Updated by Gayle Dickson (Citizen's name withheld for privacy reasons)
Thank you for your correspondence ,October 15 2015.
Whilst I appreciate that you are exceedingly busy and that time and effort is expended in reading my emails, I do not agree share your assertion that there is nothing more you can offer me. I am always most interested in your correspondence, and heartened that you are wanting to share you knowledge with me.
A case in point; that fragments of DNA in places they should not be should be seemingly swept aside, is of concern to me; especially given that this vaccine has not been in use for an extensive time period and no genotoxicity studies were done; no testing to scrutinise the potential for genetic mutation or chromosomal anomalies. Given that aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate was a novel proprietary adjuvant and is semi synthetic, not biological, and was found bound to recombinant HPV DNA by two independent pathologists, this surely must be tested in keeping with EMEA and WHO Guidelines. Where is the science that addresses this?
I have a particular question that I would very much appreciate an honest response to, and that is: for the 478 cases that CARM have linked to Gardasil, what has happened to these children and what duty of care has been afforded to them?
This would seem a significant number of girls affected out of 200,000 and these are just the girls you know about. One wonders how many others have fallen through the cracks or been dissuaded by their healthcare providers not to put in a CARM report, or been offered an ACC claim form.
What measures have been implemented and what alerts or advice have been offered to healthcare providers to assist them with the early identification of adverse injuries with Gardasil, other than what is currently in place and is clearly inadequate?
What became of those monitoring systems that were to be carried out at the inception of the vaccine campaign?
I personally know of GPs and Gynaecologists who have absolutely no idea about the concerns with this vaccine and are telling their patients 'it is just puberty' when they present with unexplained illnesses and new medical conditions after receiving this vaccine. No discussion for adverse reports is entertained, leaving an unidentified cohort of girls 'statistically invisible.'
I would like to add at this point that boys are now becoming unwell post Gardasil in NZ. Are you aware of this Minister? As we know, no studies for reproductive health post vaccine were done for boys in the trials.
Medical practitioners don't all read the data sheets and, it would seem, have no knowledge of the trials for this vaccine. Why is this?
They are then fobbing these people off and stating that the symptoms have nothing to do with the vaccine. One wonders at what point will they avail themselves of the necessary knowledge which is required, to obtain a legally informed consent, prior to vaccination.
If they have not read the product Monograph, or data sheet, how can they morally expect their patients to trust them? How ethical is this? How safe is this? Risks vs benefits? How can they know if these children have or have not had prior exposure?
We all know that it has been well established that prior exposure does not have to mean they have had sexual relations.
Of course, patients, by and large, trust their GPs and do not ask if they can explain how the vaccine was made and what was used in the placebos etc. Time is limited in an appointment.
GPs and Nurses do not have to sign anything to say that they take any sort of responsibility for adverse outcomes. One might think that this is unfair, especially if they have no in-depth knowledge about the vaccine and its adverse outcomes; yet they have stated that it has a great track record of safety. As you know, the manufacturer who made the vaccine has indemnity in cases of adverse events following Gardasil. Sound fair to you?
I believe that it is of paramount importance for someone to assist these most vulnerable members of New Zealand society, sooner rather than later, and to alert the public to the current statistics, which reveal the actual numbers involved with adverse events, recognised by CARM.
We are not talking about a car part recall, which would be serious enough. That can be replaced. The vaccine cannot be removed once administered. What is the solution?
The public will not look for this safety information or reports concerning CARM reports unprompted, especially when they are told repeatedly that 'most people only get a sore arm.'
What is the reality for those who are injured? Who do they turn to for help and for answers, if their GP, CARM, ACC and the Government are unwilling or reluctant to enter a conversation about this - authorities that have the full knowledge that 478 individuals' lives out of 200,000, have been so deleteriously affected by this vaccine' and who knows how many others as yet unidentified or symptomatic?
Of course, it does not bode well that we have a Universal Passive Reporting System does it? The true numbers of adverse events will never be known.
I only hope that Gardasil 9, which as you stated used '9' New Zealand participants in its trial, will be scrutinised thoroughly, as any genetically modified vaccine, using an untested new adjuvant previously, which employed non-inert placebos in its trial, ought to be.
One would presume that Gardasil 9 will not be used to replace Gardasil, in the hope of burying the truth.