“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce

Front Page » Vaccination » Medical Literature » Study Linking Gardasil to Behavioral Abnormalities Pulled from Vaccine Journal
Medical Literature
Text size:

Study Linking Gardasil to Behavioral Abnormalities Pulled from Vaccine Journal

Gregory Poland, MD working in vaccine research laboratory

Dr. Gregory Poland working in vaccine research laboratory. Credit: Mayo Clinic News Network

A peer-reviewed article published online on January 9, 2016 in the journal Vaccine regarding a study linking the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) Gardasil to behavioral abnormalities has been removed by the publication’s editor, Gregory Poland, MD of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, who is Founder and Co-Director of The Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic and Founder and President of the Edward Jenner Society.1

The article was replaced with the following notice:

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified. As an international peer-reviewed journal we believe it is our duty to withdraw the article from further circulation, and to notify the community of this issue.2

The study, titled “Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the humanpapillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil,” was authored by Rotem Inbar, Ronen Weiss, Lucija Tomljenovic, Maria-Teresa Arango, Yael Deri, Christopher A. Shaw, Joab Chapman, Miri Blank, and Yehuda Shoenfeld. It was accepted by Vaccine editors on September 24, 2015. Revisions were suggested and made by peer reviewers, and the study was then accepted in revised form on December 15, 2015.3

The study concluded that both injections of aluminum and the Gardasil vaccine “resulted in behavioral and cognitive abnormalities in mice.”3 It highlights:

the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to further mass-immunization practices with a vaccine of yet unproven long-termclinical benefit which is capable of inducing immune-mediated cross-reactions with neural antigens of the human host. Especially considering the continually increasing number of serious disabling neurological adverse events linked to HPV vaccination reported in the current medical literature and vaccine surveillance databases.3

Study co-author, neuroscientist Chris Shaw, PhD of the University of British Columbia, Canada4 said, “It was peer reviewed, it was accepted with revisions, and it was posted to the website, so all of a sudden we’re not quite sure why they have decided to go back and look at it again.”4

According to an article by the National Post, the study’s lead author, internationally known immunologist Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD of Tel-Aviv University in Israel, has accused Dr. Poland of allowing a conflict of interest with Gardasil manufacturer Merck & Co. to influence his decision to remove the paper from Vaccine. Dr. Shoenfeld, who is Founder and Director of the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Autoimmunity,5 said:

This reflects an unusually unorthodox and unprofessional conduct from the journal and seems to be part of a pharmaceutical industry push-back to any critique of the Gardasil vaccine. To simply retract a paper which reports a result that one does not like makes a mockery of the whole review process.6

Dr. Poland has chaired a Safety Evaluation Committee for vaccine trials conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. He has provided consulting services on vaccine development to Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, including CSL Biotherapies, Avianax, Sanofi Pasteur, Dynavax, Novartis Vaccines and Therapeutics, PAXVAX, and Emergent Biosolutions.7


References:

1 Mayo Clinic. Gregory Poland, MD and Edward Jenner Society: Officers.
2 Inbar R, Weiss R, Tomljenovic L, Arango MT, Deri Y, Shaw CA, Chapman J, Blank M, Shoenfeld Y. Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil. Vaccine (NCBI) Jan. 9, 2016.
3 Inbar R, Weiss R, Tomljenovic L, Arango MT, Deri Y, Shaw CA, Chapman J, Blank M, Shoenfeld Y. Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil. Vaccine Jan. 9, 2016.
4 Fletcher, T. UBC researcher defends Gardasil vaccine study after it gets pulled. Metro Vancouver February 2016.
5 Schoenfeld Y. Video Q&A: What is ASIA? An Interview with Yehuda Shoenfeld. BMC Med 2013; 11: 118 and Journal of Autoimmunity Editorial Board: Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD.
6 Blackwell T. Journal permanently spikes Canadian study critical of HPV vaccine. National Post Mar. 8, 2016.
7 Nellis B. Mayo Clinic Discovers African-Americans Respond Better to Rubella Vaccine. Mayo Clinic Feb. 26, 2014.

18 Responses to Study Linking Gardasil to Behavioral Abnormalities Pulled from Vaccine Journal

  1. laevern Reply

    April 12, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    the terrorist was in court for punishment ,,,’/] I am like paul reviere getting this message … the play shakespeare heroshio heroshio heroshio “supreme high court gardasil the courts were really inside an institute to they governor//
    Nothing is being done
    Send out a PLAY
    SUPREME HIGH COURT GARDASIL
    HPV VACCINES

    Governments are instituted to protect freedoms, not restrict them. Certainly, in the event of some communicable diseases society has a need to protect people as a group, but that’s not the issue here.
    MERCK owns a history of corrupt, this is past the point
    of innocent

  2. Don Reply

    March 20, 2016 at 9:46 am

    You are missing the main point on the question of the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The main point is, is science being ignored in order to keep Gardasil profits intact? As I mentioned in my previous comment, if the editor of Vaccine feels the paper is inadequate, then the editor should state clearly what the problem is and allow the authors to respond.

    • Redpill1 Reply

      March 22, 2016 at 8:04 am

      Don’t know who are you responding to but, your point is valid. However the way the medical establishment, who rely on the information posted in journals excursively for study information (I can’t remember how many times I have heard a doctors say they didn’t read it in a journal so a point is not valid), a doctor will capitulate to the journal and if a journal article is posted that states this study was pulled-that’s all they need to know and really care about. How many doctors actually study up on vaccines? This youtube video gives you an idea and I know from relatives that are in the medical field-they are not taught anything about vaccines:
      -Are Doctors Experts On Vaccines? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM0Br6YXlEA&feature=youtu.be
      -“Nurses Need to Obey the Patient’s Directives, Not Threaten or Lie” https://truthkings.com/nursing-student-dismissed-for-refusal-to-lie-about-vaccines-wins-early-court-victory/.

      I provide these to demonstrate that posting specific reasons a journal article is retracted doesn’t matter. The indoctrination is so pervasive among the medical establishment and the fear is so overwhelming because questioning will lead to being ostracized or even loss of job, these people will not read specifics. All they will read is study retracted (I wouldn’t be surprised if the CDC/Merck sent out a special email or alert to all doctors around the world)read the title of study and boom, close the journal and toss it on a shelf.

  3. sheldon101 Reply

    March 18, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Re HPV and cervical cancer.

    I’m certainly no expert on HPV and cancer, but my understanding is that in almost all cases infection with a HPV virus is a necessary step to cervical and other types of cancer. The issue ISN’T whether HPV infection is an immediate precursor to cancer.

    There is without the vaccine a funnel like process. Huge numbers of women (and increasingly men) get infected with various strains of HPV viruses. In most people, the immune system defeats the virus completely. In a much smaller number the virus persists for years and years, largely without symptoms. In a much smaller group, they develop pre-cancerous lesions and in a much smaller number, they develop cancer. But that final number results in the deaths of thousands in the US each year.

    The vaccine covers the strains linked to most of the cancers and is very effective in preventing infection with these strains.

    There may be a number of issues surrounding the use of the HPV vaccine some real and some not so real, including safety. There can certainly be disagreements on this. But I don’t think there is much disagreement that the vaccine does what it is intended to do, break the chain of events necessary to cause these types of cancer

    • Redpill1 Reply

      March 18, 2016 at 9:41 pm

      HPV virus is a necessary step to cervical and other types of cancer.

      In order for that to be a valid point it must be proven that the virus exist. This is what Janine Roberts, an investigate journalist wrote:
      “THE VACCINE WITHOUT A VIRUS.”
      …….there is something very different about the HPV vaccines. Unlike all the usual vaccines, they do not contain any virus.

      Extraordinarily, at no point during vaccine production is the HPV virus claimed to be present. The reason for this is very simple. So far scientists have failed to persuade any cell culture to produce this virus, even cultures made of cervical cancer cells. A statement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reported that this type of virus, the papillomaviruses (HPV), “cannot be propagated in tissue culture.” So far this virus is only said to be produced by ‘cloning” – i.e. by being made in a laboratory.

      Rather these vaccines are the product of a new synthetic vaccine industry based, not on isolating viruses, but on reproducing short lengths of genetic codes postulated to come from proteins that once formed the outer coat of the virus that is not itself found for the vaccines.

      They seem to assemble naturally into “virus like” empty shells and are thus known officially as “Virus-Like Particles’ (VLP), even thou’ this is like calling a brick a house. To make Gardasil, these are put into cells and multiplied in yeast cell cultures, or in baculovirus cultures for Cervarix. Fluid from the culture containing these particles is then used as the vaccine. The vaccines are thus certain to contain many particles from the yeast fungi or baculovirus, and whatever additives are used – and thus Gardosil is not officially recommended to those who are sensitive to yeast.

      The HPV vaccines have then added to them aluminum chemicals as an ‘adjuvant’. This is to provoke our immune cells into producing antibodies for longer – although it has recently been discovered that many people have become seriously ill because of this aluminum. [1] The aluminum is in the form of tiny sharp needle-like crystals. These our immune cells attempt to digest, but they cannot. The needles remain stuck inside. No wonder our cells respond for longer.

      MAKING A VACCINE FOR AN ABSENT VIRUS:
      Why is HPV virus thought to cause this cancer? It seems only because Harald zur Hausen found certain genetic codes in or near the cervical cancer cells; for, in about 90% of cases, ‘DNA and transcripts of specific HPV types are regularly detected in biopsies from cervical cancer and in its precursor lesions.’ [2]

      He presumed these codes were from proteins that were unique to this virus. We have to say, “presumed,” as most viruses have not yet been studied so logically it is impossible for us to be certain that a protein is unique to any virus. Also, finding them in these cancer cells does not mean that they cause the cancers. The cells may produce them for other purposes

      Thus, because this virus cannot be grown, the vaccine is instead based on ‘Virus-Like Particles;’ made from synthetic versions of proteins said to be parts of HPV. In reality, human skin cells make these proteins – but these same cells have not confirmed their ability to make HPV itself by doing so in the laboratory. This makes it near impossible to prove that these proteins come from this virus.
      Read remaining article at: http://www.offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/199-the-hpv-vaccine-mysteries-must-read.html. Article and citations can be found at: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/roberts.html.

      It’s never been proven that HPV exist because it “cannot be propagated in tissue culture”, it’s never been proven that HPV causes cervical cancer and it’s never been proven that HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer and it can’t even be assessed for that for at least 20 years.

      According to the American Cancer Society and the CDC’s National Vital Statics Reports there are approximately 4,00 deaths a year from Cervical Cancer. These deaths are all in women older than 40 years.

      “In most people, the immune system defeats the virus completely.”
      More than 90% clear it from their system within 2 years.

      “But that final number results in the deaths of thousands in the US each year.”
      That is hyperbola aka fear mongering. Less than 4200 women died from cervical cancer in the US in 2014. It is the 12th cause of death. 2015 numbers aren’t out yet. From CDC website:
      “However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly.”
      Here are the leading cause of deaths in the US:
      Heart disease
      Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
      Chronic lower respiratory disease
      Accidents (unintentional injuries)
      Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
      Alzheimer’s disease
      Diabetes (diabetes mellitus)
      Influenza and pneumonia
      Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis)
      Suicide (intentional self-harm).

      Children DO NOT GET OR DIE FROM CERVICAL CANCER according to the CDC’s National Vital Statics Reports from the years 1995-2013 (I checked). The CDC has graphs of the leading causes of deaths in the US by age groups and you will not find Cervical Cancer in girls between the ages of 9-30 on those charts.

      “The vaccine covers the strains linked to most of the cancers and is very effective in preventing infection with these strains.”

      The vaccine coves 4 strains. There are over 100 strains and only 15 “may” lead to cervical cancer.
      ***2 of the strains ARE NOT IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES” a group with a higher incident of CC. ******

      “But I don’t think there is much disagreement that the vaccine does what it is intended to do, break the chain of events necessary to cause these types of cancer”

      Please provide Independent Verifiable Gold Standard Studies that confirm that the vaccine “does what it is intended to do” when even the CDC states:
      …. it will take decades before the impact of vaccine on cervical cancer is observed. More proximal measures of vaccine impact include outcomes such as prevalence of HPV vaccine types, incidence of cervical pre-cancers and genital warts.
      Post-licensure monitoring of HPV vaccine in the United States, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Vaccine.2010 Jul 5;28 (30):4731-7. Epub 2010 Feb 25.

  4. Redpill1 Reply

    March 17, 2016 at 8:43 am

    Here are some fact that have never been posted:

    There is no cervical cancer epidemic or crisis in the world.

    -The CDC & FDA allowed Merck to violate policy by Fast Tracking this drug. A drug is Fast Tracked if there is a GLOBAL imminent threat to the health of the world OF A CONTAGION. HPV vaccines DO NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY THEREFORE THE CDC,FDA,WHO AND MERCK VIOLATED THAT POLICY. This was illegal. The FDA requires new vaccines to undergo testing and a waiting period of 4 years. Gardasil was developed and on the market in 6 months, with FDA approval. The FDA approved the increase in Aluminum in Gardasil 9 without any scientific justification.

    -“Regarding corruption surrounding the recommendation of influenza vaccines; there are no restrictions with regard to conflicts of interest for the employees of the CDC or for those of the FDA (Kuehn, 2010). Each employee of either agency is allowed to own stock in drug companies. There is of course the revolving door. The most blatant example of revolving door corruption may be the action of the former director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding. Gererding blocked the CDC’s planned retraction of their recommendation for HPV vaccine after significant numbers of girls had died or been rendered paralyzed by the HPV vaccine.

    Soon after blocking the retraction, Gerberding was offered and took a position at Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, the world’s best selling HPV vaccine, as head of Merck Vaccines Department (Reuters, 2009). It is a level of corruption that we would expect to see in only third world countries.” Kuehn, B. (Feb 3, 2010). Office of Inspector General: CDC Lax in Policing Advisors’ Conflicts of Interest. The Journal of the American Medical Association 303. 5 412.

    -In the September 2008, FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil it was noted that 73.3% of girls in the clinical trials developed “new medical conditions” post vaccination. 17 girls died during the clinical trials. September 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil. Go to website and track down document. The CDC keeps moving it. However-

    The origins of the HPV vaccine – A case of corruption in science:
    http://www.sott(dot)net/article/305663-SOTT-Exclusive-The-origins-of-the-HPV-vaccine-A-case-of-corruption-in-science303.

    -Reclassification Petition for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA, Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection” published March 7, 2007.
    http://www(dot)fda(dot)gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf
    -the FDA knew back in 2003 that a HPV is not the actual cause of cervical cancer.
    The actual cause is a “persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11].
    Throughout the document you will read two words: Persistent HPV infection” and “Self-Limiting.” Persistent: existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously.Self-limiting: limiting oneself or itself; especially of a disease, limited by one’s or its own nature; specifically : running a definite and limited course self — limited disease.
    Read the FDA document at the link and Janak’s article at: FDA and HPV — when did they know the truth? http://www.renewamerica(dot)com/columns/janak/071212. She has spent over a decade researching government scientific documents and she walks you through the medico jargon.

    Children DO NOT GET OR DIE FROM CERVICAL CANCER according to the CDC’s National Vital Statics Reports from the years 1995-2013 (that I checked). Cervical Cancer deaths run about 4,000 a year in the US and the average age group for females to develop cervical cancer is between the ages of 45-55. The effectiveness of any so called HPV vaccine will not be know for 20 because that’s how long it takes cervical cancer to develop naturally in a woman:
    -While there are well-established cancer registries in the United States, it will take decades before the impact of vaccine on cervical cancer is observed. More proximal measures of vaccine impact include outcomes such as prevalence of HPV vaccine types, incidence of cervical pre-cancers and genital warts.
    Post-licensure monitoring of HPV vaccine in the United States, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Vaccine.2010 Jul 5;28 (30):4731-7. Epub 2010 Feb 25, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih(dot)gov/pubmed/201886881

    -There are over 100 strains of HPV of which possibly 15 “can” contribute to cervical cancer. 2 of the strains in the shot do not cover Black females-a group that has a higher chance of developing cervical cancer. It’s possible that females in other ethnic groups such as Africans, Indians, Hispanics and Asians may also not be covered by this shot. No one bothered to check if indeed HPV can cause cervical cancer.: http://www.medscape(dot)com/viewarticle/813365.

    -It has never been proven scientifically that HPV causes cervical cancer or any type of cancer. There is no scientific proof that the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer. There is no scientific evidence of any kind.
    (HPV VACCINE MYSTERIES-WHY WAS A NOBEL AWARD GIVEN FOR THIS ON DECEMBER 10,TH 2008?-http://www.whale(dot)to/vaccines/roberts.html. Also:

    Swedish Officials Investigating Nobel Prize Board: http://www.newsmax(dot)com/Newsfront/nobel-prize-bribery/2008/12/12/id/327094/) and

    -Nobel Prize Bought By Pharma Kick Backs
    http://www.emfacts(dot)com/2008/12/1007conflict-of-interest-and-the-nobel-prize/.

    -Nobel prize row over pharmaceuticals firm link
    http://www.telegraph(dot)co.uk/news/science/science-news/3849620/Nobel-prize-row-over-pharmaceuticals-firm-link.html

    As one can see there was corruption all around in regards to this so called vaccine from the start.

    • ShamROCK Reply

      July 19, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      RedPill1 you mentioned above “Gererding blocked the CDC’s planned retraction of their recommendation for HPV vaccine after significant numbers of girls had died or been rendered paralyzed by the HPV vaccine.” – can you say where you came by this information? This is extremely significant.
      Thanks.

  5. sheldon101 Reply

    March 16, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Another possibility is that the paper should never have been accepted for publication and because of major errors it was correct to retract the paper.

    What’s interesting is that the author of this article didn’t even do the slightest work to check if this might be the teeny tiniest possibility that this might be or the case. Or what’s worse, the author did do the teeny tiniest bit of work and decided it would be better for the reader not to know of this.

    So what to do? Google it with obvious search terms likely to bring few quality results. So we use gardasil and vaccine for the vaccine, poland for the guy who did it, and retraction for what happened.

    And the 6th result shown is “No, Gardasil does not cause behavioral problems” of February 17, 2016. Granted that this article is by someone who is certainly in favor of the use of Gardasil, the blog entry raises major methodological problems with the article in question.

    First and foremost, the ‘scoring’ of the mouse behavior is silent on blinding when that scoring is subjective—that is, did the person who scored the behavior know which injection the mouse received when they were deciding how to characterize what the mouse was doing. If that was the case, then the paper should not have been accepted on this problem alone. There are also a number of statistical problems.

    Granted the Vaccine Reaction isn’t a peer reviewed journal and is put out by an organization that can be charitably be described as not pro AMA vaccine, it would be nice to see the slightest effort by the editors to see and present the alternative explanation.Because after all the mission of NVIC is to present the information people need to have to make an informed decision on vaccination.

    • Don Reply

      March 17, 2016 at 1:52 pm

      Major errors? If there are major errors in the paper, then the paper should stand for all the scientific community to see and judge for themselves. We could then have a lively debate, in public through letters to the editor, on the merits of the paper. This would also allow the writers to respond to allegations.

      I would also expect that if the paper is indeed seriously flawed, then the editor, instead of unilaterally pulling it, owes it to the scientific community to say exactly how it’s flawed, and to allow responses to those allegations.

      Remember, the paper was peer-reviewed. That means that within the scientific community of the publication, it passed muster as sound and worthy of publication.

      One suspects that if the paper had been favorable to Gardasil then no matter how many errors it had, even if blatant, it would have stood without any questions.

      • sheldon101 Reply

        March 18, 2016 at 3:11 pm

        Reply to Don about retraction.

        Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the rules of these journals. And that is, if a paper after publication is found be wrong in certain ways, the journal retracts it. Certainly the authors of the paper knew this at all times.

        In the past and with physically printed journals, the editors would place a retraction notice in the printed journal.

        With the coming of electronic journals and the internet, the journals had an additional choice, that of actually replacing the article with the notice of retraction or adding a notice. Journals have chosen to replace the article with the notice. They tend to do this when there are major problems with the paper. For another example look at Wakefield’s infamous article in the Lancet that lead to increased cases of Measles. Of course, if you hunt around enough you can still find the article as the internet rarely loses anything. And I also suspect that the authors after the retraction can have the paper published anywhere else they want,perhaps even here.

        • Don Reply

          March 21, 2016 at 1:59 am

          Reply to Sheldon re: retraction.
          My point is that this type of opaque, unilateral pulling of papers needs to stop. Once again, if there is a legitimate scientific reason for a paper to be pulled, then that specific reason should be stated for all to see, and for anyone to respond to. Otherwise it’s simply too easy to pull a paper for reasons that are other than scientific. In the case in question we don’t know why the paper was pulled except for a vague accusation of being scientifically “seriously flawed.” But the real reason could also very well be that if the paper is valid, then it’s a serious threat to the PR surrounding Gardasil, and as such may pose a threat not only to Gardasil sales but to sales of any vaccine with aluminum. Therefore, it would be in the interests of Merck to do whatever it could to squash the paper, and in the absence of a specific statement of the scientific flaw(s) in the paper, it’s reasonable for us to assume that this is likely what’s happened.

          Regarding the Wakefield case, the same disclosure of the specific scientific (or ethical) reason for retraction should have applied, since we now know that the accusations against Wakefield were bogus, as David Lewis, PhD, has demonstrated in some detail. And by the way, Wakefield didn’t recommend against vaccinating against measles; he recommended using the single measles vaccine, and not the MMR, until the issue could be resolved. My understanding is that the British government, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit to pull the single measles vaccine, and so perhaps we should be blaming the British government, and not Wakefield, for any subsequent measles outbreak.

    • Don Reply

      March 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm

      Your concerns about the blinded scoring of the tests is bogus. There is no “characterization” of the behavioral tests: these are objective measurements involving standardized, accepted tests, and unless you’re accusing the authors of deliberately altering the measurements, you have no leg to stand on. They are not “subjective” measurements, as you imply by stating that these tests can be “characterized.”

  6. mark brody Reply

    March 16, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    This is just another in a long series of efforts by the pro-vaccine community to shield from the public eye any scientific evidence that might incriminate vaccinations as having any possible dangerous effects. Then, having swept this information under the rug, they can go on with their statements that no scientific evidence has been found indicating that vaccines have any serious dangerous effects. The problem is that the rug is bulging more
    and more all the time.

  7. A Higgins Reply

    March 16, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Poland knows. HE. KNOWS. He has known for a very, very long time. He knows full well that there is a wide disparity in vaccine response; he even knows that there is a genetic component to both hypo- and hyper response. He knows what genetic groups might have those responses, and he almost certainly knows that some people have a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury. He has, for years, been trying to have his cake and eat it too, keeping his and Mayo’s pharma gravy train going, covering for anything potentially concerning raised by his own work through careful phrasing and by penning exceptionally nasty From The Editor posts aimed at the non-compliant; now he’s using his position to spike important research done by others. He is a factotum, not a scientist.

  8. chemfreemom Reply

    March 16, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Unfortunately, this is very common, though usually the study is not published to begin with.

    • Redpill1 Reply

      March 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

      Study co-author, neuroscientist Chris Shaw, PhD of the University of British Columbia, Canada4 said, “It was peer reviewed, it was accepted with revisions, and it was posted to the website, so all of a sudden we’re not quite sure why they have decided to go back and look at it again.”

      The study most certainly should have been published. This is just pharma and the CDC push back and a distraction for the very public letter written by Dr.
      Allegations of Scientific Misconduct by GACVS/WHO/CDC Representatives et al
      An open-letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan chanm@who.int:
      http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Allegations-of-Scientific-Misconduct-by-GACVS.pdf

      and

      New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
      American College of Pediatricians – January 2016
      http://www.acpeds(dot)org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine.
      “It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause.”

      Poland is nothing more than a high paid tool for Merck.

  9. Redpill1 Reply

    March 13, 2016 at 9:01 am

    This is the most egregious case of scientific misconduct & manipulation since the GMO study that confirmed GMO foods are unhealthy and dangerous to the human body was pulled after some bio-tech industry corruption. A researcher did a study that confirmed GMO’s are bad, it was published in a prestigious journal. The journal editor was fired, a new paid for industry insider was put in his place and he pulled the study.

    Poland is takes his marching orders from Merck. Since his two measles studies are being re posted on pro-choice and safe vaccine websites, he probably knows he better tow the line or suffer the consequences-you know a “Wakefield”.

    • Nala Dleifneerg Reply

      November 4, 2016 at 3:00 pm

      Yehuda Schoenfeld has such a superior understanding of this field, it’s shameful that Dr. Poland pulled this article – he himself can learn a thing or three from Prof. Schoenfeld, and should reinstate it promptly and apologize publicly.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>