top of page

HPV • Cervical Cancer and the vaccine



“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew

when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to

be worthless…I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal

of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that

this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect

on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives

and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune and decision-makers at all levels are aware

of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” -- Dr Bernard Dalbergue (former Merck employee)

What is the point of getting a vaccine that does not work?

"This is a rare incident that is raising many questions about

the efficacy and the safety of HPV vaccines"

















HPV Vaccines: Science or ?

Cervical cancer, the second-most common cancer in young women, is particularly

prone to be found in the down trodden and in impoverished countries. But this is no

endorsement for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines. In fact this is about revealing

that HPV vaccines were created for only one reason and it wasn’t as a humanitarian

effort to minimize cervical cancer. It was created by greed to create income for both a

pharmaceutical company and USA governmental agencies National Institutes of

Health/Health and Human Services (NIH/HHS) that owned the technology used in the

vaccine under the cover of doing something beneficial – a “greater good.”  The HPV vaccine has less value than snake oil – at least snake oil is rich in Omega 3 EFAs, and consuming snake oil won’t harm anyone, but the same cannot be said for the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine was never necessary and the true interventions available for those who are concerned about preventing cervical cancer have been suppressed.



Does HPV cause cervical cancer?

While a virus may almost always be a trigger for cancer on a cellular/DNA level – it needs the environment, the internal milieu, to be prepared correctly to allow the wildcat cells to proliferate. Because the public doesn’t know this, it is easy for trusted authorities to impose fear of the virus on the populace just as was done and is still done with polio. It is a tried and true method of disinformation.  In the case of cervical cancer the field upon which it takes hold must be deficient in certain vitamins, and without that deficiency it is very unlikely cervical cancer will take hold.  While it may remain controversial which vitamins, or combinations thereof hold the key, the point is this is about a nutritional issue.

Indole-3-carbinol (I3C) is a phytochemical present in all members of the cruciferous vegetable family including cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and kale. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study,[1] 30 patients with biopsy-confirmed Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), also known as cervical dysplasia, II-III were randomized to receive placebo or 200 or 400 mg oral I3C daily for 12 weeks. None of the patients in the placebo group had complete regression of CIN. In contrast, four of eight patients in the 200-mg/day group and four of nine in the 400-mg/day group had complete regression of CIN based on 12-week biopsy (400 mg/day, is equivalent to one-third of a head of cabbage.)


Adequate Vitamin D levels need to be present as well, but the point is cervical cancer is far more about malnutrition than an HPV virus. The vitamin D connection is no surprise because adequate vitamin D levels are required to have the immune system deal with viral infections and as most cancer patients are vitamin D deficient, regardless of what cancer they have a vitamin D/cervical cancer connection is a foregone conclusion.


Cigarette smoking, which is known to lower Vitamin D levels, only adds to the risk of cervical cancer. The bottom-line for women to understand is that an HPV infection alone is an insufficient cause of cervical cancer. HPV is but only one risk factor along with cigarette smoking. There is no direct link between HPV and cervical cancer. The vast majority of women will get an HPV infection but they will not get cervical cancer, but in malnourished women cervical cancer becomes a real risk. This is about poverty and nutrition – that is the direct link and the primary cause of cervical cancer.


Do HPV vaccines benefit women’s health?

Those who care about a woman’s risk of cervical cancer would do better to empower women everywhere and provide adequate nourishment, but this isn’t about caring about or for women – this is just about profit nothing less.

Now, there has always been a pharmaceutical treatment for HPV infections (except in the USA). [2] One study showed that with just a ten day course of therapy with this extremely benign drug (inosine pranobex or Isoprinosine), there was an almost 80% elimination of human papillomavirus (HPV)  16 and 18 in cervical cancer (CIN I-III) and preinvasive cancer of the cervix and of those with recurrent CIN or Ca in situ in the remaining part of the cervix who were infected with (HPV).[3] This study was published the same year the FDA fast tracked the HPV vaccine.


The vaccines cover HPV 16 & 18, responsible for being the trigger for 70% of cervical cancers, but no one actually knows if the vaccine prevents infection (let alone cancer) – all we know is they increase antibodies to those two viral strains for an unspecified period of time. The vaccines do not cover 16 other HPV strains that can trigger genital cancer (31, 45, 33, 35, 39, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 26, 53, 66, 68, 73, 82). We do know getting the vaccine actually increases the risk of getting carcinoma in situ lesions from HPV strains not covered by the vaccine.[4]


Now this bears repeating, the  FDA apparently knew the vaccine actually increased cervical cancer risk by 40%  in women who had already been exposed to HPV and  used magical thinking  (no scientific evidence) to deal with this problem by recommending approving the vaccine for young girls hoping (I can only assume) they were never exposed – but the evidence is that infants can be exposed during the birth process, and since no testing of HPV serology is done before an HPV vaccine is given nor is it required, the FDA’s decision was irrational until you understand they were doing the bidding of not just Merck but the Health & Human Services Department that owns patents connected to this vaccine and would benefit if the vaccine became widely accepted.




Science or Subterfuge?

In other words, not only was the science behind this vaccine not there, but evidence  showed cancer risk increased significantly. The fact that the NIH/HHS owned patents of the technology used in the vaccine, which was licensed to Merck, had everything to do with how this dangerous vaccine failed upward into approval and a fast-track. This is a total loss of boundaries between corporation and state.

This is now about criminal activity. When the head of the Merck vaccine division[5] (Julie Gerberding) is the same person in charge of the CDC you have an unholy alliance between corporation and state. The public and the world need to understand that no scientific information coming from the NIH/CDC/FDA/HHS can be trusted nor policies created from same.  The loss of confidence in these agencies is irrecoverable.


Any scientific publication that is authored by anyone coming from or funded by someone either working for the government or a pharmaceutical company can no longer be trusted.


Whether or not the subterfuge behind HPV vaccines constitutes a violation of

human rights deserves its own discussion. Nevertheless, several States (USA) will

allow 12 year olds to receive this vaccine without parental consent. But a 12 year

old cannot enter into a contract anywhere in the USA, so how could they possibly

give informed consent for a vaccine?


Again, this aspect of the problem deserves international attention if not

international legal intervention, but that is not taking place yet.


UPDATE 12/19/2014


The FDA, in what passes for logic, approved Gardasil 9 (9-valent) for marketing. Since the CDC has never met a vaccine they didn't like - a recommendation from the CDC is a sure thing, then marketing for both sexes, ages 9-26 will begin in earnest.



BUT, marketing Gardasil 9 may be problematic, because for the first time  ever a vaccine manufacturer, in this case Merck, has actually disclosed the percentage of serious adverse events during the clinical trials after administration of both Gardasil and Gardasil 9. They have this data because  the control was Gardasil (not a placebo). 


The results are beyond shocking - between 2,300 and 2,400 serious adverse events are to be anticipated after the use of either Gardasil 9 or Gardasil for each 100,000 recipients. Keep in mind this is serious adverse events - not fever, swelling and pain at the injection site.


Doing the math we have 2400 serious adverse reactions per 100,000 in an attempt to try and avoid 7.8 cases of cervical cancer for every 100,000 recipients? - and no guarantee it actually helps avoid those 7.8/100,000 cases.


In addition, Merck tracked the number of  "new medical conditions indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders." These events are in addition to those listed as serious. Makes you want to go out and get one doesn't it?


The current GARDASIL has 225 mcg of aluminum.  GARDASIL 9 has 500 mcg of aluminum.


And of course aluminum is good for humans... or is it?


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ASPEN – American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommend no more than 25 mcg of aluminum – as a ‘safe’ limit.


According to the FDA approval letter Gardasil 9, this action was taken without consultation with VRBPAC (the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) which is responsible for reviewing and evaluating data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products.


The FDA approval letter, signed by Marion Gruber, Director of Office of Vaccines Research and Review CBER,  states the reason for bypassing the advice of VRBPAC writing:


"We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your BLA, including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues which would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion."




Of course it didn't raise concerns  in a group that has no concerns when it comes to vaccines.


Aluminum salts are a poison when injected, but here are the levels:


  • Hepatitis A: 250 mcg

  • Hepatitis B: 250 mcg

  • Hib (for meningitis; PedVaxHib brand only): 225 mcg

  • Gardasil: 225 mcg

  • Pediarix (DTaP–hepatitis B–polio combination): 850 mcg

  • Pentacel (DTaP–Hib–polio combination): 330 mcg

  • Pneumococcus: 125 mcg (emphasis added)

  • Gradasil 9: 500 mcg


“Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates.”


Rappaport, B. “Document NDA 19-626/S-019.”FDA: Office of Drug Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

(February 13, 2004): Section 3a.


Again, doing the math... if you take a 70 kg man (70 x 5 mcg/kilo) then that value produces 420 mcg/kilo on any given day. Full grown men don't get these vaccines.. babies and children get these vaccines.


This bears repeating.... "they" are knowingly injecting levels of aluminum

into children at levels they know are associated with central nervous

system and bone toxicity.





UPDATE November 2016


The medical consumer safety group Medwatcher Japan and the GAVCS (Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety) are at odds regarding HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need. Medwatcher also made allegations of scientific misconduct and coercion on the part of GAVCS.

Gardasil and Cervarix were included in Japan’s national immunization program for only six weeks in 2013 before government health officials rescinded their recommendation for HPV vaccine use due to the high rate of serious adverse events being reported following vaccine administration. This decision set off a firestorm of controversy that shows no sign of rapid resolution.

Pharmaceutical companies, vaccine stakeholders and international health authorities such as GAVCS declare HPV vaccines safe and effective while dismissing the reported adverse events as coincidence, hysteria, or downright lies. These groups continue to push for increased vaccine uptake in Japan claiming lives will be lost if vaccine uptake is not strong.

Scientists, medical professionals and HPV vaccine survivor groups say a temporal relationship between HPV vaccines and excessive adverse events exists which warrants acknowledgement and independent investigation. They believe regardless of what caused the new medical conditions, the girls deserve recognition and treatment for their symptoms. They believe HPV vaccine administration should be halted until such time as efficacy can be established and safety issues are resolved.

The most recent development in this ongoing debate was the following announcement published by Medwatcher Japan on 2 November 2016:

Medwatcher Japan submitted "Refutation of GACVS (Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety) statement on Safety of HPV vaccine on December17, 2015" to WHO on November 2, 2016.

Medwatcher Japan firmly rejects as flawed and totally unacceptable the Committee’s “Statement on Safety of HPV Vaccines: 17 December 2015”.

The GACVS statement not only exhibits an incorrect understanding of the situation in Japan but also reveals a mistaken assessment of the risk-benefit balance of this vaccine.

Moreover, the WHO has clearly overstepped its mandate by publicly criticizing Japan’s policy decision to withdraw active support for HPV vaccination, and by mischaracterizing that decision as being based on “weak evidence…that can result in real harm”. This attempt to coerce Japan, in the public arena, into adopting a fundamentally flawed and misguided vaccination policy goes against the very fundamentals of national health policy-making;namely that appropriate preventive measures should be established by each individual country taking into account the state of disease prevalence, hygienic environment, education, and economic status in that country.  

Refutation of the Committee’s statement is detailed in the following document with respect to AE reporting, data collection and analysis, composition of the National Expert Committee, the Genetic basis of autoimmunity, and correct understanding of relative risk reduction (RRR) versus actual risk reduction (ARR).  

Medwatcher Japan strongly urges the members of GACVS to refrain from making coercive statements about Japan’s national health policy-making and to reconsider the safety of HPV vaccines after actually conducting their own investigation into the symptoms following HPV vaccination.

Here is an excerpt from the GAVCS Statement on Safety of HPV vaccines, issued 17 December 2015 to which Medwatcher Japan was responding:

The circumstances in Japan, where the occurrence of chronic

pain and other symptoms in some vaccine recipients has led

to suspension of the proactive recommendation for routine use

of vaccine in the national immunization program, warrants additional

comment. Review of clinical data by the national expert committee

led to a conclusion that symptoms were not related to the vaccine,

but it has not been possible to reach consensus to resume HPV vaccination.

As a result, young women are being left vulnerable to HPV-related cancers

that otherwise could be prevented. As GACVS has noted previously, policy

decisions based on weak evidence, leading to lack of use of safe and

effective vaccines, can result in real harm5. (Read the entire statement here.)
Theoretically, this battle could go on indefinitely. What is anyone supposed

to believe when health authorities say one thing and the evidence in front of

your face indicates something entirely different? This is exactly the situation

parents throughout Japan, and the rest of the world for that matter, are faced

with. It is no different for the medical professionals who are trying to treat all of

the mysterious new medical conditions appearing after HPV vaccine

administration. The evidence in front of their face every day does not support

what the vaccine stakeholders are telling everyone.

What now?
First, everyone must understand science is a process by which knowledge is gained using observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science is an evolutionary process, never a settled issue.

Second, everyone has to remember families are suffering. Thousands of children are experiencing debilitating new medical conditions no one seems to be able to explain. They deserve honest medical assessment and appropriate medical treatments regardless of what the ultimate cause is determined to be.

Third, the longer health authorities ignore the problem the less trust people have in the agencies they represent. This issue needs resolution. Families will not tolerate years of battling the details in the press.

Fourth, it is painfully obvious health authorities are doing little to maintain or restore public trust.
Time for political representatives to step up?

Medwatcher Japan is an organization of consumer advocates, medical, legal and scientific experts dedicated to monitoring and preventing drug-induced disasters. By bringing the issue out in the open, they have made the first step toward avoiding what could very well turn out to be a huge drug-induced disaster.

Now it is time for politicians to take the lead. After all, they have been elected to protect and serve those who put them in office. Will they take any of the following steps to help solve the problem?

 Hold open public scientific debates between scientists/medical professionals representing the manufacturers of HPV vaccines and scientific/medical professionals concerned about the safety, efficacy or need for HPV vaccines.

 Establish independent scientific and/or medical teams to investigate any unresolved concerns arising from said debates.

 Establish medical teams to thoroughly examine anyone with new medical conditions after HPV vaccine administration.

 Establish medical teams to develop successful treatment protocols for those with new medical conditions.

The time for pretending there is no problem is long past. If concrete actions are not taken soon all hope of restoring the public’s faith in national and international health authorities will be gone forever.

if you are incredulous that science works this way:
The book Science for Sale, written by a veteran
microbiologist in EPA’s Office of Research & Development,
addresses the disturbing trend that our science is bought
and paid for:




When Speaker Newt Gingrich greeted Dr. David Lewis in his office overlooking

the National Mall, he looked at Dr. Lewis and said: “You know you’re going to be fired for this,

don’t you?” “I know,” Dr. Lewis replied, “I just hope to stay out of prison.”Gingrich had just read Dr. Lewis’s  commentary in Nature, titled “EPA Science: Casualty of Election Politics.” Three years later,

and thirty years after Dr. Lewis began working at EPA, he was back in Washington to receive a Science Achievement Award from Administrator Carol Browner for his second article in Nature. By then, EPA had transferred Dr. Lewis to the University of Georgia to await termination—the Agency’s only scientist to ever be lead author on papers published in Nature and Lancet.

The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices. Organizations dealing with scientific integrity are designed only to weed out those who commit fraud behind the backs of the institutions where they work. The greatest threat of all is the purposeful corruption of the scientific enterprise by the institutions themselves. The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best. This book is about both, beginning with Dr. Lewis’s experience, and ending with the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.


  • Shannon J, Thomas DB, Ray RM, et al. Dietary risk factors for invasive and in-situ cervical carcinomas in

  • Bangkok, Thailand. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:691-699.

  • Jin L, Qi M, Chen DZ, et al. Indole-3-carbinol prevents cervical cancer in human papilloma virus type 16

  • (HPV16) transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 1999 Aug 15;59(16):3991-7.

  • Brot, C. Jorgensen, N. R. Sorensen, O. H. The influence of smoking on vitamin D status and calcium metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Dec; 53 (12): 920-6.

  • Ho GY, Kadish AS, Burk RD, et al. HPV 16 and cigarette smoking as risk factors for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer. 1998;78:281-285.

  •  Palefsky JM, Holly EA. Molecular virology and epidemiology of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers. Prev 1995;4:415-428.

  • Chen, P. Hu, P. Xie, D. Qin, Y. Wang, F. Wang, H. Meta-analysis of vitamin D, calcium and the prevention of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jun; 121 (2): 469-77.

  • Friedrich, M. Rafi, L. Mitschele, T. Tilgen, W. Schmidt, W. Reichrath, J. Analysis of the vitamin D system in cervical carcinomas, breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2003; 164239-46.

  • Garland, C. F. Gorham, E. D. Mohr, S. B. Garland, F. C. Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective. Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Jul; 19 (7): 468-83.

  • Grant, W. B. Does solar ultraviolet irradiation affect cancer mortality rates in China?. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Apr-Jun; 8 (2): 236-42.

  • Grant, W. B. A meta-analysis of second cancers after a diagnosis of nonmelanoma skin cancer: additional evidence that solar ultraviolet-B irradiance reduces the risk of internal cancers. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar; 103 (3-5): 668-74.

  • Grant, W. B. Benefits of vitamin D in reducing the risk of cancer: Time to include vitamin D in cancer treatment?. J Soc Integr Oncol. 2010 Summer; 8 (3): 81-8.

  • Grant, W. B. Relation between prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and incidence of breast, colorectal, and other cancers. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010 May 12;

  • Grant, W. B. Cancer risk ecological study in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, provides strong support for the ultraviolet B-vitamin D-cancer hypothesis. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2010 19 July 2010; 19 July 2010

  • Grant, W. B. Garland, C. F. The association of solar ultraviolet B (UVB) with reducing risk of cancer: multifactorial ecologic analysis of geographic variation in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates. Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug; 26 (4A): 2687-99.

  • Hosono, S. Matsuo, K. Kajiyama, H. Hirose, K. Suzuki, T. Kawase, T. Kidokoro, K. Nakanishi, T. Hamajima, N. Kikkawa, F. Tajima, K. Tanaka, H. Association between dietary calcium and vitamin D intake and cervical carcinogenesis among Japanese women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr; 64 (4): 400-9.

  • Hrushesky, W. J. Sothern, R. B. Rietveld, W. J. Du Quiton, J. Boon, M. E. Season, sun, sex, and cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Aug; 14 (8): 1940-7.

  • Hrushesky, W. J. Sothern, R. B. Rietveld, W. J. Du-Quiton, J. Boon, M. E. Sun exposure, sexual behavior and uterine cervical human papilloma virus. Int J Biometeorol. 2006 Jan; 50 (3): 167-73.

  • Ingraham, B. A. Bragdon, B. Nohe, A. Molecular basis of the potential of vitamin D to prevent cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jan; 24 (1): 139-49.

  • Lappe, J. M. Travers-Gustafson, D. Davies, K. M. Recker, R. R. Heaney, R. P. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun; 85 (6): 1586-91.

  • Oplander, C. Volkmar, C. M. Paunel-Gorgulu, A. van Faassen, E. E. Heiss, C. Kelm, M. Halmer, D. Murtz, M. Pallua, N. Suschek, C. V. Whole body UVA irradiation lowers systemic blood pressure by release of nitric oxide from intracutaneous photolabile nitric oxide derivates. Circ Res. 2009 Nov 6; 105 (10): 1031-40.

  • Reinhold, U. Schmitz, B. Kurbacher, C. Nagel, W. Schmidt, M. Malaisse, W. J. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in German cancer patients. Oncology reports. 2008 Dec; 20 (6): 1539-43.

  • Seidler, A. Hammer, G. P. Husmann, G. Konig, J. Krtschil, A. Schmidtmann, I. Blettner, M. Cancer risk among residents of Rhineland-Palatinate winegrowing communities: a cancer-registry based ecological study. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008; 312.

  • Shaykhiev, R. Otaki, F. Bonsu, P. Dang, D. T. Teater, M. Strulovici-Barel, Y. Salit, J. Harvey, B. G. Crystal, R. G. Cigarette smoking reprograms apical junctional complex molecular architecture in the human airway epithelium in vivo. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010 Sep 6;

  • Tsai HT, Tsai YM, Yang SF, Wu KY, Chuang HY, Wu TN, Ho CK, Lin CC, Kuo YS, Wu MT. Lifetime cigarette smoke and second-hand smoke and cervical intraepithelial neoplasm–a community-based case-control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Apr; 105 (1): 181-8.

  • Villiotou, V. Deliconstantinos, G. Nitric oxide, peroxynitrite and nitroso-compounds formation by ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiated human squamous cell carcinoma: potential role of nitric oxide in cancer prognosis. Anticancer Res. 1995 May-Jun; 15 (3): 931-42.

  • Wei, L. Gravitt, P. E. Song, H. Maldonado, A. M. Ozbun, M. A. Nitric oxide induces early viral transcription coincident with increased DNA damage and mutation rates in human papillomavirus-infected cells. Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 1; 69 (11): 4878-84.



[1] Bell MC, Crowley-Nowick P, Bradlow HL, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of indole-3-carbinol in the treatment of CIN. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:123-129.






[4] FDA’s VRBPAC Background document, used at the May 18, 2006 meeting where Gardasil approval was discussed:

Page 13, Title: “Concerns Regarding Primary Endpoint Analyses among Subgroups, 1. Evaluation of the potential of Gardasil to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination.” From
Page 14, Table 19, “Study 013: Analysis of efficacy against vaccine-relevant HPV types CIN 2/3 or worse among subjects who were PCR positive and/or seropositive for the relevant HPV type at day 1.” Table 19 shows that the efficacy rate for this group to be -33.7% ( A negative efficacy number means the vaccine led to an INCREASED risk of disease in the subgroups mentioned.)
Page 22, Table 32. “Detailed Safety Population: Number (%) of subjects who reported systemic adverse reactions of 2% or greater in the 15 days following receipt of study vaccine.” Table 32 shows that the number of subjects reporting systemic adverse reactions was 3591. That is a percentage of 59.2% of the participants.


[5] Technically, Gerberding did not become head of the Merck Vaccine Division until after she resigned from the CDC.

bottom of page