her to court.

    During this 3 year trial, she presented her evidence against a very tough opposition involving many QCs and a very expensive legal team, yet Dr. Donegan and her much smaller team WON the case.

    What do you think it means about the evidence she provided and the fact that this medical council could not prove her wrong?

    What does this cause you to think about vaccines now?

    And what does it make you think about the actual science when presented in a court of law?

    Dr Donegan and Mr Miller, were very careful of using only medical journal reports and studies as their evidence to support what they were saying. This is very important to remember.

    They only used information from respected medical sources.  

    • Just to clarify, I believe the “3 years” mentioned here was probably the length of time the GMC took to prepare proceedings against Jayne Donegan, not how long the hearing took – unlike the contemporaneous hearing against Wakefield and colleagues, the hearing was about two weeks. The page is worth reading because these are just prefatory background to Dr Donegan’s article about how she prepared for the court case between two parents which ultimately led to the GMC hearing years later (I have often wondered whether court case itself was a deliberate set up for her by the powers that be) and it is certainly worth reading.

      Her further account of these extraordinary events can be found on her website:

  9. It’s recently been announced that Gardasil 9 (two doses) is being added to the schedule in Australia, replacing the original Gardasil vaccine (three doses).

    This article published in The Australian newspaper provides some interesting food for thought….What do others think?

    Gardasil: a little jab helps protect against some cancers
    Rachel Baxendale, 13 October 2017

    One afternoon last week I found myself lying on a gynaecologist’s operating table, black fumes and the smell of burning flesh rising from my nether regions.

    The doctor was using an electrode to cauterise my cervix, having earlier sliced off a small precancerous chunk that the nurse matter-of-factly popped into a specimen jar.

    Thanks to a decision announced by Health Minister Greg Hunt on Sunday, thousands of Australian women will avoid having to undergo the same unedifying procedure and, more import­ant, the infinitely worse even­tuality of a cancer diagnosis.

    I’m an otherwise healthy 30-year-old. In 2007, when Australia became the first country in the world to roll out the Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccine free of charge, I was young enough to be eligible and took myself off to the GP to get my three jabs.

    The original Gardasil vaccine prevents four of more than 120 strains of genital HPV, most of the rest of which are relatively harmless.

    According to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 80 per cent of sexually active people will have contracted at least one strain by age 50.

    Anyone who has ever had sex is at risk and condoms don’t offer full protection. Most people ­remain blissfully ignorant of ever having been infected, their ­immune systems having fended off a benign bug without incident.

    Some of us aren’t so lucky.

    This year a ThinPrep pap test showed that although I had tested negative to the two strains of cancer-causing HPV that are covered by the original vaccine and cause 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases, I had contracted one of 12 other high-risk strains.

    Of those 12, five strains — which between them are responsible for another 20 per cent of cer­vical cancers — will be covered by the Gardasil 9 vaccine. The new generation shot will be rolled out next year to 12 to 13-year-old boys and girls through the school vac­cination program.

    Like the old Gardasil, which was extended to boys in 2013, Gardasil 9 will also prevent two HPV strains that cause genital warts as well as vaginal, vulvar, throat and anal cancers in women, and anal and throat cancers in men.

    It’s Australian Translational Research Institute research direc­tor Ian Frazer and his research partner Jian Zhou who we have to thank for the vaccine. The pair developed and patented the technology behind it at the University of Queensland in 1991.

    Work was then done in conjunction with the National Cancer Institute, Georgetown University and the University of Rochester before Gardasil was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and our own Therapeutic Goods Administration in 2006. At the urging of prime minister John Howard, health minister Tony Abbott struck an agreement to roll out Gardasil free to Australian schoolgirls from April 2007.

    While my treatment last week was un­plea­sant, any ongoing compli­ca­tions are highly unlikely and my only pain during the 10 minute loop electrosurgical ­excision procedure was caused by a couple of jabs from the needle that administered the local anaesthetic.

    A couple of much less expensive (and less invasive) jabs will spare the next generation of Australian women from finding themselves on the gynaecologist’s operating table, let alone becoming one of 250 who die of cervical cancer each year.

    The Australian cost of an individual course of Gardasil 9 has not yet been made public but the US price and the price of its predecessor indicate the two jabs will cost the taxpayer about $300.

    You can’t put a price on a life but even in my case Gardasil 9 would ­already have paid for ­itself. I’ve spent about $1500 on ­diagnosis and surgery, ­almost $500 of which was covered by Medicare, with extra pathology costs and a bill for a check-up to come.

    Notably it was the new generation ThinPrep pap test that ­detected the low-grade lesions on my cervix. A routine pap smear two years earlier had failed to ­detect the abnormalities that left untreated would likely have progressed to cancer during the next decade or so.

    Controversially, we’re now in a transition period between the old-style pap test and a new screening regime that will see the ThinPrep test and an HPV screening ­covered under Medicare from ­December 1. The move is expected to result in a 30 per cent increase in the detection of precancerous or cancerous cells.

    Since May, women have been able to claim the old test or the ThinPrep test under Medicare, but not both, and not the HPV screening.

    I paid $36 for my ThinPrep test, and I’m glad I did. I’m also glad other women won’t have to pay for it after December 1.

    Women, get yourselves tested, and parents, get your children vaccinated. Thank goodness we live in a time and place where prevention is possible.

  10. I read with interest Dr. Healy’s and other’s input into the damage of vaccines and consents, especially Dr. Donegan’s lawsuit. For ten years, from 1983 to 1993, after I took on the role of nurse educator and quality control coordinator in an operating room, I felt I had to roll up my sleeve and be a role model for the vaccinations that were offered at that time, especially the newly invented flu vaccines, hepatitis b, c etc. etc.
    I came down very physically ill in 1993 and spent many months with flu like symptoms, chronically fatigued, muscle weakness and unable to function at home, let alone to be gainfully employed. The rest is history that I wrote in my book Judging Judi that was published six years ago. I have been chronically ill since then.
    I am seventy one years old now and still have relapses while battling with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities, For years, I have not consented to any more flu vaccines and now I wonder did my chronic illnesses, which has robbed me of living a “normal” life was a result of my immune system being attacked with too many foreign substances that have proven to cause permanent physical damage in sensitive people, especially the neuro-muscular system. Just wondering as I read this material.

  11. I’ve been quiet for some time now, I tried convincing myself I stood a chance.

    Meanwhile the “swedish denial” have taken new ground, not only do we get fed lies of how problem free our society is, we have also got a bunch of “scientists” finding ever more proof of how good SSRI’s are. The same scientists who say that side-effects of the drugs are just “the drugs don’t work for all”. Full stop. Not at all any idea of how to help those who suffer sideeffects.

    I feel ashamed, I was so proud over being swedish, the safety-consious somewhat timid people.

    Turns out I was duped in an almost “Kim Jong-ish” manner.

    Seriously, doesn’t governments eagerness to provide vaccine for young girls seem an awful lot like the way “Kim Jong” describes his country to his own citizens?

    I saw someone mentioning that HPV-vaccines are predicted to “possibly” save 350 lives per year, but we have to wait 25 years to see wether that is true or not?

    Don’t get me wrong, 1 or 350, a life is worth saving, but to what cost?

    And the vaccine itself protects against 7 of 59 (or something, I’m no scientist) strains of viruses? Of which only an unknown number are proven to cause cervical cancer?

    Nah, when the “truth” keeps getting caught with their hands in the cookie-jar, I remain sceptical.

  12. There was also a report in the media revealing that groups of GPs were considering banning people from their practices if they have been using ‘Dr Google’ (as they put it )to check out health concerns before consultations.

    • And by chance I happened to watch a BBC-produced show just the other night, about ordinary people who dedicated their life to cure themselves or familymembers. This engineer was one of them, but there were other Brits aswell, but I can’t seem to find the name of the show:

      Consulting “dr. Google” (or “dr. Your Self”) is perhaps offending to the trained physicians, but absulutely life saving and a natural progression of enlightenment.

      If your doctor gives you an answer that seem wrong to you, we must be able to question them, right?

  13. If we go to the grocery store, the fashion outlet, the cinema, the theatre, the bookshop and are treated with courtesy and humour because we are being provided with a public service then if you walk in to another service centre and find the goods and service are not offering you what you want then the only thing to do is to relieve their duties to you ..

    If we had known this, then, we might not be asking Ove’s question .. instead of taking it on the chin with dire repercussions .. there are no Reward Points in these Check Point Charlies ..

    Doctors still know best
    Editorial Note: This is part 4 of Laurie Oakley’s series on Pharmaceutical Rape.

    ‘Our’ 29 Comments …………………………

  14. FB was only invented in 2007. Dr Google enables people with invaluable lived experience to join up the dots and complete the Jigsaw………No wonder THEY want it banned……The peasants are indeed……..revolting……….

  15. Science Media Centre

    October 18, 2017

    expert reaction to study looking at HPV vaccine safety in adult women in Sweden and Denmark

    In a new multi cohort study, researchers publishing in the Journal of Internal Medicine report that in more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women, the human papillomavirus (HPC) vaccine was not linked with 44 serious chronic diseases.
    Dr David Elliman, Consultant in Community Child Health and RCPCH (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) paediatrician, said:

    “In the UK we do not routinely recommended HPV vaccine for anyone other than schoolgirls.  However as the price of the vaccine comes down, consideration may be given to using it in young adult women.  In that context, this study is extremely reassuring.  Immunisation histories of over 5 million of young adult women in Denmark and Sweden were linked with their medical histories.  No evidence was found of a causal link between HPV and any of the 45 diseases – this is very reassuring and is in keeping with the evidence of safety in schoolgirls.  The authors report an association with increased coeliac disease only in women in Denmark (not in Sweden), but they suggest this is likely to be due to increased awareness in people with pre-existing coeliac disease that hadn’t been diagnosed (it is underdiagnosed in Denmark).”
    * ‘Human papillomavirus vaccination of adult women and risk of autoimmune and neurological diseases’ by A. Hviid et al. will be published in the Journal of Internal Medicine at 05:01 UK time on Wednesday 18 October 2017, which is also when the embargo will lift. 

  16. J Intern Med. 2017 Oct 18. doi: 10.1111/joim.12694. [Epub ahead of print]
    Human papillomavirus vaccination of adult women and risk of autoimmune and neurological diseases.

    Hviid A1, Svanström H1, Scheller NM1, Grönlund O2, Pasternak B1,3, Arnheim-Dahlström L2.
    Author information
    Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Department of Medicine Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Since 2006, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been introduced in many countries worldwide. Whilst safety studies have been reassuring, focus has been on the primary target group, the young adolescent girls. However, it is also important to evaluate safety in adult women where background disease rates and safety issues could differ significantly.
    We took advantage of the unique Danish and Swedish nationwide healthcare registers to conduct a cohort study comparing incidence rate ratios (RRs) of 45 preselected serious chronic diseases in quadrivalent HPV (qHPV)-vaccinated and qHPV-unvaccinated adult women 18-44 years of age.
    We used Poisson regression to estimate RRs according to qHPV vaccination status with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
    The study cohort comprised 3 126 790 women (1 195 865 [38%] Danish and 1 930 925 [62%] Swedish) followed for 16 386 459 person-years. Vaccine uptake of at least one dose of qHPV vaccine was 8% in the cohort: 18% amongst Danish women and 2% amongst Swedish. We identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following vaccination-Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, coeliac disease, localized lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and other encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis. After taking multiple testing into account and conducting self-controlled case series analyses, coeliac disease (RR 1.56 [95% confidence interval 1.29-1.89]) was the only remaining association.
    Unmasking of conditions at vaccination visits is a plausible explanation for the increased risk associated with qHPV in this study because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed in Scandinavian populations. In conclusion, our study of serious adverse event rates in qHPV-vaccinated and qHPV-unvaccinated adult women 18-44 years of age did not raise any safety issues of concern.

    So, no harm in a little coeliac disease! It may be recalled that Prof Hviid of the Staten Serum Insitut, Copenhagen was one of a team of scientists hired by the CDC’s unextradited financial fraudster Poul Thorsen to help exonerate the MMR and thimerosal containing vaccines.

    These studies came under the patronage of the CDC which hired the US Institute of Medicine to conduct an “independent” review, though under strict instructions not to find anything.

    Prof Hviid was a co-author of the MMR/autism paper by Madsen – still un-retracted – which included children too young to have received a diagnosis of autism in the vaccinated group (what looks like a most elementary error).

    Regarding the thimerosal paper, of which Prof Hviid was lead author, I found an old letter of mine in BMJ Rapid Responses (9 July 2004):

    Re: Thimerosal not Linked to Autism

    The US charity Safe Minds succeeded in obtaining Prof. Hviid’s data.
    I quote the conclusion of Sallie Bernard’s analysis:

    “The Hviid et al finding of lower autism rates with thimerosal
    exposure is likely due to errors in record keeping in the registry data
    set. Another approach to analyzing the the same data, which adjusts for
    lack of outpatient records, has found a 3-fold increase in autism
    incidence with thimerosal exposure. The Denmark autism registry has large
    variability in the nature of its records and utilization of the data set
    for epidemiological analysis is prone to bias. Use of this data to
    investigate the role of vaccines in autism should conducted by researchers
    unconnected to vaccine manufacture or promotion.”

    [US Congressman] Dr Weldon addressing the Autism One Conference in Chicago on 29 May remarked:

    “Let’s consider first the conflict of interest of the principle
    author. Hviid works for the Danish Epidemiology Science Center which is
    housed the Staten Serum Institute (SSI) the government owned Danish
    vaccine manufacturer. Also all of his coauthors work with him at the
    Center or are employed by SSI. Staten Serum Institute (SSI) makes a
    considerable profit off the sale of vaccines and vaccine components and
    the U.S. is a major market for SSI. SSI has $120m million in annual
    revenues and vaccines are the fastest growing business segment accounting
    for 80% of its profits. Both the U.S. and U.K. are important export
    markets for SSI’s vaccines and vaccine components.”

    “Furthermore, if Hviid were to find an association between thimerosal
    and autism, SSI with which he and his Center are affiliated would face
    significant lawsuits. These facts are important and are critical when
    evaluating his study.”

    Weldon concluded his thoughts on the study in these words:

    “Danish autism rate is about 6 in 10,000 vs. 30 in 10,000 in the U.S.
    – once again we are comparing apples and cows. Indeed, I believe it can
    legitimately be argued that the lower rate of Autism in Denmark is
    attributable to the lower exposure to mercury in the population.”

    Stephen Pearce never answered my question concerning what level of
    mercury he considers safe for a two month old infant.

    [1] Safe Minds Analysis of Denmark Autism Registry October 2003

Leave a Reply to Elizabeth Hart