16-year-old girl became infertile from Gardasil vaccine: British Medical Journal

According to a LifeSiteNews.com news report - The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has reported that a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl lost all ovarian function and went into menopause after being injected with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil.

We have on numerous occasions referred to the problems associated with the Gardasil vaccination programme because of the injuries, illnesses and deaths that  have been found to be associated with it.   We reported in 2011 that since its introduction, nearly 100 deaths had taken place at that time, and nearly 22,000 adverse reactions had been recorded worldwide.   In Ireland alone, hundreds of adverse reactions have been reported to the authorities – which have ignored this information.

Two ingredients of Gardasil – sodium borate (pesticide) and Polysorbate 80 – are linked to infertility.  As well as that, the link between Gardasil and the huge increase in stillbirths and the early death of children in the womb is already well documented.

The LifeSite article reads:

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, provides solid evidence that Gardasil caused the destruction of the girl's fertility.

She also pointed out that Merck Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has no supporting information on the effects of the vaccine on ovaries, suggesting that Merck had either done no safety testing on Gardasil in relation to its effects on women's reproductive systems, or had suppressed the information.

Dr. Little's report states that before the Gardasil vaccination, the girl had regular menstrual cycles, had been thoroughly examined and tested, and had no family or personal medical history that could explain the premature menopause.

The girl received the Gardasil vaccination in the fall of 2008. By January 2009, her cycle had become irregular. Over the course of the next two years, her menses became increasingly scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.

"This patient presented with amenorrhoea after identifying a change from her regular cycle to irregular and scant periods following vaccinations against human papillomavirus," Dr. Little wrote in the report.

Dr. Little carried out numerous tests on the girl, including checking hormone levels and internal organ function, and diagnosed her as having "premature ovarian failure." She also found that the girl had no living egg cells.

After investigating other possible causes of the girl's premature ovarian failure, Dr. Little was left with the Gardasil vaccination as the only remaining explanation.

"Although the cause is unknown in 90% of cases, the remaining chief identifiable causes of this condition were excluded. Premature ovarian failure was then notified as a possible adverse event following this vaccination," Dr. Little stated.

In the report titled "Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination," Little wrote that Merck had only tested Gardasil's effects on the testes of rats.

Dr. Little contacted the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia, the equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for information about the safety testing of Gardasil on women's ovaries.

She found that the TGA had records of various tests on rat testes, but no records of the effect of the vaccine on rat ovaries in the Australian Public Assessment Report for Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine (Gardasil).

Dr. Little's report states that, "It is not known whether this event of premature ovarian failure is linked to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. More detailed information concerning rat ovarian histology and ongoing fecundity post-HPV vaccination was sought from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).”

It revealed that “no histological report has been available for vaccinated rat ovaries."

In other words, the TGA had no safety information on the effect of Gardasil on female reproductive systems.

"This event could hold potential implications for population health and prompts further inquiry," Dr. Little's report concluded.

"Gardasil has been controversial from the beginning," noted Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute.

"While other vaccines protect against diseases spread by casual contact, Gardasil was developed to protect against a sexually transmitted disease," Mosher said, adding that Merck Pharmaceutical has proven effective in lobbying governments around the world to make the vaccine mandatory for schoolchildren.

"Tens of millions of young girls have received the Gardasil vaccine since its approval by the FDA six years ago. If even a tiny fraction of them have experienced infertility as a result, then these girl children have been denied a very fundamental right, that is, the right to decide how many children they want to have," Mosher said.

"In the case of the Australian girl the effect is irreversible. She has lost an integral part of her womanhood, while still but a child,” he said. “Women deserve better."

Reflections on Ireland's abortion legislation

The Irish Government in passing legislation to introduce abortion in Ireland have not only trampled on the conscientious objection of the members of both coalition partners but have also placed medical personnel in Ireland’s hospitals in an impossible situation.   The Government action in passing this legislation poses a fundamental question about how civil society can respond to the imposition of an unjust law. Central to this question is the very nature of conscientious objection itself and whether it is simply a right or does it also imply a duty to oppose the injustice.

The philosopher Henry David Thoreau wrote:

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.

Clearly there is potential conflict between freedom of conscience and the duty to obey unjust national laws.  On the one hand it is not possible or desirable for citizens to exercise complete freedom over which laws they chose to obey, for obvious reasons, but  on the other hand, just laws, rooted in natural law should never place a citizen in a situation where his/her own conscience is in conflict with the law.

This legislation is about terminating the lives of unborn babies and it prioritises the so called 'right' to an abortion above the right of doctors and nurses to act in accordance with their consciences, but in the end the fundamental point regarding abortion and human rights is that an action that deliberately ends the life of an innocent human being cannot be anyone's right since it constitutes the most serious breach of human rights possible.

Pope John Paul II warned against a ‘new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden than its predecessors, which attempts to pit even human rights against the family and against man’. 

Bear in mind that Pope John Paul II had personal experience of the evils of Nazism and Communism, and he was speaking at the dawn of the new millennium, yet he saw what he termed, this new ideology, as being more treacherous and underhand than either of those regimes. The onward march of this ideology is directed at National Governments through international institutions like the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe.

Opposition is stifled by, anti democratic decision-making and by subtle attempts to control freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and conscientious objection. It is partly achieved by designation of certain groups as victim classes and prioritizing their rights above the rights of the rest. It is also achieved by gaining control of the language and presenting issues that most people reject, by sanitizing that language used to describe it. This agenda masquerades as the right to health, women’s rights, children’s rights and other rights. Some groups really do need safeguards but their special status is being usurped by Governments and powerful NGO's in order to further radical agendas. Traditionally accepted natural law Human Rights are being replaced by bogus rights, which are being placed in a position of supremacy over real human rights.

Now that this legislation has been signed by President Higgins all that remains for the Bill to be implemented is the finalisation of the regulations and the signature of the Health Minister James Reilly.  This has the effect of placing medical personnel in a similar situation to that experienced by the Glasgow midwives who refused to oversee abortion procedures when the hospital reorganised abortion services, transferring late abortion patients to the labour ward rather than the gynaecology ward and whose case, which they won on appeal, has now been referred to a higher court.

150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years

-->

According to a recent Daily Mail report scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.

-->

This may sound like a plot from a Frankenstein movie or a medical experiment of the Third Reich but unfortunately it is horribly real and is the inevitable consequence of the approval in October 2008 by the British Parliament of the ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’.

-->

According to the report;

The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is currently considering whether donors can be paid for their services

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is currently considering whether donors can be paid for their services

Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.

Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.

This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses.

Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force.

All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.

The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.

Research centre: Warwick University has been growing animal human hybrids over the last three years.

Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment.

‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.

‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.

‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.

‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’

Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.

‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light?

‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’

Test centre: Newcastle University was another site where human animal hybrid testing was being undertaken

Test centre: Newcastle University was another site where human animal hybrid testing was being undertaken

Earlier this week, a group of leading scientists warned about ‘Planet of the Apes’ experiments. They called for new rules to prevent lab animals being given human attributes, for example by injecting human stem cells into the brains of primates.

But the lead author of their report,  Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Medical Research Council’ s National Institute for Medical Research, said the scientists were not concerned about human-animal hybrid embryos because by law these have to be destroyed within 14 days.

He said: ‘The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research.

‘As long as we have sufficient controls – as we do in this country – we should be proud of the research.’

However, he called for stricter controls on another type of embryo research, in which animal embryos are implanted with a small amount of human genetic material.

Human-animal hybrids are also created in other countries, many of which have little or no regulation.

Mater board priest says hospital can’t carry out abortions

The Irish Times reports today August 7^th that Fr Kevin Doran a member of the Mater Hospital Board has said the Mater hospital in Dublin “cannot comply” with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and cannot carry out abortions.

Fr Kevin Doran was speaking to The Irish Times as the board prepares to meet in the coming weeks to discuss how or whether the hospital will abide by the legislation.

The Mater Misericordiae University Hospital is one of 25 “appropriate institutions” named in the Act where abortions may be carried out to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Mission statement

A Catholic voluntary hospital, part-owned by the Sisters of Mercy who founded it in 1861, the Mater is managed by the board of governors independent of the HSE.

In its mission statement, the hospital says that by caring for the sick, “we participate in the healing ministry of Jesus Christ”.

Fr Doran, who sits on the board of governors and the board of directors of the Mater, said it was “incumbent on the hospital to consider its position on the Act . . . The Mater can’t carry out abortions because it goes against its ethos. I would be very concerned that the Minister [for Health, James Reilly] sees fit to make it impossible for hospitals to have their own ethos.

“The issue is broader than just abortion. What’s happening is the Minister is saying hospitals are not entitled to have an ethos.”

Serious discussion

Asked his view of what should happen if the board were to decide it would comply with the legislation, Fr Doran said: “I suppose I can assume there would be very serious discussion between the Archbishop [of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin] and the management of the hospital.”

Sr. Eugene Nolan, nurse tutor and member of the board of directors, described the situation facing the hospital as “very, very grave”, adding the legislation “is being imposed on us.

“It is against our ethos. The main thing is we have an obligation to preserve the ethos of the hospital and still try and do the best we can. [The legislation] will have to be looked at very carefully.”

A spokesman for the hospital said it had no formal position as yet on the legislation. “It is going to be discussed by the board of governors in the coming weeks.”

Single-member company

The Mater hospital is a single-member company. Its parent company is the Mater Misericordiae and the Children’s University Hospitals (Temple St) Ltd.

Its website says the majority of the members of the parent company are Sisters of Mercy and the remaining members represent the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses’ Guild of Ireland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the medical consultants of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and the Children’s University Hospital.

St Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, is also a Catholic voluntary hospital, part- owned and part-managed by the Sisters of Charity. It is also named in the legislation as an “appropriate institution” to perform abortions.

Its mission, says the hospital website, is to provide care and treatment “through the continuance and furtherance of the ethos, aims and purposes of the Congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity”.

A spokesman for St Vincent’s Healthcare Group said it would “as always, be following the law of the land”.

Opt-out system for organ transplantation approved in Wales

SPUC reports that ethical campaigners have expressed their sadness following final approval of a bill in Wales to create an opt-out system for organ transplantation. See previous BLOG POST on this topic.

Members of the Wales region of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) www.spuc.org.uk are saddened that the Secretary of State for Wales has decided not to use his powers to block the Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill from being sent to Her Majesty the Queen for Royal Assent (see Note 1 for Editors below).

Michael Wendell Thomas, vice-chairman of SPUC's Wales region, said: "A collective weight of opinion has demonstrated that implementation of the Bill will be fraught with risk. This opinion has been presented by medical and ethical professionals, faith communities (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), patient care organisations, plus the vast number of people who made individual submissions to the Welsh Government during three years of consultations."

"The case for 'deemed consent' as a valid form of consent was not investigated by the Welsh Assembly's Health or Legislative Committees. The only basis for this kind of law is that the Welsh Government has deemed it so. This is probably the most important law that the Welsh Assembly has ever passed, seeing that it deals with the rights and lives and health of every Welsh resident. It therefore reflects very severely on the reputation of Wales, of devolution, and of all Welsh Assembly members, as well as the current Wales Government. To the ordinary non-lawyer, 'deemed consent' is a meaningless idea; to many eminent or expert people, such as the Archbishop of Wales, it is a "fiction". True consent is explicit and voluntary, and is the only sound basis for laws concerning personal autonomy and permission to remove someone’s organs", said Mr Thomas.

"The Bill as described by successive Assembly Health Ministers and the First Minister was for a 'soft' opt-out option, with a family veto on 'deemed consent' cases, as supported by the First Minister (see note 2 below). However, the version of the bill passed by the Assembly on 2 July is for a 'hard' opt-out system. Public and expert submissions had therefore been made on a false premise.

"Evidence has shown the current voluntary organ donation system to be successful. However, the number of organs available for transfer has fallen recently. Some feared that the new legislation could lead to more patients on the waiting-list dying before organs became available. It is highly unlikely that, even if the bill does produce more organs, it will save the lives of those Welsh people on the waiting-list."

Mr Thomas added: "There is also a myriad of cross-border and human rights issues which will arise once the legislation is implemented.

"Members of SPUC's Wales region will remain vigilant regarding this ill-considered piece of legislation. We will campaign wherever possible to mitigate the effects that it may have on the weak and vulnerable in our midst. We shall also seek to ensure that the professional standards of clinicians involved in organ removal are not eroded by pressures from unscrupulous people to produce ever-more organs for transplant, irrespective of the dangers to those dying. We remain committed to real, voluntary and informed organ donation by the individual dying patient", concluded Mr Thomas.