The Safe Vaccine Debate – 1. Samer Hakim: Gardasil/Cervarix HPV Vaccination – to jab or not to jab? 2. Dr Judy Wilyman: Newsletters #201 & #202 3. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: Vaccines and the Liberal Mind

1. Samer Hakim: Gardasil/Cervarix HPV Vaccination – to jab or not to jab?

Editor’s Note:
We are pleased to publish a research report from an Australian pharmacist who has some issues with some vaccines marketed in Australia.
He makes his comments independently, even going to the extent of producing a video to record his findings.
All pharmacists have a moral and legal obligation to ensure their patients are fully informed as to the safety of any drug dispensed on their behalf (including vaccines) and that a patient’s consent is actually received after all information available, has been divulged.
Any pharmacist who wishes to contribute to the safe vaccine debate is invited to so do by contacting i2P with any of your own research reports for publication, or by placing comment in the panel provided at the foot of this page.

Gardasil/Cervarix HPV Vaccination – to jab or not to jab?

The debate over the use and safety of vaccinations has been raging on for decades but for any one who questions the safety and efficacy of vaccines, they have often been stifled and labelled as unscientific and their information not evidence based.  HPV Vaccination was introduced in 2006 by Merck+Co as a vaccine to fight cervical cancer.  We want to look at the evidence backing its use and the safety profile that the vaccine presents in the literature.Their claim is Gardasil9 “will protect against approximately 90% of cervical cancers”, and the American Cancer Society recommends HPV vaccination for girls ages 11 to 12, although girls as young as 9 may receive the vaccine, and it’s also recommended for girls ages 13 to 18 in order to catch up on missed vaccines or complete the series.Since 2006, the HPV vaccine (marketed as Gardasil by Merck+Co and Cervarix by GSK), it has been introduced in to the National Immunisation Schedule to over 41% of countries as of May 2018 [WHO], and Merck+Co alone has made over $18USD Billion in sales revenue since its introduction.

What is HPV:

HPV is short for Human Papilloma Virus, a common virus with an estimated 80% of women who have it and in 90% of cases it is harmless.  Most cases of HPV do not progress to genital warts or cervical cancers.  HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer, but a factor, with other co-factors needed in order for cervical cancer to develop.  There are 20 strains of HPV known to cause cancer (>100 types of HPV) and 15 strains are considered high risk.  Pap smear screening is effective in determining early onset of cancer and intervention, however, improved environmental factors and education reduced disease rates prior to screening test.

Our claim:

1.The evidence to support the use of hpv vaccine does not exist for the end cause desired – reduction in cervical cancer cases.2.Risks are greater than benefits – and the statement that the use of vaccine and any risk associated with it is better than the disease itself is unfounded.

The Evidence:

The video will demonstrate that there is no evidence that the vaccine will prevent any cancer and has not been proven to prevent a single death from cervical cancer.  Furthermore, it has not been tested through trials in the age group it is recommended for, not has the end target result been actually examined – the prevention of Cervical Cancer!  Furthermore, the demand for such a vaccine was never in place until such time that the demand was created by those who benefit from the sales the most!

The Risk:

When the evidence is so lacking, a single potential risk is an infinitely too high a risk to take… let alone the fact that the HPV vaccine has had three times rate of “reported” adverse reactions after HPV vaccine than all other vaccines combined to the CDC.   That is only those adverse drug reactions that have been reported and only limited to the USA!  Serious adverse drug reactions include Paralysis, seizures, MS, blood clotting, stroke, heart attack, nerve damage, death, and life time infertility and more…The risk of a serious adverse drug reactions is estimated to be 1 in 500 – while the risk of cervical cancer is estimated at 1 in 40,000.The numbers simply do not add up!


  • Vaccine only protects from 2-9 of the 15 high risk hpv variants. (PI)
  • Hpv is not an independent cause of cervical cancer.
  • HPV is common (80%), and in most cases (90%), warts or cancer do not develop.
  • Cervical cancer is treatable if it ever develops (3.7% of new cancers). Prognosis is good.
  • Not a major cause of death! There was never a need, Demand was created for such a vaccine.
  • Note: Not effective if some one is already infected (a large population!). Not effective against other strains that may lead to cervical cancer. (PI)
  • Approval for use was fast tracked outside the normal guidelines.
  • Risk to Benefit is very high.
  • Mandating such a vaccine is not only unethical, but lacking in evidence.
  • Parents should make an informed decision.
  • The claim made by manufacturers that it helps prevent Cervical Cancer must be questioned.


2. Dr Judy Wilyman: Newsletters #201 & #202

Newsletter 201 WA Health Minister, Roger Cook, Supports Censoring Scientific Debate on Vaccines
22 June 2018

WA Health Minister, Roger Cook, has condoned the removal of a billboard that simply asks “Do you know what is in a vaccine?”
Politicians are liable for participating in legislative decisions that use false information to harm human health.
The current censorship of the risks of vaccines as “anti-vaccination” and the suppression of public discussion is resulting in an escalation of chronic illness in the population that is entirely preventable.

In Perth CBD a billboard was put up on the 13 June 2018 (corner of William and Brisbane St) that asked “Do you know what is in a vaccine“.
This question is essential for assessing the risks of this medical procedure.
Just as you would check the ingredients of your food except that vaccines are injected into the tissues of the human body and this means the chemicals can access every organ of the body.

This information is in the public interest yet the WA government and AMA are calling this anti-vaccination material and complaining that “the question poses a public health risk”.

Why is the Australian Medical Association making this unscientific claim?
The risks of any environmental toxin need to be addressed within the individual genetic make-up of each person – and there are many toxins in vaccines.
Each toxin in the vaccine, for example, aluminium and antibiotics, will have a different reaction in every person because of their genetics – and this reaction can be delayed.

Does Health Minister, Roger Cook, know that there are antibiotics in every vaccine and that antibiotics are linked to causing many chronic illnesses – including autism?

Why has the AMA also ignored the fundamental medical principle that:

“A medical treatment should be individualised particularly when injecting substances into the human body that carry the potential for disease, disablement and death”.

The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme has paid out over $4 billion to vaccine victims and vaccines are described by the US government as being “unavoidably unsafe”.
This statistic is believed to represent only 10% of those that are injured by vaccines.

It is “quack” science for the AMA to state that asking what is in a vaccine is a “public health risk” and yet the AMA has asked the WA Health Minister, Roger Cook, to ban the biillboard using  the state regulator’s legislation that prohibits the advertising of “any public health risk activity”.

The billboard was removed yesterday (21 June 2018) after one week of a four week contract.

Did you know that antibiotics, aluminium, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, phenoxyethanol etc (plus many more ingredients) are injected into the tissues of every newborn baby and adult with every vaccine?
Most parents do not know this and doctors are not educated about the ingredients of vaccines.

Did you know that these ingredients, specifically antibiotics and aluminium are linked to causing autoimmune diseases that do not develop immediately after you get the vaccine?
There is a delayed reaction that can be months or years after you get the vaccine before the disease develops.
This includes autoimmune and neurological disorders including allergies, anaphylaxis, thyroidism, diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, Guillane Barre Syndrome and many more chronic illnesses.

The Health Minister, Roger Cook, can be held liable for dismissing this science as “dangerous misinformation and for claiming this question is “a public health risk” – when the opposite is true.

The AMA and politicians are using derogatory language to describe the simple question “Do you know what is in a vaccine?” when this is essential knowledge for your health.

Please ask yourself why the WA government is condoning the banning of a discussion of this science by academics and health experts?
This is a loss of freedom of speech in Australia (and medical rights).
Also ask why medical practitioners are suggesting that this information is not fundamental to improving public health?

All Australian citizens need to take a stand to make the WA Health Minister, Roger Cook, accountable for allowing the censorship of this billboard that is in the public interest – and his vaccination policies that will harm human health.

A conference is being held in Sydney on Saturday June 30th that is titled “The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia”.
At this conference academics and citizens will present the scientific evidence and arguments that are being dismissed and suppressed by the Australian government as “anti-vaccination material”. Tickets can be bought on this link 

Please forward this email to your family and friends and challenge the government before further legislation is enacted to remove the public interest from vaccination policies.

Governments are ignoring the genetics of the population with the implementation of the No Jab No Pay/Play policies and the science needs to be publicly debated and scrutinised – not suppressed by oppressive govenrment legislation based on false information.


Newsletter 202 Where are Australia’s Vaccines Made?
28 June 2018

On the 21 June 2018 the Perth billboard that asked the simple question “What is in a vaccine?” was removed due to pressure from the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the WA government.
Here is the answer to “What is in a vaccine?” that the AMA does not want you to know.

The AMA has stated that this billboard should be “banned using legislation that states regulators can prohihit the advertising of “any public health risk”.
Perhaps the AMA could explain when it was decided that knowing what is injected into the human body “is a risk to public health?”.
This is imperative knowledge to a “protective” public health policy such as vaccination.

Yet this important health information is currently being described by the medical industry as “a risk to public health”.
If the general public does not get involved in this debate now it will soon be legislated that Australians cannot publicly discuss what is in a vaccine or the medical risks associated vaccines.

We are already part-way down this path with doctors being investigated and de-registered for presenting this “anti-vaccination” material to their patients or on social media.

If you are concerned about this situation then please attend the conference that is being held in Sydney this weekend ‘The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia”.
Here is a link to the tickets and speakers for this event.

Another question that the community is concerned about is ‘Where are Australia’s vaccines made?’
The government has not provided transparent information about this on the Immunise Australia Program website..

Here is the information that I have researched on this topic about the manufacture and licensing of Australia’s vaccines:

Vaccines today, like most pharmaceutical products, are no longer being produced or regulated in the countries in which they are used.
There is an extensive international network of production and most Australian vaccines are made in other countries and licensed in the USA where vaccine manufacturers are free from liability for any harm that vaccines cause in humans.

Many vaccines today are being made in China and India and the Australian government does not provide information on its Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website describing where Australia’s vaccines are made.
The only vaccines that are made in Australia are some influenza vaccines and Q Fever vaccine that are made by Seqiris – a CSL company.

All other Australian vaccines are made in other countries and licensed in the US before being approved for the Australian market under a different name without further testing.

China and India became major manufacturers of vaccines in 2014 and they are selling vaccines on the international market.
The Council for Foreign Affairs stated in 2012 that this market had expanded rapidly and regulators were over-whelmed or non-existent in these countries (Garrett CFR 2012).

Whilst Vincent Iannelli, MD, claims that all vaccines that are used in the US are not made in China there is no transparent evidence that vaccines that we use in Australia are not being made in China or India.

Research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines is not subjected to the same approval process as that for other pharmaceutical drugs.
This is because vaccines are classified as biologics” and not pharmaceutical drugs but this does not explain why they are tested in a different way to other drugs.

Vaccines are not tested for safety using an inert placebo nor are they tested for effectiveness by demonstrating that the vaccinecan prevent the disease in unvaccinated people (Medical Products Agency – Sweden 2007).

Researchers use the surrogate of antibody titer to make this claim but this is a small part of a very complex immune response to pathogens.

The Swedish government has stated it will not enforce mandatory or coercive policies on the population because of the serious adverse health outcomes that are associated with vaccines and because it is against the Swedish constitution. Colombia and Turkey have also taken this position.

In addition, the Australian government does not have to prove that vaccines can create herd immunity in the population before vaccines are approved for use in the population (Terry Nolan 2010 – chair of the ATAGI vaccine advisory board from 2005-2014).

Hence the Australian government is claiming it is everyone’s responsibility to vaccinate with every vaccine that is recommended without having this evidence.
Yet we do have evidence that the chemicals in vaccines will harm many children because of their individual genetic make-up.

The fact that the effectiveness of vaccines has not been proven in controlled clinical trials by observing that unvaccinated people do not get the disease is stated on the vaccine package inserts for many vaccines.
our doctor can provide you with these package inserts that also list the 158 serious adverse health outcomes that have been associated with vaccines for decades due to the chemicals in vaccines (Institute of Medicine) – but most doctors have not been educated on this topic because of the pharmaceutical funding of vaccine research and of doctors education.

Judy Wilyman PhD
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. 

3. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: Vaccines and the Liberal Mind
JUNE 14, 2018

Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the science, too many online outlets are silencing critics and shutting down discussion on this key public health and civil rights issue.

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, World Mercury Project

Slate recently published an investigative report detailing how pharmaceutical giant, Merck, used “flawed” and “unreliable” pre-licensing safety studies to push through approval of its multi-billion-dollar bonanza, the HPV vaccine.
For veteran safe vaccine advocates, like myself, the most shocking aspect of the expose was that Slate published it at all. Slate and other liberal online publications including Salon, Huffington Post and Daily Beast customarily block articles that critique vaccine safety in order, they argue, to encourage vaccination and protect public health.
Motivated by this noble purpose, the liberal media—the supposed antidote to corporate and government power—has helped insulate from scrutiny the burgeoning vaccine industry and its two regulators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Both agencies have pervasive and potentially corrupting financial entanglements with the vaccine manufacturers, according to extensive congressional investigations.

Ironically, liberals routinely lambaste Pharma, and its FDA enablers for putting profits over people.
Recent examples include Vioxx (100,000 injured—Merck paid more than $5 billion in fines and settlements), Abilify (Bristol Meyers Squibb paid $515 million for marketing the drug to nursing homes, knowing it can be fatal to seniors), Celebrex and Bextra (Pfizer paid $894 million for bribing public officials and false advertising about safety and effectiveness) and, of course, the opioid crisis, which in 2016 killed more Americans than the 20-year Vietnam War.
What then, makes liberals think that these same companies are immune from similar temptations when it comes to vaccines? There is plenty of evidence that they are not.
Merck, the world’s largest vaccine maker, is currently fighting multiple lawsuits, brought by its own scientists, claiming that the company forced them to falsify efficacy data for its MMR vaccine.

The Slate article nowhere discloses that FDA licenses virtually all vaccines using the same mawing safety science deficiencies that brought us Gardasil.
FDA claims that “Vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing to determine their safety…” It’s not true.
FDA’s choice to classify vaccine makers as “biologics” rather than “drugs” opened a regulatory loophole that allows vaccines to evade any meaningful safety testing.
Instead of the multi-year double-blind inert placebo studies—the gold standard of safety science—that the FDA requires prior to licensing other medications, most vaccines now on the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule were safety tested for only a few days or weeks.
For example, the manufacturer’s package insert discloses that Merck’s Hep B vaccine (almost every American infant receives a Hep B shot on the day of birth) underwent, not five years, but a mere five days of safety testing!
If the babies in these studies had a seizure—or died—on day six, Merck was under no obligation to disclose those facts.

FDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to measure proposed vaccines against true inert placebos… CDC has never studied the impacts on children’s health of combining 50 plus vaccines.

Furthermore, many vaccines contain dangerous amounts of known neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum and carcinogens like formaldehyde, that are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune problems, food allergies and cancers that might not be diagnosed for many years.
A five-day study has no way of spotting such associations.
Equally shocking, FDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to measure proposed vaccines against true inert placebos, further obscuring researchers’ capacity to see adverse health effects and virtually guaranteeing that more subtle injuries, such as impaired immune response, loss of IQ or depression, will never be detected—no matter how widespread. Furthermore, the CDC has never studied the impacts on children’s health of combining 50 plus vaccines.

These lax testing requirements can save vaccine manufacturers tens of millions of dollars.
That’s one of the reasons for the “gold rush” that has multiplied vaccines from three, when I was a boy, to the 50 plus vaccines that children typically receive today.

Pharma’s new profit and growth vehicle

There are other compelling reasons why vaccines have become Pharma’s irresistible new profit and growth vehicle.
For example, manufacturers of the 50 plus vaccines on CDC’s childhood schedule enjoy what has become a trapped audience of 74 million child consumers who are effectively compelled to purchase an expensive product, sparing vaccine makers additional millions in advertising and marketing costs.

But the biggest economic boon to vaccine makers has been the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).
In 1986, Congress awash in pharmaceutical dollars—Big Pharma is, by far, the top Capitol Hill lobbying group—passed NCVIA giving pharmaceutical companies what amounts to blanket immunity from liability for any injury caused by vaccines. No matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer or how grievous the harm, vaccine-injured children cannot sue a vaccine company.
That extraordinary law eliminated a principal cost associated with making other drugs and left the industry with little economic incentive to make vaccines safe.
It also removed lawyers, judges and courts from their traditional roles as guardians of vaccine safety.
Since the law’s passage, industry revenues have sky-rocketed from $1 billion to $44 billion.

The absence of critical attention to this exploding industry by liberal online sites is particularly troubling since pharma, using strategic investments, has effectively sidelined, not just Congress, lawyers and courts, but virtually all of our democracy’s usual public health sentinels.
Pervasive financial entanglements with vaccine makers and the other alchemies of agency capture have transformed the FDA and CDC into industry sock puppets.

Strong economic drivers

Strong economic drivers, (pharmaceutical companies are the biggest network advertisers), discourage mainstream media outlets from criticizing vaccine manufacturers.
A network president told me he would fire any of his news show hosts who allowed me to talk about vaccine safety on air. “Our news division,” he explained, “gets up to 70% of ad revenues from pharma in non-election years.”
Furthermore, liberal activists including environmental, human rights, public health and children’s advocates also steer clear of vaccine safety discussions.
On other core issues like toxics, guns and cigarettes, the CDC has a long record of friendly collaboration with these advocates who have thereby acquired a knee jerk impulse to protect the agency from outside criticism.

In this vacuum, online liberal news sites are the last remaining barrier to protect children from corporate greed, yet they have become self-appointed arbiters against exposing the public to negative information about vaccine manufacturers and regulators. Liberal voices are not just sidelined, they are subsumed in the orthodoxy that all vaccines are always good for all people—and the more the better. Working with Pharma reps and their tame politicians, liberal news reporters and columnists across America are laboring in nearly every state to make the CDC vaccine schedule compulsory for children and to eliminate religious, philosophical and even medical exemptions.

It was the wave of lawsuits arising from injuries suffered from the Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP) vaccine in the 1980s, that caused Congress to pass the NCVIA bestowing immunity on the pharmaceutical industry…

As a result, the government/Big Pharma combination has gained unprecedented power to override parental consent and force otherwise healthy children, and other unwilling consumers, to undergo compulsory vaccinations, a shocking advance along the road to a corporate totalitarianism which seeks absolute control, even of our bodies.
Keep in mind that there is no authentic dispute that vaccination is a risky medical intervention.
It was the wave of lawsuits arising from injuries suffered from the Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP) vaccine in the 1980s, that caused Congress to pass the NCVIA bestowing immunity on the pharmaceutical industry, which threatened, otherwise, to stop making vaccines.
In upholding that law, the Supreme Court declared NCVIA justified because “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.”
Since then, the Federal Vaccine Court, created by NCVIA, has paid out $3.8 billion to vaccine-injured individuals.
That number dramatically understates the true gravity of the harm.
A Department of Health and Human Services funded report acknowledges that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

Supporting a law that forces Americans to relinquish control of their bodies to a corporate/state behemoth is an odd posture for liberals, who once championed the precept of “informed consent,” as the mainstay of the Nuremberg Code and the declarations of Helsinki and Geneva which protect individuals against all coerced medical interventions.

Science suggests that we might have made a big mistake by not aggressively safety testing our mandatory vaccines.
Chronic diseases like ADHD, asthma, autoimmune diseases and allergies now affect 54 percent of our children, up from 12.6 percent in 1988, the year NCVIA took effect.
And those data measure only the injuries characterized in digital medical records.
Health advocates warn that we may be missing subtler injuries like widespread losses in reading and IQ and in executive and behavioral functions.

Is it not possible that dramatically increased infant exposures to aluminum and ethyl mercury—a far more potent neurotoxin than lead—might be significantly debilitating the post NCVIA generation?

The suspicion that the neurotoxins in vaccines may be negatively affecting a generation is not wild speculation.
Numerous studies point to the once ubiquitous use of leaded gasoline as the cause of widespread IQ loss and violence that bedeviled the generations from the 1960s-1980s.
Is it not possible that dramatically increased infant exposures to aluminum and ethyl mercury—a far more potent neurotoxin than lead—might be significantly debilitating the post NCVIA generation?

Chronic disease explosion in children

The CDC claims that the cause of the sudden explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune illnesses and food allergies that began in the late 1980s, is a mystery.
However, vaccine court awards, manufacturers’ package inserts and reams of peer-reviewed science all recognize that many of the chronic diseases that suddenly became epidemic in our children following the passage of NCVIA can be caused by vaccines or their ingredients.

The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine), the ultimate arbiter of federal vaccine safety science, has listed 155 diseases potentially associated with vaccination and scolded the CDC for failing to study 134 of them.
School nurses who have spent decades in their jobs say they are seeing the sickest generation in history.
The epidemic has not proven a problem for the vaccine industry.
On the back end of the chronic disease explosion, vaccine companies like Merck are making a killing on the EpiPens, antidepressants, stimulants, asthma inhalers and anti-seizure drugs.

Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the science, liberal blogs shut down discussion on this key public health and civil rights issue, and silence critics, treating faith in vaccines as a religion; the heresy of questioning dogma meets with anathema and excommunication.

The core of liberalism is a healthy skepticism toward government and business.
So why do vaccines get a mulligan?

Leave a Reply

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