The Evidence on Gardasil: Modern Miracle or Dangerous Scam?


If you’ve been following us for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed that we frequently point out the dangers of vaccination, because every single one of us knows countless children (and adults) that were injured by vaccines, some of them permanently.  In fact, we cover this subject so often that we are listed (page 39) in UNICEF’s report on “anti-vaccination influencers” in Eastern Europe. Can I get a “Huzzah!”?  Eastern Europe!  Who knew we even had readers in Eastern Europe, much less that we were influencing them?

But the truth is that none of us started out “anti-vaccination.”  We got there after a lot of investigation.  And one thing we noticed toward the beginning of our investigations is that all vaccines are not created equal.  All vaccines have risks – they’re not classified by the federal government as “unavoidably unsafe” for nothing.  So it stands to reason that the more vaccines you receive, the greater your risk of injury.  If you are not yet like us — pretty well convinced that you will never let anyone come near you or your child with a vaccine-filled syringe again in your lifetime — it is probably at least intuitively obvious that for optimum health you should want to keep your overall vaccine load as low as possible, however you would define that for yourself.

With that idea in mind, we have done blogs on some of the “vaccines we love to hate”:  the hepatitis B vaccine (especially the birth dose) and the yearly flu shot. The blogs give lots of reasons why we consider those vaccines particularly problematic, but the main reason is that both have a very poor risk-to-benefit ratio for the average person.  The risks are significant, while the potential benefits are exceptionally low.   The risks are particularly high for those two, because one is given to newborns (hepatitis B), the category at highest risk of permanent neurological damage, and most versions of the other (flu shot) contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin.  In addition, the flu shot is recommended by the CDC for nearly everyone yearly — including pregnant women.  The benefits are particularly low for the hepatitis B vaccine, because very few children in this country are at risk of contracting hepatitis B in the first place, it is easy to test for those who are, and any “protection” afforded by the shot is likely to wear off before a child begins what could be termed “risky behavior.”  The benefits of the flu vaccine are also likely to be low, as the flu is not likely to be dangerous in most people who get it, on average 100 doses of the vaccine have to be given to prevent a single case of the flu, and approximately 1% of the people who get the vaccine will have a reaction that includes headache, myalgia (aches and pains),and fever and renders them incapable of going about their daily activities.  In other words, they feel like they have the flu.  So you are just about as likely to feel like you got the flu from the flu shot as you are to have it prevent you from getting the flu.

There is one other category of vaccine that we haven’t discussed much yet that is definitely high on our “hit list”:  Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, i.e. Gardasil and Cervarix.  Both vaccines are designed to prevent HPV infection, a sexually transmitted condition, which most often leads to cervical cancer or genital warts.  Awesome!  What could be bad about that?  A vaccine for cancer!  Isn’t that what we were waiting for?  At first it sounds terrific, doesn’t it?  But as soon as you begin to investigate things get a lot murkier.

gardisil shot

There are 30-40 types of HPV that can affect the genitals.  Gardasil, approved for use in 2006 for girls 9-26 and later approved for boys as well, “protects” against four of them (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18). Cervarix, approved for girls in 2009, covers only two types of HPV (Types 16 and 18).  Types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, while types 6 and 11 cause approximately 90% of genital warts.  Every year there are approximately six million new cases of genital infection with HPV in the U.S.  In fact, HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will have it at some time in their lives.  For 70% of those people, the HPV will clear on its own with no symptoms of any kind.  The figure rises to 90% within two years.   Of the remaining 10%, only half will have cellular changes in the cervix or elsewhere that can lead to cancer, particularly cervical cancer.

Approximately 12,000 women per year are diagnosed with cervical cancer.  Almost 4,000 women will die from it every year.  Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the U.S., but routine screening in the form of Pap tests and HPV tests have cut the numbers significantly.  Cervical cancers tend to be slow growing, taking many years to become deadly.  Because the HPV vaccines only cover two or four of the 30-40 strains of HPV, and it’s not clear yet how well it does that, routine Pap exams are still required to ensure continued good health.  Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that they no longer need Pap tests once they have received an HPV vaccine.  This is absolutely untrue and a very dangerous misconception.  If the majority of women did not continue with regular Pap tests, we would actually see the rate of cervical cancer rise with the advent of Gardasil and Cervarix.

A recent government-sponsored study was written up in the June edition of the Journal of Infectious Diseases that claims that overall incidence of HPV infection in sexually active girls 14-19 years old dropped from a pre-vaccine 53.1% to 42.9% (a decline of 19.2%) between 2007 and 2010, indicating high effectiveness for HPV vaccines, despite the fact that only 35% of the study subjects completed the full three-shot series.  As Sharlene Bidini, RD, CSO, has pointed out in an article in The Onc, a journal for oncology nurses, there is a huge problem with this conclusion, however, as when the numbers are broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it becomes clear that the largest drop was in the unvaccinated population.  The rate among unvaccinated girls dropped to 38.6% (a decline of 27.3%), while the rate among vaccinated girls only dropped to 50% (a decline of 5.8%), which means that you cannot attribute the decline in incidence to vaccination.  In addition, the prevalence of high-risk non-vaccine type HPV infection also declined in similar proportions, making it even more clear that the overall decline in HPV infection was not due to vaccination.

As HPV-related cancers tend to be so slow growing in general, the median age for diagnosis of cervical cancer is 49.  Since most of the people getting the vaccines are pre-teens and teenagers, who are unlikely to develop the disease even without vaccination, there is no data yet to show that use of HPV vaccines will lower the rate of death from cervical cancer, or even the rate of cervical cancer at all.  Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers on the vaccine and an expert on HPV, said, “The combination of HPV vaccine and (Pap) screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level.”  Meaning that for a population that uses Pap tests for cervical cancer screening, the incidence of cervical cancer will not be lowered by a significant amount by the addition of HPV vaccinations.

This point is elaborated in a 2003 study conducted at Stanford University on the cost effectiveness of HPV vaccines.  The study assumed 70% of all 12-year-old girls in the country were vaccinated, and re-vaccinated every 10 years. (It’s still not clear how long the effects of the vaccines would last.  One study claims that after receiving the three-shot Gardasil series antibodies for Type 16, the most virulent type, last for an average of 8.5 years, but Dr. Harper’s says it’s more like 5 years and that is only for Type 16.  If that is the case, many 11 and 12-year-old girls’ immunity would be waning just as they are becoming sexually active.) The study also assumed an efficacy rate of 75% for the vaccine.  That’s a pretty good rate for a vaccine.  Some, the flu vaccine for instance, are not that effective, while others, measles for one, are considered to be higher.  After approximately 60 years of vaccinating, the study projected that 1,300 lives would be saved and 3,300 cases of cervical cancer would be prevented.  Remember, 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year, and approximately 4,000 die from it.  Over 60 years, assuming no change in the incidence for other reasons, 240,000 women would die of cervical cancer.  Sixty years of vaccinating every 12-year-old we can get our hands on, and only 1,300 of those lives would be saved?  That’s a death rate reduction of only 0.5%.  This is pretty much a “best case scenario” for the vaccine, and that’s the best it can do?

The Stanford study argues that it would be “cost effective” to use the vaccines in this way, but one cost the study doesn’t consider is the possibility of adverse effects of the vaccine, particularly serious adverse effects.  It’s a cost you must consider, though, when deciding whether to give your daughter (or son, whose chance of getting or dying from a cancer caused by HPV is significantly lower than your daughter’s) an HPV vaccine.

Merck sponsored a study at Kaiser Permanente that claimed serious adverse events in the form of autoimmune illnesses are no more prevalent in the population vaccinated with Gardasil than the unvaccinated population.  Dr. Harper has directly contradicted that :

 “Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown.

So why does Merck’s study claim no increase in autoimmuneillness with vaccination?  I always look for the obvious holes in a study’s design or logic, especially one that is sponsored by a corporation that stands to make a hell of a lot of money from the results, and this is the statement that has me wondering:  “Overall, there were 1,014 new-onset cases of an autoimmune disorder, of which 719 were eligible for case review, and 31 (40%) were confirmed as new onset (i.e. emerged after vaccination).”  Out of 1,014 “new-onset” cases of autoimmune disorders, 31 were “confirmed” as new?  The cynic in me wonders why 97% of the cases that someone obviously considered “new-onset” were thrown out of consideration in this study.  If even 100 of those cases were truly post-vaccination events that would drastically change the results of the study, woudn’t it?  Also, it can take several years to diagnose autoimmune conditions, and these young women were tracked for a mere six months following vaccination.

Why am I so cynical?  Because it seems that every day I read of another young life tragically altered or ended after the first, second or third dose of Gardasil.  (Since Gardasil was approved first and is given in larger numbers most of our information on HPV vaccines pertains specifically to Gardasil.)  Lives like that of Maddie, daughter of Tracie Toler Moorman, who went from being a happy, healthy 15-year-old to one who was so ill she could not attend school and was on high doses of anti-depressants to deal with the resulting depression.  Mystified doctors finally confessed, off the record of course, that they believed Maddie was suffering from vaccine injury as they could find no other explanation for the sudden onset of her debilitating illness. When Maddie was treated for vaccine injury, she started to get better.  As Maddie’s mother indicates, a cursory Google search is all it takes to show that Maddie is by no means alone.

Stories like Maddie’s are horrible enough, but even worse are the stories of young girls and women who died suddenly after receiving Gardasil inoculations.  Annabelle Morin was a healthy 14-year-old who died suddenly two weeks after her second Gardasil shot.  It’s easy to dismiss all these reports as “coincidence,” but in reality how often does a healthy teenaged girl die suddenly for no apparent reason?  It’s very, very rare.


Annabelle Morin

Annabelle Morin


Israel is considering canceling their plans to administer HPV vaccine to young girls  because of a recent study  published in the July 13 edition of the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, focusing on three young girls who had adverse reactions to HPV vaccines.  All three ceased having menstrual periods after the vaccinations, and hormonal treatment did not help.  The diagnosis:  primary ovarian failure.  The authors documented the “evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry.”  Another case of primary ovarian failure was written up in the British Medical Journal:  this time a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl.  The authors wanted to know if there was any available data on the effect of Gardasil on ovaries, particularly in rats.  They did a Freedom of Information request and found that there was no data on Gardasil’s effect on ovaries, but there was data of the effect on testes.  How can it be that a vaccine designed to affect young girls’ reproductive systems was not tested for its effects on ovaries?

Japan also stopped recommending Gardasil in June of this year, because of a high number of serious adverse reactions among the 8.29 million people who have already received the vaccine.  There were 106 serious adverse events that sound suspiciously like the advent of autoimmune disease.  That corresponds to a rate of 12.8 serious adverse events per million people. (The article says inoculations, but that doesn’t add up, since each person gets 3 inoculations.  Something is off.)  According to Dr. Harper, the incidence of serious adverse effects is actually considerably higher, at least here in the U.S., at 3.4 per 100,000 doses distributed.  Since the vaccine series is three injections, that would be approximately 10.2 per 100,000 people vaccinated, or 102 per million people.  The rate of cervical cancer in this country is 7 per 100,000, or 70 per million women.  Therefore, according to Dr. Harper, a lead researcher on the Gardasil vaccine, your chance of having a serious adverse reaction to the Gardasil vaccine is higher than your risk of cervical cancer!  Something is wrong with this picture.  As Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher A. Shaw asked in a March 2013 paper in Annals of Medicine , are HPV vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine at odds?  Given the exceptionally poor risk-to-benefit ratio of the HPV vaccines, in my opinion, the policy of encouraging all 11 or 12-year-old girls and boys, especially those with autoimmune illness in their family histories, is not only “at odds” with “evidence-based medicine,” it’s using every weapon in the federal government’s arsenal to obliterate it!


One Less


Think about it, and do what you can to make sure that your daughter (or son) is “one less” – vaccine injury, that is.

~ Professor

For more blogs from the Professor, please click here.

Pin It
This entry was posted in Blogs by Thinking Moms' Revolution, Professor TMR and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Evidence on Gardasil: Modern Miracle or Dangerous Scam?

  1. Pingback: Top 10 Lies Told During the Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Hearing - The Thinking Moms' Revolution

  2. nivchek says:

    Please do an article on the following issue: MMR known to be harmful, sold anyway.

    • nostromo says:

      And please balance it out with information on the Measles, Mumps and Rubella diseases themselves: distributed naturally, and also known to be harmful.

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        I have not yet read the report cited in the Natural News link, so I can’t comment on it. But I have read the article you posted nostromo. It was written by the colleague of a friend. We were discussing it yesterday. Some of my thoughts on the subject:

        Before the measles vaccine “was achieved 50 years ago” measles killed approximately 400 people a year in the United States. Scaring people with a worldwide number of 2.6 million is not reflecting the truth of the actual risk for people in developed countries.

        According to the article, there have been 175 cases of measles in this country caused by 152 travelers to other countries. Nine times the travelers caused “large outbreaks.” So . . . let’s see: 152 – 9 = 143. 175 – 143 = 32 cases caused by those nine people if all of the remaining cases were (which according to the article they weren’t). 32 divided by 9, because there were 9 “large outbreaks,” comes out to an average of about three and a half people, including the traveler. So those 9 “large outbreaks” consisted of approximately two-three people.

        There were only a total of 23 cases that weren’t in “travelers.” 23 cases in a country of 300,000, 000 just doesn’t strike me as something to be alarmed about. You can blame those 23 cases of measles on me if you like, but you certainly can’t blame the million and a half or so cases of autism on me. 😉

        The article also contains this sentence without comment, despite the fact that it makes no logical sense: “Even greater risk may come from parents who delay vaccinations rather than refusing them outright because a delayed vaccination may add more person-years of susceptibility than that due to refusing vaccination.”

        The only way “delaying vaccination” would add more person-years of susceptibility than refusal, would be if all those unvaccinated people got measles and, thus, lifelong immunity before the delayers could get around to vaccinating.

        So as this is just another article in a long line of hyperbolic fear-mongering, it’s not an article I will be referencing anywhere to inform people as to the dangers of measles, mumps and rubella.

    • Cindy says:

      BRAVO! Standing ovation for one of the most concise, well-written articles on this topic that I’ve seen–with impeccable sources and a thorough understanding of the topic.

  3. Twyla says:

    When people report vaccine injuries, the CDC just crunches some numbers and says that the percentage of vaccinated with that health condition is not statistically significant, and therefore not caused by the vaccine.

    This has always struck me as strange for a couple of reasons. One is that something may have more than one cause. So, for example, if Jane Doe broke her leg skiing, but a lot of people skied without breaking a leg, and other people broke a leg when they weren’t skiing, does that mean that skiing never causes broken legs — and that Jane Doe was due to break her leg anyways regardless of whether or not she had gone skiing?

    Of course, that would be silly because there were witnesses to Jane Doe’s fall while skiing, and we know how she broke her leg. But when people witness vaccine induced brain injury, we can’t see the actual mechanism, we can’t see inside the person’s brain, and our great scientists and doctors haven’t even identified much of what causes these injuries or how to identify them, and whatever is witnessed by the vaccinee and family is discounted as “anecdotal” and thus inconsequential. Except when the father happens to be a neurologist and the mother is both nurse and scientist (Hannah Poling) or an MRI showed ADEM (Bailey Banks) in which case the vaccine defenders have to resort to “But that’s not really autism.”

    Before the varicela (chicken pox) vaccine was developed, millions of people came down with chicken pox every year and only a few dozen died. Yet we are told that we must get this vaccine to save lives. Most of those who died had a health condition such as immunodeficiency, or being on chemo, or living in unsanitary conditions resulting in bacterial infection. If this were a reported death due to vaccine, the other factors would be called the “real” cause, not the vaccine. But if a person infected with varicela dies that is considered to be the real cause. And we know how to tell whether someone is infected with varicela.

    But if these deaths due to varicela were analyzed the way that the CDC and FDA analyzes alleged vaccine deaths, the thinking would go like this:
    – millions of people came down with varicela and didn’t die,
    – only a few dozen with varicela died, and most of those had other factors involved which were the real cause, and
    – most of the people who died during that time frame were not infected with varicela and died of other causes (car accidents, other diseases, heart conditions, SIDS, etc.)
    – therefore varicela doesn’t cause death.

  4. Thank you for this comprehensive article. There are so many mother’s of girls who have been injured by Gardasil – who have now become ‘thinking mom’s’ and researchers and healers. This horrible travesty has and will continue to shift our acceptance of medical dogma. The parent’s who vaccinated their daughter’s believed in their doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and their ‘award-winning campaigns for creating a market out of thin air’ (and Merck the manufacturing company for Gardasil received such an award by the Pharma industry), and their government.

    I love the point in the article that these families were not ‘anti-vaccine’. They followed the rules. Now they are paying the price…

    Chandler Marrs, PhD. has developed a comprehensive independent survey for girls/women who have been inoculated with the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. We need 1000 respondents of girls who have been injured AND girls who have not been injured. Her web site is The surveys (and she has others going) are called “Real Women. Real Data. Real Solutions.”

    600 women have already filled out the survey – can you please help us reach our goal. The data will help all of us in our effort to show our doctor’s and our government that these two vaccines are causing injury and death.

    Thank you.

  5. Mindanoiha says:

    Excellent article.
    Gardasil may actually increase risk of cancer for several reasons:
    – Lack of carcinogenicity testing of the vaccine.
    – Replacement (virus strains removed by the vaccine may be replaced by cancer causing strains).
    – Presence of aluminium bound recombinant DNA (rDNA), the consequences of which are unknown and may be horrific.
    – Girls who are previously infected with the HPV virus and then get vaccinated with Gardasil have considerably increased risk of cervical cancer.

    Considering that Gardasil is sometimes misappropriately termed a cancer vaccine, it may be an ironic stroke of fate if the vaccine is shown to be the cause of a cancer epidemic.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Thank you so much for your input. I thought about putting some of those points into the article, but I decided to leave them out as I couldn’t find enough info on them. I was aware of them, though, and I’m glad you pointed them out.

  6. Dear Professor, thank you so much for your revealing article. I am Secretary of SaneVax Inc, see our web which will give you masses of information, detailed stories of sad deaths and girls who have been injured all around the world wherever these vaccines have been administered I am honoured to know Maddie’s mum whose daughter was badly injured and also the mum of Annabelle who sadly died from the Gardasil vaccine. We can help you if you wish and if you can let me have contact details will include you in all of our press releases and articles which we send out very regularly. I can be contacted at [email protected] and we can take it from there. The families around the world need support and to be helped – we have to make the authorities realise that our young teenagers are being severely damaged by the HPV vaccines, Cervarix and Gardasil. I am from the UK and the same problems exist here. Thank you so much for being there for these families.

  7. nostromo says:

    Professor you say “Cervarix, approved for girls in 2009, covers only two types of HPV (Types 16 and 18)” but your own source (Marcia G Yerman) says “Cervarix protects against five cancer-causing types of HPV”.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Yes, nostromo. I noticed that too. That is unexplained anywhere. (Just one of those frustrating things when one is trying to get accurate information.) I can only think that there are closely associated types that Cervarix MAY cause immunity to, or that there are some types that occasionally cause cancer. But according to most sources, including the Cervarix site itself, “Cervarix® helps protect females from 9 to 25 years of age against cervical cancer and abnormal and precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV 16 and 18. ”

      • Cindy says:

        Cervarix is approved to fight two HPVs–16 & 18. But Dr. Harper has said that in clinical studies it’s shown “cross-protection” for two or three others. That may be where the confusion lies. It’s interesting how findings from clinical studies can be used or not used, at what sometimes appears as whims. Anyway, I would be willing to bet it’s the cross-protection that is the difference here.

  8. hps says:

    It should be noted that the Hep B vaccine was introduced to reduce liver cancer. The result has been a massive increase over the past few decades in practically every country where the vaccine has been introduced.

    Similarly, since the flu vaccine came into use the number of people hospitalised with the flu has increased according to the CDC.

    • Professor says:

      Last year a huge number of flu vaccines were dispensed. If they are so awesome why has the CDC not been trumpeting their terrific success in lowering the number of cases of flu, or the number of deaths associated? On the contrary, they continue to try and scare us with highly inflated numbers. Hmmmm…

  9. Tracie Toler Moorman says:

    Thank you for the informative piece. I am Maddie’s mother and do we ever need a revolution.

    • Professor says:

      I’m so sorry for your loss, Tracie. Maddie reminds me so much of my own 14-year-old. I’m going to do the best I can to make it happen for all of us. Thank you for coming by and commenting and for telling your story. Everyone needs to hear it. <3

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        I’m sorry, Tracie. I had Maddie and Annabelle confused when I wrote this comment. As Twyla says, I’m very glad Maddie is doing better too.

    • Twyla says:

      So glad that Maddie is doing better, and may her recovery continue! Wonderful that you kept trying treatments until you found something that worked for her – good for you for being open minded.

  10. angry bird says:

    amazing factual precise succinct, giving clarity to a crazy situation. Wake Up all and see what these companies are doing to our children. Profit above health and our generation of young people. Someone should be held acocuntable for each one of those deaths and disabled children. They should each have a prison sentence of life for every life they have taken. Then the media need to be shamed into actually covering how dangerous these vaccines are. I pray all responsible suffer as much as these families and young children have.

    • Professor says:

      I cannot pray that because the problem is that those folks have forgotten that we are all connected. You cannot harm one without harming the whole. But I do pray that we all turn it around and VERY soon.

  11. Ca Lo says:

    Recently took the time to watch this. Very informative information from Dr. Deirdre Little, practicing GP Obstetrician and Visiting Medical Officer at Bellington Hospital where she has provided intrapartum obstetric care for 27 years. Deirdre is the Bioethics Officer for the Catholic Women’s League in New South Wales.

  12. Veritas says:


  13. Donna Powers says:

    Brilliant research! Thank you. Vaccine damage to babies and now our young teens…so so wrong.

    • Professor says:

      Thanks, Donna! So wrong indeed.

    • Twyla says:

      It’s so crazy. From “Just a coincidence – toddlers get autism at that age!” to “Just a coincidence – healthy, active, smart teenagers sometimes suddenly develop serious health conditions like seizures, chronic pain, cognitive problems, paralysis etc. for no known reason – and faint after vaccines just because they’re afraid of needles!”

  14. nhokkanen says:

    And when vaccinated women develop cervical cancer decades from now, will they be unable to sue Merck — just as vaccine injury victims now are denied justice?

    • Professor says:

      Of course not, because they never “said” that it would prevent cervical cancer, they just “implied” it. So many lies buried deep in the implications. Did you read the stuff Dr. Harper has said about the shots just “postponing” cancer if they last for less than 15 years?

  15. Jennifer Power says:

    Forgot this : Huzzah!!!

  16. Jennifer Power says:

    Thank you. Sharing this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *