Kim Mack Rosenberg & Eileen Iorio | The HPV Vaccine On Trial, Adjuvants, & Data Manipulation

00:00 Embrace yourself, because you're about to dive into another free first hour episode of the Higher Side Chats. And we just want to let you know that whether your looking for a companion through your paranoid insomnia, entertaining yourself through one of life's mundane activities or trying to ward off the internal screams from all those sad smothered souls around the office THC is here and you should know that every episode of the higher side chats has an entire second hour for PLUS members Sign up at thehiresidechatsplus.com and you'll get years of Plus Show archives, lifetime forum access, a special invite to Greg Carlwood's monthly joint sessions MP3s of THC music bonus episodes tour videos and 10% off t-shirts grinders and whatever else ends up in The HireSite store It's $8 a month that you won't miss so become a plus member and treat yourself in these troubled times always action packed and commercial free

00:51 Which means you'll unfortunately never hear my voice again. Where would we be without THC? We know they're lying to us, just don't know to what degree. Where would we be without THC? The highest side chat show. Great Carl Wood and Company

01:59 Alright, Hiresite Chatters. I think it's safe to say our general feelings and relationship with the medical establishment are contentious at best And despite the standard response of trusting the experts and authorities to have our best interest at heart We wonder, how can you not look at this system with a skeptical eye when you consider the amounts of money involved, the revolving door of regulatory capture between Big Pharma and those agencies created to police the industry, and the simple fact that just a few generations ago doctors were willing to recommend their favorite brand of cigarettes for the right price? And while we know marketing is often deceptive and dishonest when it comes to the life-and-death seriousness of medical matters, we sometimes let our guards down. Because who would be heartless enough to take the money when the stakes are this high?

02:47 Sadly, the answer is many many people. And I'm sure some of you listening now have heard the Herald Angels sing the chorus line urging young ladies to be one less by getting a tried and true HPV vaccine to protect yourself from the ever-growing risk of cervical cancer Well folks, it seems like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline the companies that manufacture HPV vaccines such as Gardasil have lied to you and have caused damage death and heartbreak all around the world. And only because of brave people willing to push back against the blind faith prerogative like today's two guests Kim Mack Rosenberg and Eileen Ayorio do we even have the facts and data we need to confidently say no

03:31 because Kim and Eileen are two of the three authors, along with Mary Holland of the NYU School of Law behind a great new book called The HPV Vaccine on Trial Seeking Justice for A Generation Betrayed. At over 350 pages it tells the full story of the HPV vaccine with over another 100 pages of meticulously crafted sources and endnotes that combined make a pretty ironclad case that even most trusting people can't deny I for one am definitely excited to get into it. Two passionate advocates for truth, Mary and Kim welcome to the higher side. Thank you so much for having us Greg we appreciate the time to share information about the book thank you Greg thank you

04:15 Of course it is my pleasure i'm so glad you ladies are here on behalf of everyone thanks for not only talking to me today but for putting this book together, i think a lot of us realize that a big portion of the population isn't denial about this sort of thing and doesn't help too. Hand them a book called the vaccine conspiracy with crying babies in a skull and crossbones on the cover you know those books exist But your book, The HPV Vaccine on Trial is incredibly professional and well put together. And you should both be really proud! And to kick this off, you say in the intro we bring legal and financial backgrounds to the task while we are not doctors or scientists We believe that our perspective is critical to the debate I hope we could start by elaborating on that

05:04 Obviously expertise is important can you talk to us about your credentials and how you three ladies came together to tackle this just for when my open minded audience tries to share this with their less open-minded friends and family. Sure this is i mean i come to it from a perspective i have, reach out and two girls and the boy initially it was on the basis of opposing really mandating this vaccine in new york where we live. And whatever your stance and vaccines i believe that you shouldn't be mandated this is a vaccine against sexually transmitted infection and i felt that, man dating this for school entry with egregious at best

05:49 And I came to it from that perspective years ago my son was injured by vaccines and hospitalized and thankfully he pulled through so i was already looking into this issue and blogging about it. You know this is a new vaccine and there's alot of information in the lot of controversy so naturally, i went towards investigating this and writing a blog on it for the thinking moms revolution and then got involved meeting legislators in New York to oppose This particular vaccine mandate which comes up every year which led me to meeting him and mary but essentially this is about risk awareness informed consent. And as the title of the book suggests hpv vaccine on trial this vaccine is very much on trials throughout the world, both in the courts of law which can talk about and in the court public opinion so i felt it was important to get to the bottom of this figure out what's safe to the child show that it was safe

06:51 And like i said because it's new in my opinion the jury still out so this is kim. I came to it from a legal perspective and the perspective of apparent i have an eighteen year old son who is vaccine injured as well, But as a lawyer i have been practicing for many years and my practice is focused on insurance related issues and products liability issues. And as a product liability litigator, i've done a great deal of work directly with experts such as epidemiologist mds and ph ds in various

07:26 specialties in addressing the connections between injuries and exposures. So I have a lot of background in that, and have learned to critically read for example peer-reviewed studies and meta analyses and things like that as Eileen said you know we were very concerned about the idea of mandating the HPV vaccine in New York State and elsewhere where mandates have been tried and in some cases in a few states actually it is mandated It's a very controversial vaccine and as we dug into it, what we found was the evidence that we present in our book is there in sources from the US government. The European Medicines Agency, CDC FDA.

08:10 ASIP, all the alphabet soup of governmental agencies, WHO. So a lot of what we rely on and we want readers or curious people to know this is information directly from those sources. We go beyond those sources but we bring you the information that is out there from them that people don't know about and it's really important that people learn this because just reading a package insert or reading a vaccine information statement or even talking to your doctor who hasn't seen all this information in all likelihood, is not going to give you a complete picture and allow you to make a truly informed decision that's right for you or your family.

08:48 Right and just add quickly greg the book has been endorsed by doctor luke montagnier who is a world renowned virologist and nobel prize winner for his discovery of the virus, i am many doctors have reviewed the book for its content we are not doctors in the book doesn't contain medical advice it's more than investigative journalistic look at this vaccine and scandal throughout the world it's heavily cited and To date, we have not had any professional or alphabet soup agency raise any issues with our book and no corrections have been asked to be made. This is very well researched it has taken a long time to put together. Yes it is so impressive and that's definitely worth pointing out. It also got tons of endorsements and praise right there in the first few pages as well

09:37 As well as the doctors you talk to and studies you pulled out along the way. And the book is broken down into four parts part one looks at the testing and clinical trials part two looks what happened when the vaccine hit the market, heart three is a deeper dive into the latest research on aluminum containing adjuvants and other ingredients of concern. And part four looks at the international implications, so it's really methodical but let's get deeper into the clinical trials because what you lay out is pretty shocking and I think this is where we can get a lot of people who assume something so important would have super strict and honest testing because that is not the case

10:18 What did you find when you looked into these trials that was most shocking? Eileen, maybe you can tell us what she saw. I think what most people find shocking not because we research many vaccines but when most people find shocking is that the placebo in the clinical trials was not sailing or inert. It wasn't fact the exact same as you and is found in a vaccine and then add event is, any new stimulating immune priming ingredients that enables the vaccine to work so without the adjuvant in this case a novel proprietary adjuvant belonging to mark that nobody has ever studied independently. So initially thats what people find shocking how can you have a clinical trial without assailing or inert control where is your safety data coming from there isn't any and in fact throughout the entire clinical process over many years and many trials, there was no inert control even the one small

11:19 Clinical trial involving the youngest children, the target market of 9 to 15 year olds. the fda claims that was a salient where is in fact it was not. It didn't have the aluminum but it did have other non inert substances like borax, l histidine and polysorbate 80 all ingredients which never been really tested independently to be injected into children but the most shocking thing we found was that aside from the lack of informed consent issues that we do raise That small child i just mentioned with the youngest children. The clinical trial they were involved with that they participated in, in the vaccine arm they were given half the amount of this aluminum adjuvant that was eventually in a formulation of the vaccine that went to market so another words. The children that were used in the clinical trials convince the FDA that it was safe for young children and effective only got half the dose of this immune stimulating adjuvant off

12:20 What's on the market that children are getting today so not only was it not tested against a placebo vaccine was never tested at all. And this has an implication for safety because we know and you can see in part three of the book where we talk about the adjuvant that, this hasn't application for safety that the element management does cause side effects is implicated in many autoimmune conditions throughout the world allergies and many other neurological disorders. So this is far from a clinical trial that we consider to be robust for safety purposes. And just to follow up on what Eileen said, We discovered this anomaly in the dosing of aluminum in the youngest children test group

13:04 And it's in the FDA's clinical review documents and the table in the FDA's documents is actually sort of a cut-and-paste, an insert from a Merck document. So this is information directly from Merck that hasn't been transposed any number of times or lost in translation. It's Merck's own data and they have not come forward and said that data was incorrect. And the FDA are currently looking at it, Greg. So we have raised these issues I did mention the lack of informed consent in the opening chapter you might remember that we tell the story of two young girls from Denmark who were involved in clinical trials one was in a vaccine arm and other was in placebo or the foci bar as we call it because it's very similar substance and that mirrored to clinical trials really and they both became ill which is what

13:57 the clinical trials did actually discover that there was the same rate of harm in each group which didn't raise a flag to them as a safety signal infected reinforce their opinion that the vaccine is safe incredibly so. But we talk to the girls who were enrolled in the clinical trials and they were told, and they receive brochures to this effect that the vaccine was safe it had already been tested and this was two thousand two the vaccine was approved in two thousand six They were also told that the placebo would be sailing and they were under the impression that the clinical trial investigators also believed, that the placebos was sailing. So this was terribly egregious and some people consider it fraud on these girls This hasn't been tested of course but its a terrible indication of the lack attitude that Merck had towards these very generous clinical trial participants who risk their health under false pretenses

14:54 give their contribution to science they believe that they were helping to save women from cervical cancer and they themselves got sick, it was never recorded or reported. It was dismissed because i need a girl say that the chemical trial investigators believed there is no side effects they were told everybody assume this is safe so where are the checks and balances how do we know that mark did a good job if these girls who are actually in denmark very regulated country as regards clinical trials what about other countries it just doesn't bode well and i would take many years to figure out all that information we only had a certain amount of time.

15:32 Yes those were some of the various shoes at the forefront of my mind that i found pretty shocking in your book with the findings that there was no true saline placebo probably being the most severe. Along with only testing half of the volume found in the retail vaccine and it's just so sad cuz you bring these girls and tell them they're getting a saline placebo and then u inject them with these adjuvants and some of them come away damaged just from bat right but, What this practice does, which is so sinister is it masks the hazards that would come from these adjuvants because there's no true control group. As your book puts it, Merck and the FDA concluded that because the vaccine and the control had similar safety profiles, the vaccine must be safe That's like saying because cigarettes and cigars have similar risk profiles that they must both be safe

16:25 That's a great analogy, but it is clear to see what they're doing here first They flat-out lied then they obviously manipulated the data dishonestly There has to be a deeper answer Here than ignorance right i mean how could such a thing happen with the protocols and protections that we assume are in place for stuff like this well Everyone asks us that you know how did he ever get approved so we asked the fda. You know why did you allow? work to use An aluminum adjuvant and their response was well we've been using aluminum salts for seventy years and mark wanted to double blind the study so that means, neither the participant nor the person administering the vaccine would know right which is switch so they want it make it look the same.

17:13 Which is absolutely bogus because as you will have read and we just spoke about it that they did design a clinical trial that did not contain the adjuvant it didn't contain the other ingredients but so it isn't true that they needed to do that in many trials are done. without the vaccine looking the same in the vials so there are other ways to do it it's not good enough and like you said they used as evidence of safety which is preposterous and when they were asked by independent scientist in the uk dr christopher actually who's been studying aluminum for thirty odd years and he's the world experts in its toxicity and effects on humans. Animals he asked mark to

17:56 Receive a file so he could independently tested in his lab and they said no. So where is the independent study that this is safe to inject into pre-pubescent children we don't know, the effects of injecting this amount and then you version of the vaccine cardis nine has double the amounts that was studied in the clinical trials, the original clinical trials. And guess what? Guess what was the control in Gardasil 9's clinical trials while it was the first version of the vaccine. So not only did you have no placebo in the original trials then you come to testing this new product and then they use the old version so that whole thing begs so many questions and they've never been answered

18:36 Right. And another element seems to be that in the Gardasil clinical trials, they used a new metric of new medical conditions as a way to claim that maybe serious health problems after vaccination were unrelated to injections. This is the type of moving-the-goal post that I've seen before but how does it come into play here? Well, I think it comes into play in a very key way. They tracked serious adverse events other adverse events and reactions really for the first 15 days following each injection so it's a very short time frame in which to see adverse events particularly things like autoimmune conditions which we're seeing so many young people develop following HPV vaccination and those can take months and years to develop and even longer to get a diagnosis they're

19:24 tricky diseases to diagnose. And what they did was create this metric called new medical conditions and almost built into the metric is a presumption that those conditions are not related to the vaccine, and that clinical trial investigators were not required to collect as much information about these new medical conditions as they were about serious adverse events And they have new medical conditions going out seven months, 12 months depending on the trial group. And they're very serious conditions there's gastrointestinal issues, there's autoimmune issues, there are reproductive and breast health issues, there are blood issues, cardiac issues these are not

20:08 serious infections. These are not just passing, you know I have a headache or my arm hurts type of reaction they're very serious conditions and we know from the girls in Denmark one of the girls in Denmark as we talk about in the book said that she was very sick following vaccination and she would go in and report these whole series of symptoms that she was experiencing that were very serious. And when she later obtained her records through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained her clinical trial records with the help of a reporter from Slate there was very little notation in those records of what she was reporting. It almost looked as if she was reporting something relatively mild, whereas she was debilitated quite frankly so this new metric, as I said sort of had this presumption of almost not being related to the vaccine but importantly almost 50% of young women in all the clinical trial groups combined reported new medical conditions

21:11 following vaccination. Given that we know that there's perhaps scant reporting on some of these, the numbers could be even higher than what is shown in the clinical trial data. If you have someone like the young woman in our book who said her conditions really weren't written down very well so to me it begs the question whether or not that number is in fact even higher but what we have is half of people reporting they are ill and its also critical that readers understand and your listeners understand The people who participated in these clinical trials were a really select group of basically the healthiest of healthy young women. There were numerous exclusion criteria that the clinical trial investigators would apply in determining who could participate in the clinical trials, and it had to do with how healthy you were—your gynecologic history or number of sexual partners. You couldn't have had more than four sexual partners in your life

22:10 whether or not you had some sort of immunological or autoimmune condition. So all those people would be left out And then there was a sort of catch-all that the clinical trial investigator could exclude anyone who he or she thought for whatever reason might skew the results of the trial somehow, or not be an appropriate candidate for the trial. So you could lump a bunch of people into that category. So what you're getting is the healthiest of healthy 9 to 23 year olds primarily in one country it went up to 26 but nine to twenty six year olds who are super, super healthy and half of them are getting serious illnesses during these trials. That's astounding! Yes that's an excellent point because it's all factors in data that goes out the window when you're injecting the masses because they don't have the strict criteria once the trials are over with but another factor that's really important is the age

23:06 I guess it's given to girls as young as nine perhaps, but in the trials the subjects of this study were significantly older. Why is that important? What data does that obscure?" Well, the reason that the girls were older in the trials was because of the endpoints. In other words what they were testing involved gynecological examinations right so and they had to be of an age group that were potentially sexually active so that they could study the virus if the control group which we know is a placebo but if HPV infections were being reduced

23:42 So that was the reason for the age group and younger children of course cannot have gynecological exams. We believe that the target market was young children, we know from let's say the back way around this that they weren't likely to have sexual intercourse and the vaccine is supposedly more effective in young children And we did find in the clinical trials that if the young women had HPV infections, they were more likely to develop disease later on. But perhaps Kim maybe you can answer that better than I can? Sure so what they found as Eileen said there is one sort of logical reason that the vast majority of clinical trial participants were older and that they were able to conduct gynecologic exams on them which they couldn't ethically do on nine and ten year olds

24:30 But they also found in one small sub-study group that women who were at the time they were vaccinated both had evidence from a blood test of prior exposure to one of the vaccine types of HPV and had some evidence current exposure based on physical exam, that those women who were vaccinated were over 44% more likely to develop vaccine-type HPV associated disease during the trial period than the same cohort who received—that cohort who received the control, the aluminum adjuvant.

25:14 And they found also that those women had more quote unquote real world risk factors for disease as well. They were smokers, some of them were obese so they had these risk factors that play into the development of disease but if you're vaccinating someone and you know that they have those risk factors and you know that they may have an infection that should raise red flags but instead in the real world What we're seeing is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says don't prescreen for HPV infection before administering the vaccine. So they're not looking for those women who may be at a greater risk because of an infection, another risk factors. And you're less likely to have those risk factors with young children. And young children are less likely to be smokers or less likely to be sexually active

26:06 that doesn't mean they may not have been exposed to HPV. And there certainly were young children in the clinical trials who had evidence of prior exposure through blood testing, and there are other ways to be infected with HPV than just through sexual activity. It's less common but it's very real I mean there's mother-to-infant transmission during birth then hand-to-body part transmission, even with young children changing diapers and things like that. So it is possible for someone who's not sexually active to have an HPV infection though less common but by switching the cohort

26:42 to these younger children as the target market, you've sort of removed some of those risks theoretically. Right and there was also the risk of pregnancy miscarriage that we saw in the trials but we can't say for sure if it was intended or it was switched to the younger market partway through We have to assume that the target market was always these young children Because there are more immunological responsive to a vaccine that's at least what we're told and you know where also tells that the target market was really developing world. And that doesn't appear to be in reality what happening, did not receive this backseat most cases of cervical cancer mortality highest

27:26 I think it's over 90% of cervical cancer cases happen in the developing world. So, you know this is kind of a very Not well thought out vaccine in terms of distribution rollout marketing and instead the developed world, the US UK Europe Australia Canada are giving this vaccine to their youngest twins. And subsidizing for other countries to enter into this arrangement of getting a vaccine to their children so it's a little bit upside down at the moment And as Kim said, the recent approval by the FDA to include women 27 to 45. Women and men actually 27 to 45 is also preposterous given that we saw in a clinical trials that there's an increased risk for disease enhancement in women who

28:17 Who have had hdv in the past and added to that there's been no testing on man and they use this method in clinical trials when you can't study the target market so they couldn't start the children i'm a good study men really because this is a cervical cancer studies do things called bridging studies they will do tighter tests or blood test after giving the participants the vaccine and then bridges up let's say compare it to the more studied market, and then through their bridging in other words they were connected somehow they'll say oh well that's compared two groups and then that's how i get approval for these young kids.

28:57 And then by bridging and saying well it's pretty similar we're good to go without including the differences that young children have and men have in their immune response to vaccine so this is white nothing yet you know this back scene in one of the least tested although it claims that its the most tested it may be the most testing terms of time spent on clinical trials but it's the least tested in terms of substance. Well, That's a great summary and it's just so sad we have all these issues with the trials that slopping is at best deception and criminality at worst. And to get into part two maybe let's look deeper what happened when the vaccine came to market what can you tell us about how many girls have gotten it and some of the damage in issues that are rose once actually did come out

29:50 So millions of girls and boys now worldwide have gotten the vaccine. And I think one thing that we try to do, and it's important to put in perspective is looking...and Eileen touched on this, the difference between high resource countries and low resource countries and the purported need for the vaccine. When you look at information—and we did and we have it in the book—about who's really at risk of cervical cancer in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute's own data. 0.6% of US women are at risk of developing cervical cancer in their lifetime, so just over half a percent of women and of course any case of cervical cancer is devastating and no one wants anyone to have cervical cancer but the reality is that the risk is extraordinarily low for women in the United States. So Merck's marketing that you know a mother or parent

30:49 would help their daughter to be one less case of cervical cancer is misleading because in most instances, those girls were never going to be a case of cervical cancer. Because the incidence is so low in the U S In other parts of the world as Eileen pointed out it's much more devastating both the incident rate and the death rates are much much higher in places like East Africa and There are many reasons that contribute to those increases, including smoking exposure to toxic smokes lack of screening because in developed countries. Generally speaking if you were screened any sort of abnormality is going to be caught and can be treated early and that the majority of women who develop cervical cancer in a country like the United States have not been screened in five or more years so screening is critical And one of the things we're seeing and it's being reported

31:44 in this now post-vaccine era that we're in, is that when the youngest girls are vaccinated—your tweens and your early teens. that those girls seem to not be engaging in recommended gynecological screenings going forward. So they're not getting their pap smears or their HPV DNA testing the way they should, and that is very troubling because we know that screening works and those girls should be screened and the vaccine only protects against a limited number... To the extent it protects, it protects against a limited number of types of HPV so this idea

32:22 that the vaccine will prevent all cervical cancer or that the vaccine will last your whole lifetime. None of those things have been proven, there are other types of HPV not in the vaccine that are associated with cervical cancer as well and other cancers and there's no evidence of lifetime protection you know it's a relatively new vaccine we don't know how long its protections will last to the extent there are protections. So it's very worrisome that these girls might not be Engaging in the kind of screening behavior and really at eleven twelve years old which is really the central target market those girls are basically at that point in their lives. At zero risk of cervical cancer. Any new craig we're seeing in the real world while on one hand they'll say oh look it australia and you know hb infections are down by half but these are benign infections in most cases ninety five percent of incase

33:20 They will regress on their own with our bodies immune system so we're hearing about this quote unquote success of the vaccine so why would you not. What they are ignoring the trail of destruction that we see all around world and there's also this more subtle effect it hasn't yet been proven but receiving it, can talk about screening any uk i think is a good example because they had the vaccine in schools for ten years at ninety percent uptake What you see in the cervical cancer rates and the very young women there we didn't really talk too much about this in the book because it just needs to be looked at more but cancer in the young age group their twenty two twenty eight years old is on the rise and we do know that screening is down by about twenty percent since the vaccine came in

34:07 So this complacency towards screening or over-reliance on the vaccine. Now, why would cancer be going up in very young women? Either most likely lack of screening or most of them have had the vaccine so why didn't it work or what's happening? This all needs to be looked at and yet it isn't because WHO is focusing on small success stories like no warts in Australia I mean that has never been a public health threat to my knowledge and you know the other reason could be that can also mention it needs to be studied again is this. I do that other strains could be taking the place of those two very prevalent strain sixteen eighteen that were in the vaccine at those children got in the UK and elsewhere but perhaps there are other strains now filling void nature reports vacuum and

34:55 This is well known in biology that other strains could become more virulent and take the place so why are these young women in the UK now more prone to cancer numbers thankfully a small but the trend is on the way up since the vaccine came in and it's shocking scary, add women need to get screened i think that's the message. Right. And there is some evidence, even in studies from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, there is some evidence that type replacement is occurring. It's still equivocal at this point and it's early days and hard to tell but there certainly is some evidence that this type replacement is occurring and that once you take out as Eileen said these predominant strains, other strains we don't know may be more virulent which was why they were sort of tamped down by less virulent

35:44 are going to come in to fill that void. And it is very, very concerning that these young women you know the 20-28 year olds that cervical cancer is on the rise in that cohort because the incident rate for cervical cancer in that age group, thankfully very low. But you don't want to see any rise in cancer in those young women so that needs to be watched not just in the UK but other countries as well where programs have been in place for a long time. Dr. Fauci Yeah and it's also interesting and Let's use maybe the US as a microcosm because you said just over half of percent are actually at risk of cervical cancer in the U.S.,

36:28 how many people, how many women got this vaccine versus like what kind of statistics do we have on how many end up adversely affected out in the real world? Well historically over the last 10 years or what is it now 12 years since the vaccine was approved in 2006. Uptake has been very low in the US averaging around 30%. It started off as a three injection series so So kids would have to get three injections and in 2016-17 it was reduced to two injections for the very young. Again, because they know that the youngest kids have more of an immune response to vaccines so if you're over 15 it's 3.

37:12 So historically, it's been around 30% and that is slightly increasing with the two dose schedule because obviously it's less onerous on the patient. As regards injuries and statistics in terms of what percentage we can only tell from what's reported to the vaccine adverse events reporting system VAERS Which is very passive not many people know about it's not even doctors let alone the public so if you have a vaccine reaction your doctor should report to bears. Now is something that you can do online or you know the doctor can call reported to mark but this is not routine

37:51 My reason for saying that is that numbers are underestimated rather than over so currently we have around sixty one thousand reported reactions since two thousand six and four hundred and thirty deaths i think can we look at it the other day that's right right around four hundred yeah not all of those reports of course accurate like you said its passive system it's not. Robust in its reporting spot it also underreported so far however many of those four hundred and thirty deaths maybe i read something on the internet you could amplify that up by times ten to a hundred because we know that around only one percent to ten percent of real injuries are ever reported so we could be looking at four thousand death in the united states well actually there is doesn't do some from round the world surround for thousands as opposed to yes

38:45 Yes cervical cancer deaths are terrifying and frightening in a horrible disease we don't need any shape or form want to be little bad. There four thousand death due to cervical cancer annually in the united states is ranked number twenty in the list of cancers in cancer mortality And you know most of those deaths I think Kim, you mentioned this are in women who have not had regular pap screens or not availed the screening program here in the United States. So it's not to compare death to deaths It's horrifying either one but its just a point out that there have been cases and maybe you can talk about that settled in court where death has been ruled as caused by the vaccine

39:29 Sure. And I just wanted to also go back to something Eileen said about the passiveness of the VAERS system and underreporting, there was a study done that the U.S Department of Health and Human Services commissioned by the Harvard Pilgrim Group and they found that approximately 1% of injuries were reported to VAERS, that the underreporting is really severe. And when they went back to CDC to try to get more information and to flesh this out further, CDC stopped returning their phone calls." So they were essentially shut down, but they did some good study and some good data. And this is again very mainstream sources saying these injuries, the 65,000-66,000 HPV injuries reported to VAERS are literally a tiny fraction of the potential injuries that are out there. And there have been cases that have been settled or have been compensated in the vaccine injury compensation program for very serious injuries and for death.

40:29 In the United States, many people don't know that you cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer in a regular court of law if you've been injured by a vaccine. If I've been injured in my car and an accident, my seatbelt fails, I can sue the manufacturer of my car or probably the manufacturer of the seatbelt and all kinds of other things. But if I have a vaccine injury, I can't sue the manufacturer, I can't sue Merck. What I can do is bring a claim in what's called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which has been around since 1986 and it was put in place at a time when there were significant legal claims against vaccine manufacturers for injuries surrounding primarily the diphtheria tetanus pertussis shot that was made with whole cell pertussis

41:22 and there were threats by the vaccine manufacturers that they couldn't survive this, they would stop manufacturing vaccines. And so the Compensation Act was put into place and it shields the manufacturers from liability. So when you as a person or as the family member of a person who's been injured makes a claim, you're not making that claim against the manufacturer. You are making the claim against the U.S Department of Health and Human Services. That is the respondent in the program It's a program where you don't get any discovery, let alone any discovery from the manufacturer who would be at third party. At that point it was meant to be a non confrontational means of resolving disputes and it really has turned into a much more confrontation all program is not a quick resolution can take many years we tell the story of christina tar cell and her mother emily in the book emily had taken christina who was

42:19 a brilliant scholar, an incredibly talented artist. We have some beautiful photos in the book of artwork that she had done and a competitive tennis player who was a student at Bard University here in New York State. The family you know she'd taken her to get the vaccine talked to the gynecologist about it Emily's own sister had passed away from uterine cancer and so was concerned about reproductive cancers got the vaccine. And after, I believe the third dose Emily got a knock that no parent wants on her door in the middle of the night, a couple of weeks after Chris had gotten her shot and had gone back to school it was police officers telling her that Chris had been found in her bed and had passed away. It turned out she'd passed away from a cardiac issue

43:14 Emily filed in the compensation program. She was denied initially She took that case up on appeal to the Federal Court of Claims, which overturned the denial. It went back to the compensation program for reconsideration under the standards that the court of claims set forth as the appropriate standards and she was compensated but in the compensation program it's cold comfort for a family who has lost a child because life is valued at $250,000 in that program. That's the cap on what a parent can receive a person who is still living and severely injured, the awards can be tens of millions of dollars depending on the injuries and annuities that are put in place to cover that person's care. And we see there was just a recent decision that came down from a young woman who again had been a vibrant

44:00 healthy, active young woman received one injection of the vaccine and developed a multiple sclerosis like autoimmune demyelinating disorder and is in a wheelchair and will require lifelong care. So there are really serious injuries that are being compensated or being settled. And tragically there are deaths. Chris Carcels is not the only case Yes, it is quite sad and injuries are bad enough. But is there more to say about how fertility is affected? I know they didn't test fertility in humans only in rats with the initial clinical trials but do we have any better data now or better idea of how fertility is affected by this vaccine?

44:49 Well i'll start with that great is a delicate issue because this vaccine is aimed at a virus of the cervix and to suggest that this would cause fertility issue is frightening and nobody would believe it right. What we did see from those new medical conditions that we spoke of earlier that ten or twelve percent of both sides but the vaccine and the placebo arm. Report it new reproductive disorders so re productive sorted ranging in severity, add these were healthy girls before so when you look at the clinical trials for let's say pregnancy that would be where he would see an effect on fertility

45:31 And it was reported by mark that twenty seven percent of women who became pregnant after receiving the vaccine miscarriage. Now that was passed off my work to the fda as always the same is background rates and alarm bells should have been going off at the FDA because these are women like we said before where young women the average age is twenty And if they inadvertently got pregnant after the vaccine, a normal miscarriage rate in that age group is 10 to 15%. And some studies show it even lower. We found a study from around that time published in 1998 from a Danish registry in Europe that put the rate at 8%-9%, but in the US it's around 10%, so it's pretty consistent and a lot of the trial participants were from the U.S and Europe

46:21 So if and again pushing it on to guard some nine a similar rate of miscarriage was found in the garden so nine trials which is what girls receive boys received right now, add it with even higher in the twenty four year old to twenty six year old age bracket it was forty percent. Now in the real world you don't see miss carriage rates at forty percent until your over forty And this is known this is not some conspiracy so to think that there's an effect on fertility it is shocking but we did also look at a study from stanford now come to the cdc perspective in a second. There was a study and stand for a stamp for clinic that looked at

47:03 premature ovarian failure in teens it was before two thousand six unheard of the decided to look at their clinic and a case series study up there cases in the clinic because they had seen. Cases come in and they were shocked these doctors are kinda shot and they looked at all cases that primary variant failure since nineteen ninety eight And they found fifteen cases and fourteen were since two thousand six which is the year the vaccine was approved. Of course, they did not associate these cases with a vaccine nor do they study it. But they did say that it could be an environmental factor. These were idiopathic cases in other words there's no known cause there are other cases where our cause is known but these were cases of idiopathic primary variant failure The CDC decided to do their own study a few months ago and this will be something that doctors may mention in response to that but they looked at

47:59 cases since two thousand six and didn't go back prior to when the vaccine was on the market so this is a whitewash of study basically just to calm everyone down i think they did find forty six cases and maintain that that was not statistically significant you have to ask statistically significant to whom those forty six children who developed idiopathic case is the primary variant failure following a vaccine but they compared children Who got garden sent to children who got other aluminum containing vaccines at the same age this twelve year old age so this is really preposterous the way that they turn out studies. In response to scandals as if to head off the rumor of the past

48:41 This is what is continually done in order to put these rumors to bed and if anyone with. Any semblance of common sense read that study they would say but why did you not go back to nineteen ninety six for example and see what primary variant failure rates were like back then just ten years before the vaccine and thats not done any pretty basic And so you know all we have to go by look at the book and look at the chapter that we talk about fertility there are two ingredients in a vaccine that. You know i associated with infertility and rats and we tend to laugh when we say well they only study the backseat on red

49:20 They couldn't study it on women of course because it would be unethical but they didn't barely. By default have pregnant women in the studies and they had to report those findings and you know finally the fda accepted that thirty percent, Miss carriage rate in women young women is acceptable so we have to ask the question the evidence is stacking up and you have worldwide. Teen pregnancy rates down by fifty percent since two thousand six two thousand eight and Nobody's asking what environmental factors are at play. We don't think the vaccine is the only thing, but it could be you know there's many other factors social media attitudes or increased access to abortion medication but until somebody looks critically and medically at these children for an environmental factor that a drug or this vaccine I don't think we can rule it out

50:16 And I, Greg, will have to leave the interview right now but I'm going to leave you in the capable hands of Kim Mac Rosenberg. And I thank you very much and I hope to talk to you again soon. Eileen thanks for being here and for all the great information and a great book take care. Thank you so much. Bye bye Eileen Just to build on what she said a little bit about these issues of premature ovarian failure and fertility issues, it was also very concerning to us. And again we're not doctors and scientists were coming at it from sort of investigative journalist perspective but by choosing the target market of 11-12 year olds let's say 9-14 15 year olds

50:57 You're choosing children who are either prepubescent or just entering puberty and their bodies are going through enormous hormonal changes, very different than what's happening to a 16-26 year old woman. That needs to be considered and accounted for, and it was tested again on very few children in that age range. And also at that age young women frankly may not have started menstruating yet or their periods may not be very regular so changes in irregularities in that regard may not be apparent to anyone at that time if a girl hasn't started menstruating yet or several years

51:42 As Aileen said, many factors could be at play. But to even consider or take into account the possible role of the vaccine if it's not realized until many years later that this young woman has perhaps primary ovarian failure or some other fertility-related issues or menstrual issues time goes by and you may not even recall that she got that vaccine or that maybe you noticed things, or didn't notice things because she was so young when she got it. That could have an impact down the road. And again, that's just a question that we raise because we do think it's important to look at that and remember that young children

52:22 are very different than older teens and young adults. And we know that, for example just looking—and Eileen touched on this—at the immune response of the young children compared to the 16-to 23 year olds in that bridging study she talked about, the immune responses of the younger children, the 9-15 year olds were substantially higher both in that half dose of aluminum group and the full dose of aluminum group compared to 16-23 year olds. And that's taken as a good thing, that these children are having a more robust immune response but isn't necessarily a good thing because with that robust immune response can come more negative reactions as well because you're priming the immune system to fight something

53:09 Yes and those are great points and that's kind of what stuck out to me about giving it to younger girls is because if the name of the game is obscuring, the dangers in the damage that were kinda picked up on in some of these clinical trials instead of confessing and passing up to those red flags you just move the age back because obviously as you said the puberty process creates all kinds of changes in the body so it creates a lot of cover to say well that could've been something else i could have been naturally occurring we don't know how they were gonna develop because your injecting them before that happens and thats

53:49 I mean i don't know we can talk about motors but it sounds like a dirty trick to me and especially when you add in the stuff we've already talked about. And, i know were getting down to at the one last thing i wanted to broach here was i want to touch on this component of the book about by ox i found this to be pretty interesting and telling but why is via important to the guard so story. So my ex is important to the garden store for a few reasons one is that Merck was embroiled sort of in the Vioxx scandal at this time. And, you know there's the colloquial sort of inside joke that HPV stands for help pay for Vioxx but Merck had to pay substantial fines as a result of the Vioxx clinical trial fraud The data showed that Vioxx was causing very serious health issues and that data Was manipulated

54:46 and not disclosed in the manner that it should have been. And as a result, that drug was approved, it went to market and hundreds of thousands of people suffered very serious injuries. So that was an expensive proposition for Merck so it was important that Merck had something on the burner that it could bring out and HPV infections are something most people get Most people never know they have them because they tend to be completely asymptomatic. And as we said earlier, over 90% of them resolve on their own but you've essentially got a market of almost all adults in America at that point and other countries for this vaccine and in the developing world where cervical disease and cervical cancer death are very serious issues or potential market there is Eileen said it really hasn't worked that way

55:43 the countries where the rates are the highest tend to not be the countries who have programs in place. So we could talk about that and it's the countries like the United States, where you're at a very low risk of developing cervical cancer that you have higher uptake and then in countries like Australia and UK and Ireland where there are school-based programs, uptake is even higher. Almost everyone gets them in some of those countries. In Ireland following a whole series of injuries and publicity surrounding those that the vaccination rates actually dropped significantly. But in other countries, I think Eileen mentioned the UK where uptake is in the 80 or 90 percent range you have a huge worldwide market for this vaccine because nearly everyone will be exposed to HPV in their lifetime.

56:39 Man, it's just overwhelming. It's really sad and I do appreciate you spending the two hours with me Big thanks to Eileen as well for being here as long as she could. It's very sad and frustrating this sort of stuff happens, but you ladies really are beacons of light in the darkness and I really love that you're out there fighting back again The book is amazing the HPV vaccine on trial seeking justice for a generation betrayed Is there anything else we should maybe tell people about staying informed or following any other work? You're gonna be putting out

57:18 Well we're still trying to get the word out about this one. One thing at a time, so we encourage people to not only get the book and read it for themselves but buy a copy for their doctor because we just know anecdotally in talking to physicians that a lot of them aren't aware of the flaws for example in the clinical trial process with this vaccine in particular. You know, we know that sometimes you say to a doctor well you know there was no placebo but there's no saline placebo and they say of course there was they're always saline placebos in the clinical trials. We say well now actually there weren't and I can show you the documents from the government and from Merck that showed that that's often an opportunity I have found and I know others have found to really start a conversation because something like

58:14 often shocking for doctors and they'll say, okay what else went on in the clinical trial? Tell me more. Right it opens the door And because we relied so much on the documents from the FDA and from the EMA and the Merck information that's incorporated into the clinical reviews in the FDA, and the memos that Merck submitted to FDA in their testimony to FDA. And the underlying science about HPV infections and cervical disease and other things from Doctors National Cancer Institute and similar scientists you know this very mainstream very credible

59:01 Research that shows the flaws in this whole process and then you know, the stories that are out there that. show what's happened since the vaccine has gone to market and since the marketing campaigns and the school-based campaigns that are exposing so many kids to these vaccines, and then seeing the children and young adults who have been injured following vaccination. You know, the book is sort of an emotional roller coaster to me even in writing it and rereading it at various times you go from the hard science and these deep dive into aluminum and toll like receptor agonists and clinical trial data

59:38 to the real world stories of what's happening around the world. In Colombia and Carmen de Bolivar, where hundreds of girls in one town were injured by the Gardasil vaccine. To India where those families were not able to give true informed consent and girls died in these demonstration projects. Two families here around the United States and elsewhere who have been injured. It brings all that science sort of home in a very real-world way that I think is compelling for readers, and you know we know that one of the challenges here with connecting injury to the vaccine where it's appropriate to do so is that a lot of doctors don't know how to recognize vaccine injury

1:00:26 So we also point doctors towards some literature here. So there's literature here that doctors can look to, again not a doctor but we have spoken to doctors and I found published peer-reviewed literature that talks about what these vaccine injuries look like and the mechanisms of the injuries. And we hope that will be helpful for doctors who are treating girls and boys who are coming to them with a myriad of unusual symptoms in many cases, trying to connect the dots and figuring out what happened to this child. And then where do you go from there? How do you treat them and how can you hopefully help to get some improvements in their quality of health and quality of life going forward?"

1:01:08 Well, I do think it's an amazing book and as a quintessential layman. I can't think of a way that it could be laid out any better at leads even the most skeptical to a pretty ironclad case that something is not right so Kim and company brave and noble stuff you're doing thanks again keep it up and continue to do great work thank you very much and thank you for having us on you got it Alright alright higher side chatters i hope everybody had a good holiday i hope everybody enjoyed bird box and i'll be like today show. It checks a lot of boxes for me number one i just think it's nice to have a female centric medical conspiracy episode right after circumcision episode for the guys just a nice equilibrium for the month,

1:01:57 It's also always a treat to have two guests. It adds a layer of complexity and audio quality and editing, but it is something extra that is nice to see on THC once in awhile so that's fun! And the caliber of guests... they definitely have done their research and produced a real ironclad case against this particular vaccine. Not all vaccines but definitely this one And that's kinda what i was trying to say in the beginning about the way this kind of information is sometimes presented and not over the top new world order kinda way. I'm not even trying to suggest that they don't know what they're doing or thats not actually a case but it's about tonality and convincing new people

1:02:40 Because lately I am of the mindset of trying to increase our general numbers and break through the false sense of security people get in organizations like the CDC or FDA. And i've tried to structure this show, the same sort of way that someone who is maybe very pro-vaccine could listen to it and we can at least get through to them about this one case. If thats true I think you have to conclude that the whole thing is suspect. These people are not new to statistics and gathering data. These are the world's elite-level scientists and medical experts, and knowing that—and having gone over the data manipulation and obscurification and fraud that exist within these trials—if we had a thought exercise here where a nefarious few wanted to poison kill sterilize etc., an entire population or generation

1:03:51 Yet the world is a big place and we have safety testing in place, and we have this long process with certain requirements to get something to market. Hoops that must be gone through before you can gain access to millions of people if a nefarious few knew they would have to navigate that terrain skillfully when their intention was to hurt us how might you suspect it would look different from what we actually see in this data? To me that was my best question today and again another parallel to brendan marotta circumcision show in both cases these are guests that want to stick to the facts and would rather not get into. Capstone cabal secret agenda speculation territory and i absolutely get that and i think it's what they should do, i think its better if my role as a host is just tip toe into those waters

1:04:45 Because I do like these episodes to constantly reinforce our worldview in an intellectual way and i like to use these things to constantly rebuild, And strengthen our overarching conspiratorial perspective. That if we have all these agencies signing off on this dangerous HPV vaccine what does that say about their integrity overall? What does that say about their intentions Is it consistent with some of the wildest claims about them? And if we just made the case that these agencies and companies can't be trusted at all across all the products that they make, and all the recommendations that they make in the testing that they do.

1:05:30 If this is all untrustworthy, which I think is the case then we're in deep conspiracy land because you also have to look at why they would have these special isolated courts set up. Why Eileen and Kim are able to figure all this out and identify these issues? And our larger system just doesn't... Just can't...? I don't know Again, how is what is happening in this case functionally different than an attack on the people which needs to be thinly veiled as safe? Another way of getting at this. Again I think a question in the plus show sorry but I said something to the effect of...I get that there's a lot of money involved and we can say that it's greed and general capitalist corruption okay

1:06:19 But that would be true even if they were injecting people with something benign or mundane like saline solution and just calling it a vaccine. Anything ineffective could be a money-making machine, but this isn't just ineffective its harmful and deadly! It seems to be crushing fertility rates so I look at the end results and then I speculate about motive because I think these people are getting exactly what they want Like we said, world's best scientific minds and medical experts. They've seen the same clinical trials they carried them out and they twisted it to hide what they knew was going to happen when they mainstreamed this

1:06:59 And isn't it funny that we don't have any of these stories where they say, breaking news. We just found out the HPV vaccine or the flu shot is not as effective as we thought it was but you will experience an overall strengthening of your general immune system You should see a 20% reduction in stress and you'd have a slight lift in cognitive fog etc. It's never good side effects ever If Merck tried to create a vaccine and because of the complexity of these things it just wasn't the super defense we thought it was, but still had some benefits that would be one thing. But where is that example? It's like I've said about fluoride for a long time... Okay so you don't want to believe its poison That's fine Well why just something to strengthen teeth Why not put vitamins and minerals in water supply Something completely non-controversial and universally good for body Why no do that

1:07:57 And I'm trying to stay a bit measured here. I don't want to go full Alex Jones, I want to maintain the overall tone of the guests and maybe just kick it up a notch or two without tipping over the whole boat but seriously these are the ways to get the mental wheels turning for people who still aren't there yet i'm not trying to paint this as conspiracy because it's fun and provocative and I just want everyone to think like me...I'm saying as objectively as I can at this point which is a struggle! So, there it is. All good stuff! That's the show I work hard to try and bring you the best If you enjoy it please sign up for THC Plus and get yourself two uninterrupted hours of the show In this one The Plus Show covered some of the latest research on aluminum and other adjuvants used in vaccines Countries who are resisting and rejecting the HPV vaccine And their individual stories

1:08:55 other legal and financial elements that demonstrate tilted scales and conflicts of interest, another interesting story about Dr. Lee and his findings on the live HPV virus in the vaccine despite what was being said about it, and we talked about GMO DNA in vaccines and stuff like that So, more than enough to make it worth it by my standard. But we're all different. Major thanks to my guests Kim and Eileen! Find them on social media and tell em' thanks One more show for the year, and then in 2019 I'm thinking of sticking with my plan to change the theme song yearly. I think we're going to reinvent the original THC intro and use that for a while Not sure which one you guys really like better My old original radio voiceover Or this latest song that i guess we should call Where Would We Be Which we've had two versions of now

1:09:51 Obviously this is a very important decision that I'm gonna mull over for the next five days, but I have options. So maybe let me know which one you'd rather have bring you into the higher side before a show? Because i'm kind of curious but either way I do like changing it up and that said... I'm going to get out here! Seems like we made a pretty complete case today so Did my part your move medical miscreants scientists sleazeballs and harm doing doctors? Your fucking I won't take it. No, I refuse if it's alright. I'll keep my refuge I've been scheming a bigger things and have to leave my old life behind Got a chance but to the inner earth. I built a box build a home gotta need

1:10:41 Yeah, the laughing elite classes while the scheming masses who do you think they're fancy suit and a cigar

1:11:26 Tell you the basics, they print your money Got the Fed in your head, currency Now they're smiling and you're caged meat How this happened? how you don't see Plunder Plunder Plunder is a plunder Pillage and plunder, plunder. Plans are simple The best protection of all is the special shelter built according to specifications of your local civil defense organization The basement of any house or building will become a good improvised shelter if you block the windows with sandbags If you don't have sandbags just what can you do? Bunk up Take it under

1:12:26 You'll find me in the bunker, bunker, bunker Take it under You'll find me in the bunker Bunker Take it under Find me in the bunker, bunker Plunder is a plunder Rape, pillage and plunder Plunder is a plunder Rape, pillage and plunder, plunder Plunder, plunder, plunder