On January 9, 2016, a study titled “Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil” was published by the journal Vaccine.
The study, which had gone through Vaccine’s “extensive peer review process” consisted of dividing 76 female mice into four groups and testing the effects of injecting them with the vaccine. The study’s findings were not good press for Merck’s Gardasil.
The Vaccine Reaction explains:
Each group of mice received injections of Gardasil; Gardasil plus pertussis toxin; aluminum adjuvant alone, or a “true” placebo (as opposed to an aluminum-containing placebo typically used in Gardasil pre-licensure trials).
During three- and six-month observation periods, researchers found that compared with placebo-controlled mice, the mice injected with Gardasil or aluminum adjuvant spent significantly more time floating in the forced swimming test, which was a measure of depression used for rodents. After ruling out a connection between increased floating time and locomotor dysfunction through other testing, the researchers determined that these behavioral abnormalities were “likely due to depression.”
In maze tests, aluminum-injected mice also exhibited short-term memory impairment and increased anxiety compared with the placebo-controlled mice in other rodent tests. The research team concluded that Gardasil via its aluminum adjuvant and HPV antigens may “trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes.”
The study was conducted by eight scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel, co-authored by a University of British Columbia professor and neuroscientist, and a doctor of biochemistry. When it was originally submitted, the group was told that the study was accepted. However, one month after it was published “with revisions,” the study was completely withdrawn from the international journal.
The Vaccine Reaction reports that when Vaccine first pulled the article, the publisher offered no explanation, saying the article was “temporarily removed.”
Weeks later, the page where the article used to be was updated to read:
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article.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.
The Editor-in-Chief who found this “seriously flawed” methodology just so happens to be an industry insider.
Jefferey Jaxen, writing for Health Impact News points out the serious conflict of interests surrounding the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief of Vaccine is Dr. Gregory Poland who personally rejected the recent Gardasil HPV study. The Mayo clinic’s website has this to say about Dr. Poland:
Dr. Poland is the chairman of a safety evaluation committee for investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. Dr. Poland offers consultative advice on new vaccine development to Merck & Co., Inc.
Dr. Poland has conducted four studies to date with direct affiliation to Merck.
One such study that now comes into question was the pro-HPV trial from 2005 published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings titled “Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a novel vaccine for human papillomavirus 16: A 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial.” Dr. Poland’s 2005 pro-Gardasil study was published one year before the approval of Gardasil by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006. In addition, Dr. Poland acted as a Safety Monitor for two other clinical trials of HPV vaccines funded by Merck Research Laboratories
In 2012 Dr. Poland and Dr. Jacobson authored The Clinician’s Guide to the Anti-Vaccinationists’ Galaxy published in the journal Human Immunology. Poland’s co-author on the article, Dr. Jacobson, is himself a member of a safety review committee for a post-licensure study funded by Merck & Co. concerning the safety of a HPV vaccine.
Regardless of one’s views on the issue of vaccines, the censoring of an independent study that shows the potential harms of a widely-distributed vaccination, by a person affiliated with the group directly responsible for said vaccination, is inherently unethical.
What does it say about the peer-review process when one well-connected industry insider can retract an entire study conducted by nearly a dozen professionals in the field?
It seems that observation and experimentation have morphed into controlling the narrative by blacklisting any conflicting information. How is it that people can see the corruption involved in the manufacturing and marketing processes of prescription drugs, but when it comes to vaccines, merely questioning the claims of safety by the very same companies, is tantamount to witchcraft?
*Article originally appeared at Natural Blaze.