Well, my Postscript to the previous posting on this topic 8th Oct wasn't far off the mark, was it? Dr Harper now apparently wants to take back some of the things she is reported to have said in interviews with various people - see http://www.naturalnews.com/027225_cancer_cervical_Merck.html .
Here's an excerpt from a couple of them. Not much room for doubt about what she said there, is there? Any chance that she was got at?
Could the Gardasil vaccine actually help increase cervical cancer rates?
“The side effects that have been reported are real and they cannot be brushed aside.”
That quote, from Diane Harper, M.D., might mark a turning point in the way the medical mainstream perceives Gardasil, the controversial vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV). Dr. Harper is part of that mainstream. In fact, she was one of the principal investigators in the initial Gardasil trials. But she hasn’t been timid about recognizing Gardasil’s dangers.
More than a year ago, HSI (The Health Sciences Institute) writer and researcher Michele Cagan interviewed Dr. Harper, who revealed a surprising fear about the way Gardasil might influence women’s health habits. This is an excerpt from that interview.
“Even though Dr. Harper believes in the vaccine, she does not think it should be mandated for young girls. She also told me about several concerns she has surrounding public perception of the vaccine, including this stunner: Dr. Harper is afraid that the way the vaccine is being presented could actually have the effect of increasing the rate of cervical cancer in the U.S.
“Why is Dr. Harper afraid of this outcome? ‘Because of the way the vaccine is being advertised and portrayed in the media. The vaccine is not a silver bullet. It can’t clear up an existing HPV infection, and it can’t cure cervical cancer. But the advertising doesn’t make that very clear.’ If women think the vaccine offers 100% protection – or, even worse, can cure the virus or the cancer – they may skip their annual Pap tests, and that could very well lead to an increase in cervical cancer rates.
“Another gray area is the duration. It appears to remain effective for at least five years, but we have no idea how long it will last in the real world. And that could mean that girls vaccinated at 11 or 12 actually lose protection when they’ll need it most – but it’s impossible to know that until after large numbers of vaccinated girls contract the virus.
“Here’s another little titbit the advertising fails to mention – but it’s a critical point. If a girl already has an HPV infection, the vaccine won’t work. I asked Dr. Harper if that was only true for the strain in question, but it’s not. ‘If someone has HPV 18, for example, the vaccine won’t provide any protection for that strain, or full protection for any of the other strains.’ And since millions of women have HPV, millions of women could be getting vaccinated for nothing. Except side effects, that is”
and from http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/03/30/is-gardasil-more-effective-in-older-teens.html
Harper told me then that the vaccine's efficacy hadn't been tested in anyone under age 16, and she wasn't sure whether it even worked in preteens.
"I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst that set off the ALS [Lou Gehrig's Disease]," Harper says. "It could have been the straw that broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the condition."
"I do think it's wrong for physicians to tell parents that it's 100 percent safe."
Bottom line is: As an outside observer I would conclude that as Cervical cancer is apparently usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings, Cervical cancer vaccines ARE more dangerous than the cancers they claim to prevent. Who would want to run even the smallest risk that being vaccinated might result in triggering a serious neurological disorder like ALS?