Sitting back watching the medical and political system defending Gardasil is quite amusing. First, the usual bloggers who fall under the “anti the anti-vaccine people” catagory, take uneducated speculative ranting swipes (and I’m not providing URLs because their ignorance is worse than their insolence), and then, as usual, the media doesn’t understand the significance of this issue. Either that, or they have been told to shut up. None of them lived through the polio/SV40 debacle, and ants have longer institutional memory than journalists living under high pressure situations where the motto is “write, present and forget”.
Part of what they face are the fairy-wands or bulldust waved by manufacturers and government officials, to try to persuade journalists not to run the story. After all, most journalists have no idea that this is the latest in a long history of vaccine contaminants. The manufacturers’ and authorities’ intent, is that journalists will think the issue a big yawn, and not put pen to paper (“Mustn’t scare the public, eh?!” Pass the bean dip, please...).
What these people forget is that as part of the “process”, journalists come back to get your response to the ludicrous comments, which is very revealing. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sick.
The biggest piece of cream-pie-in-the-face so far, comes from the mouth of CSL’s Director of Media Relations, Sharon McHale, who decided to tell a journalist that….., “Gardasil may potentially have detectable fragments of DNA”, which she said were “expected residuals from the manufacturing process, present in very small quantities and are not contaminants.” She states there has been no identified link between the presence of fragments of recombinant DNA and adverse events. How droll when all the information provided by CSL categorically states that there is “no DNA”.
What part of “no DNA” does CSL not quite understand?
In the very next breath, the journalist was told “recombinant DNA exists in other vaccines, such as Hepatitis B vaccine, with no link established between any adverse effects and the recombinant DNA”.
Here are CSL’s documents for Hepatitis B:
The vaccine contains no detectable yeast DNA but may contain up to 1% yeast protein.
see page 2 towards the bottom:
Assays for cesium, polysaccharides, DNA, pyrogens and sterility are performed....
Why would they need to do assays for DNA present in the Hepatitis B vaccine, if it was an acceptable component of the vaccine?
And very careful wording eh?! “No established link…” There is never an established link with any direct unwanted effect unless it’s too big, too tall and too wide for them to drive around invisibly.
The same journalist in talking to the Australian TGA was told that, "There is no evidence from manufacturing records currently available to the Department or the medicines regulator, the TGA, that there is detectable recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil. Nevertheless, the TGA is investigating this report."
The whole point is that everyone KNOWS that the documents given to TGA say there is NO detectable recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil, because all the governmental website information says that as well
And has there been media confirmation of any such investigations? The only pig that flew was swine flu.
If CSL’s datasheets said something other than what was said to TGA, someone’s butt would be roasted.
What SANE-vax is saying is that the documentation is wrong, because testing has proven the presence of genetically engineered HPV DNA.
Even more tellingly, a statement from the Australian Minister of Health's spokesman was that ,"The government disagrees with those who in principle oppose vaccination”, but that "authorities will always take any allegation or concern regarding safety seriously, and their decisions will always be based on independent and reliable data to safeguard the supply of medicines and vaccinations for Australians."
Who provides the “independent and reliable data”?
The fox (guarding the coop) who says there is no DNA in Gardasil?
Isn’t it predictable that the minute ANYONE finds something relating to vaccine safety and process, that might need addressing, they’re automatically “anti-vaccine”.
"There's something amiss here...." Response: "You must be anti-vaccine."
When short on fact, let’s get long on emotion with ye olde “shoote thine messenger” epithet.