Scientists are Above Lying. Unlike Other Professions, You Can trust them. Except that.. Fraud accounted for 60% of Scientific Retractions Last Year H alf of all Scientific Retractions involved fabrication, falsification ...government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval for research on human subjects or animals. About half of all retractions appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism—behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years. Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations. Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis. ..make greater efforts to stamp out bad science. The attention also helped catalyze an effort by two longtime health journalists—Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who founded the blog Retraction Watch, based in New York City—to get more insight into just how many scientific papers were being withdrawn, and why. They began to assemble a list of retractions. That list, formally released to the public this week as a searchable database, is now the largest and most comprehensive of its kind. It includes more than 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts dating back to the 1970s (and even one paper from 1756 involving Benjamin Franklin). It is not a perfect window into the world of retractions. Not all publishers, for instance, publicize or clearly label papers they have retracted, or explain why they did so. And determining which author is responsible for a paper's fatal flaws can be difficult. ..an epidemic of fraud as a community About half of all retractions appear to have involved fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism—behaviors that fall within the U.S. government's definition of scientific misconduct. Behaviors widely understood within science to be dishonest and unethical, but which fall outside the U.S. misconduct definition, seem to account for another 10%. Those behaviors include forged authorship, fake peer reviews, and failure to obtain approval from institutional review boards for research on human subjects or animals. Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years. Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations. Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis. ..make greater efforts to stamp out bad science. The attention also helped catalyze an effort by two longtime health journalists—Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who founded the blog Retraction Watch, based in New York City—to get more insight into just how many scientific papers were being withdrawn, and why. They began to assemble a list of retractions. That list, formally released to the public this week as a searchable database, is now the largest and most comprehensive of its kind. It includes more than 18,000 retracted papers and conference abstracts dating back to the 1970s (and even one paper from 1756 involving Benjamin Franklin). It is not a perfect window into the world of retractions. Not all publishers, for instance, publicize or clearly label papers they have retracted, or explain why they did so. And determining which author is responsible for a paper's fatal flaws can be difficult. ..an epidemic of fraud as a community

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Gardasil Science Day Presentation Video—

“Many of the things I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they were not true. And if they’re not true, then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that. And they won’t do it because in the United States, truth is an absolute defense against slander.”

…Gardasil Vaccine’s safety record has been nothing short of disastrous.

Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.

Gardasil’s super-powered aluminum adjuvant

Plaintiffs began the day with a 2.5 hour presentation with lawyers running through a riveting 50-minute slide show demonstrating how Gardasil’s super-powered Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant over-stimulated the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies’ own organs. This “autoimmune process” causes a cascade of illnesses that, in Jennifer Robi’s case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body.

Victims like Jennifer are left exhausted as the body fights off disease on multiple fronts. Attorney Pennock explained that vaccine makers add aluminum adjuvants (to weak antigens and a long list of other potentially toxic ingredients) to elicit an immune response, hoping to extend the short-term immunity otherwise provided by most vaccines. Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.



Most vaccines provide immunity for only 5-10 years. Gardasil’s promoters were promising lifelong protection, and Qblue needed a super toxic adjuvant -z that would provide this unprecedented level of protection. Qblue After all, Merck was promising regulators, pediatricians and the public that inoculations given to 9-12-year-old girls would provide immunity against a relatively rare cancer that typically doesn’t kill until age 58! -z

Pennock explained that Merck has refused to disclose the contents of AAHS or to provide samples to independent and university scientists for testing. AAHS, astonishingly, has never been safety tested by government regulators or by Merck.

Studies on animals conducted by world renowned independent scientists like Dr. Chris Exley, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Chris Shaw and others have found that mice and sheep exposed to aluminum adjuvants, at concentrations comparable to those found in vaccines, develop strange behavioral patterns and illnesses resembling autoimmune diseases.

Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials.

A parade of deceptive canards

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. next gave the court an explosive 50-minute presentation of 112 disturbing slides describing the parade of deceptive canards that composed Merck’s clinical trials. Kennedy described a series of fraudulent gimmicks employed by Merck to deceive regulators during the clinical trials including the use of a “spiked” extremely toxic AAHS placebo rather than a true inert placebo that is standard for control groups in blue ribbon safety studies for other pharmaceutical products. Using a poisonous placebo in the control group allowed Merck to mask the cascade of injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials. Half the girls in the Gardasil group and half the girls in the spiked placebo group suffered serious injuries, including several deaths, in the first seven months of the clinical trials, yet Merck was able to claim that reactions in the study group “were similar to the reactions in the placebo group,” and that, therefore, the vaccine was safe. Merck reported most of these serious injuries as “new medical conditions” not adverse events, dismissing any connection to the vaccine by fiat. Information about this parade of grave injuries appears nowhere in the Gardasil package insert.

Merck committed its boldest fraud in its key clinical trial, Protocol 18. Merck told FDA that Protocol 18 was the single study in which its researchers gave the control group a true inert placebo. For this reason, FDA declared Protocol 18 “of special interest.” However, in reality, Merck appears to have taken the precaution of removing half the aluminum from the vaccines administered to this study group. Plus, The Company laced the “placebo” with a witches’ brew of other toxic chemicals. This study, the only “controlled” study that included children in the target cohort of 9-12-year olds, may not have in fact tested the vaccine that Merck went on to inject into millions of young children around the world. Kennedy told the judge that this is not just scientific malpractice, it is outright fraud!

… Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.

Another tactic utilized by Merck was to purge the study group of anyone with the slightest vulnerabilities to the vaccine or its ingredients despite the fact that the vaccine would ultimately be marketed to girls with the very vulnerabilities excluded during the clinical trials. This precaution allowed the company to mask effects that occur only in vulnerable subgroups.

Mr. Kennedy drew laughter from the large court room audience when he described how Merck had prescreened the study subjects to exclude people with allergies, immunological or nervous disorders, more than 4 lifetime sexual partners, genetic vulnerabilities to cancer or to any other medical condition, or with any hint of general infection, a history of alcohol or drug abuse, or a serious or chronic illnesses, and so forth. Finally, Merck told its researchers to exclude any individual with “any condition which in the opinion of the researchers might interfere with the study objective.” The remaining participants were an elite club of super healthy individuals. “You couldn’t get into the clinical trials unless you were a superhero,” Kennedy told Judge Nelson. “You had to be eligible for the Avengers.”

The problem, of course, is that none of the people receiving the vaccine under CDC’s mandate are anything like this or screened for these vulnerabilities. In other words, Merck’s control groups did not reflect the target population for its drug.

The mayhem caused by Gardasil

Even these flimflams could not conceal the mayhem caused by Gardasil. Kennedy showed the court data from Merck’s own package insert showing that 2.3 % of the girls receiving the vaccine complained of symptoms of autoimmune disease within 7 months. Since cervical cancer kills only 1.5 Americans in every 100,000, he noted, “Merck’s own data show that the chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1000 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.”

Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%.

Not only did a heartbreaking 50% of the subjects in both the study group and the spiked placebo group experience a serious adverse event within the seven months of the trial, death rates among girls in the study were double background rates. In fact, the rate for girls during the clinical trials (85/100,000) was 37 times the death rate from cervical cancer! Birth defects among children conceived during the study period were 5x those of the control group and miscarriages were doubled over background rates. Reproductive problems among vaccinated girls were 10x background rates. Finally, Merck’s own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%. This revelation is particularly frightening since sexual behavior is only one of many vectors for acquiring HPV. Many children are exposed in the birth canal. Kennedy cited numerous studies showing many very young children are exposed to HPV, including one in which upwards of 34% of girls had exposure to HPV prior to age 10.

Kennedy closed his powerful presentation by chronicling the parade of corrupt conflicts that caused HHS officials to turn a blind eye to the rife fraud that characterized the clinical trials. Merck loaded the two FDA and CDC panels that approved Gardasil, with paid toadies. He showed that the pharmaceutical industry actually pays 45% of FDA’s annual budget and that NIH and its officials own part of the patents to the Gardasil vaccine and collect royalties on every vaccine sold. NIH collects tens of millions of dollars annually from Gardasil sales. Finally, 45% of CDC’s budget goes to promoting and purchasing vaccines. Merck exerts control over the CDC with millions of dollars in contributions to the CDC foundation, which allows funding for pet projects. This level of support gives Merck the power to also punish the CDC by withholding funding if displeased by the agency.

It's Unclear Why Washington State Wishes to Force HPV Vaccine/Gardasil onto Grade School Children Despite the Death Toll

Dear WA Board of Health:As a Washington State Resident, I strongly oppose the proposed rule change to add the HPV vaccine to Chapter 246-105 WAC Immunization of Child Care and School Children Against Certain Vaccine Preventable Diseases. The risks are of the HPV Vaccine/Gardasil are far greater than the benefits. This proposed rule change should not be recommended for many reasons including but not limited to thefollowing: 1. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection that is not caught in public settings such as daycare or school. HPV infections are very common, mostly symptom-free, and naturally clear on their own 95% of the time. 2. You have a higher chance of dying from the HPV vaccine product/Gardasil than getting or dying from a HPV associated cancer. The death rate of cervical cancer in the US is2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000 or 37 times that of cervical cancer. The total HPV associated cancer rate of cervical, anal, vaginal and vulvar is19.8/100,000. 3. According to the Gardasil insert there is a 2.3% chance of developing an autoimmune disease after receiving the HPV vaccine product/Gardasil. That means 2.3 out of every 100 children will develop a lifelong chronic disease such as arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, etc.after receiving the liability free HPV vaccine product/Gardasil 4. Half (49.6%) of the clinical trial subjects who received Gardasil reported serious medical conditions within seven months. To avoid classifying these injuries as adverse events, Merck dismissed them as “new medical conditions.” 5. Females in the Gardasil clinical trials with evidence of current HPV infection and previous exposure to HPV had a 44% increased risk of developing cervical lesions or cancer following vaccination. 6. The HPV vaccine product/Gardasil has been associated with premature ovarian failure(teenage menopause!) and increased miscarriage rates 10-15% higher than the corresponding reproductive age group. 7. There have not been any real Gardasil safety studies conducted. In the Gardasil clinical trials, Merck used a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant called AAHS instead of using an inert saline placebo. In the clinical trials, there was little to no difference in the safety profiles of theAAHS adjuvant and Gardasil. The World Health Organization has stated that using something other than an inert substance as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage”. This may make it “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo. It is no surprise to learn that Merck is currently being sued for fraudulent Gardasil safety studies. 8. Japan removed the HPV vaccine product/Gardasil from their recommended list of childhood vaccines after an enormous amount of adverse events occurred after Gardasil was administered. 9. Informed choice and medical freedom are fundamental rights. As citizens and parents we have the right to decide what is injected into our bodies and our children’s and a right to know the risks and benefits associated with each liability free pharmaceutical vaccine product. 10. According to the American Cancer Society, cervical cancer is preventable with proper screening tests. I strongly urge you to get all the facts about the HPV vaccine product/Gardasil. I encourage you to read The HPV Vaccine on Trial and learn about the current case where Merck is being sued for fraudulent Gardasil safety studies. I urge you to be one of the public health officials/politicians who is willing to put the health of our children first, ahead of political agendas and pharmaceutical profits. How many more of our children have to be diagnosed with lifelong chronic autoimmune diseases or die? Sincerely, Rebeka Gentian

Vaxxed II - 2020, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.