Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00

Placebo-trick in Gardasil, aluminum trials: Why the court just ruled against Merck whistleblowers

To prove the trials were indefensible, highlight the solution, there's $100 for a link to a scientist who previously even attempted to defend Merck's Gardasil shenanigans mixing placebo+AAHS groups

ChatGPT Transcript

Disclaimer: ChatGPT is an AI model and its responses are based on its training data and may not necessarily represent expert or professional advice. ChatGPT produced the following code of ethics which this podcast follows:

Ai Interview Ethics
47.2KB ∙ PDF file
Download
Download

Link: Gardasil trials Case analysis Adjuvantsopen the chat on ChatGPT to verify the Avatar speaks ChatGPT’s authentic answer and continue to ask ChatGPT for sources and details to fact-check.

Video Script with sources

Watch how FactBid can solve vaccine hesitancy if we give it a try.

To draw attention to the problem we need to overcome I'm offering $100 to the first person who replies with a link to a scientist who defended Merck's Gardasil trials but also acknowledged skeptics’ key concern: the trials only showed combined outcomes for drug vs. placebo, not separate results.

See I previously offered $100 for a vaccine trial that tracked long-term events with a real placebo group.  @debunk_the_funk cited the original Gardasil, not just a first of its kind vaccine, but it introduced a new type of adjuvant Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS.  Since neither had been used before, trial participants had to be divided into: vaccine with AAHS, AAHS alone, and a true placebo, tracking them for years.  Obviously this should have resolved any concerns.  Results like this, we’ve got a safe vaccine, this is not, this means AAHS is unsafe.  However, like all establishment scientists, debunk refused to acknowledge the obvious concern: Merck only published combined AAHS and placebo side effects, making comparison impossible.  I paid him the $100 anyway because I mistakenly only asked for a trial stating it used a placebo, not one that disclosed the results.

Every vaccine advocate I've encountered argues against using placebos, claiming it's unethical and redundant since initial vaccines are tested with them. Yet, mentioning issues in the initial trials for which there is no defense results in a block rather than a constructive discussion. I seek pro-pharma counterarguments to avoid spreading misinformation, but so far, ChatGPT is the only resource I found that defends mainstream stances while acknowledgong valid concerns.  For example, ChatGPT, did the trial prove AAHS was safe:

The Gardasil trial combined adverse event data for AAHS and placebo recipients, making it unclear how many adverse events occurred in each specific group.  If skeptics are concerned about the aluminum adjuvant's safety, a more transparent breakdown of adverse reaction rates between the two control subgroups would be necessary to address these concerns.

Come on establishment scientists, was that really beyond your pay grade?  It’s well worth $100 to get the name of one that can keep up.  Hopefully, this challenge will highlight how establishment scientists, by ignoring obvious concerns, are not just failing to combat vaccine hesitancy but actually fueling it.

Merck reported that 3% of Gardasil trial participants developed serious issues, and lawsuit discoveries indicate all received AAHS, with none getting saline. This is plausible since, decades ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics linked aluminum to neurological concerns. The FDA notes that while we expel ingested aluminum, injected aluminum settles in tissues, including the brain, correlating it with Alzheimer's, autism, and auto-immune disorders. Although the FDA requires stark warning labels for injectable aluminum and sets limits on its amount, vaccines are the exception, ostensibly due to their placebo-controlled safety trials.

I think we're looking at a model of something which could be occurring right now in humans. The very large particles in these vaccines, there's a lot of aluminum associated with large particles. We were not informed about the use of aluminum. We have not found any evidence that these adjuvants have ever been tested for safety.

The Danish government associated Gardasil with possible auto-immune disorders, leading to demands for a true placebo-controlled trial by Europe’s FDA. The agency refused, pointing to newer vaccines with AAHS trials. Yet, since the original Gardasil was the "placebo" in these trials, isn't the problem clear, even to a chatbot?

ChatGPT, Merck reported 3% in their trial developed serious problems. If caused by AAHS, then merging AAHS and placebo results would conceal this, yes?  Then if new vaccines simply used less AAHS, causing “only” 2% to develop disorders compared to 3% who received “placebo”, i.e. the original Gardasil, the trial would “prove” the new vaccines "prevented" the very disorders they actually caused, right?

If the assumptions in your hypothetical scenario are accurate, then yes, using the described methodology, a vaccine that caused a significant number of autoimmune disorders could appear to prevent them when compared to a control that also causes these disorders. This highlights the importance of having a truly inert placebo group in clinical trials to provide a clear baseline for comparison.

This seems so obvious yet Merck is winning the scores of lawsuits alleging fraud.1  ChatGPT?

The lawsuit was dismissed, but the dismissal was not based on a determination of whether Gardasil caused the alleged harm.  Under the Vaccine Act, manufacturers are shielded from liability for vaccine injuries unless fraud or intentional misconduct is proven. Thus, plaintiffs must show not just harm from the vaccine, but also wrongful conduct by the manufacturer.

So even if victims show the vaccine caused harm obscured by the placebo trick, they can't get justice unless an insider at Merck reveals intentional fraud, right?

Yes.  They would likely need internal evidence, such as documentation or communications, indicating fraudulent or intentional misconduct.

For Merck's earlier MMR vaccine, two whistleblowers did come forward with proof Merck falsified trial results. I acquired court records: Merck never denied the accusations, but rather sought jail for the whistleblowers for leaking confidential documents. After a decade-long battle, Merck won last month. ChatGPT, explain this outcome despite the judge confirming the falsification happened?2

Despite these allegations, the CDC continued to endorse and the FDA continued to license Merck's mumps vaccines. The judge's decision to dismiss the case was influenced not by the falsity of the claims, but by the inaction of government agencies like the FDA and CDC. Their lack of response suggested to the court that the allegations might not be material or significant.

Health agencies vilify skeptics who claim trials are rigged. Yet when whistleblowers confirm this, pharma still wins because the fact that the FDA and CDC know and don’t care is literally enough to convince the court any falsification must not have been significant.  Evidently, they think pharma falsifies trials for fun, not concealment, and health officials would gladly forgo their massive royalties to pull unsafe products.

Even more outrageous, in this case, a whistleblower within the CDC corroborated that the CDC director destroyed trial data detrimental to Merck. The director’s "punishment"? Tens of millions of dollars in Merck stock and the presidency of Merck’s vaccine division. Meanwhile, the whistleblowers, after a decade-long legal struggle that drained their savings, were rewarded with the promise of free room and board to compensate for sacrificing their careers.

To overcome hesitancy, I think we need to crowdfund proper unbiased trials as outlined in Episode 2, and also reassure potential whistleblowers if they produce documents proving the motive behind this whacky trial design, this time they’ll get a pat on the back, not a kick in the teeth.  

If you have a better solution, please share. I think right now the only one is to visit factbid.org, click 'bid' under #GardasilPlacebo to start a post with these hashtags to pledge support for whistleblowers. They can then provide donation instructions when posting verifiable evidence about the trial design motives. Donate if satisfied.

I want a safe HPV vaccine for my daughter, and the fact is aluminum is a cost-saving choice, not a necessity. Uncontroversial adjuvants exist but are more costly.  These rigged clinical trials amplify concerns, not calm them. Today the system incentivizes profit over safety. FactBid seeks to counterbalance with an incentive to come forward whenever they go too far.

1

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O2569XC0iKs-APs0Pvq5vIyvrwtXc1xy/view?usp=sharing

2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m7JifohC6anXZOYyuxPdcYCnVrku2x6j/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/113-afnAytSRXO8NNuhpspbMxIYygkt9P/view?usp=sharing

0 Comments
Fact Mission’s Substack
Fact Mission’s Substack
Authors
Fact Mission