———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <gerdapeachey@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Subject: Please stop paying Merck to inject Gardasil into nine year old children in public schools. Morally reprehensible and sick to do this to innocent, and healthy little children.
To: “deJong.MLA, Mike” <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, Darryl <Darryl.Plecas.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “Gibson.MLA, Simon” <simon.gibson.mla@leg.bc.ca>, Cindy Schafer <schafer4trustee@gmail.com>, preet_rai@sd34.bc.ca, stan_petersen@sd34.bc.ca, Shirley Wilson <wilson4trustee@gmail.com>, rhonda_pauls@sd34.bc.ca, freddy_latham@sd34.bc.ca, Phil_Anderson@sd34.bc.ca

This is from Gardasil’s own site:  GREEN is my words and  (The red emphasis is mine) 




It’s only natural for parents to have questions about vaccines. You should know that Merck, the manufacturer of GARDASIL 9, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitor the safety of the HPV vaccines. Below you’ll find information about the safety of GARDASIL 9.


Make sure to tell your child’s doctor or health care professional if your child:

Has immune problems, like HIV infection, cancer, or if your child takes medicines that affect the immune system

Has a fever over 100°F (37.8°C)

Had an allergic reaction to another dose of GARDASIL 9 or GARDASIL

Takes any medicines, even those you can buy over the counter

Is pregnant or planning to get pregnant


People should not get GARDASIL 9 if they have or have had an allergic reaction to:

A previous dose of GARDASIL 9 or GARDASIL

Yeast (severe allergic reaction)

Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate

Polysorbate 80

Your child’s doctor or health care professional will help you decide if you or your child should get the vaccine.

WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON SIDE EFFECTS OF GARDASIL 9?The most common side effects include pain, swelling, redness, itching, bruising, bleeding, and a lump where your child got the shot, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, tiredness, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and sore throat. Fainting can happen after getting GARDASIL 9. Sometimes people who faint can fall and hurt themselves. For this reason, your health care professional may ask your child to sit or lie down for 15 minutes after your child gets GARDASIL 9. Some people who faint might shake or become stiff. The health care professional may need to treat the person getting GARDASIL 9.

(Maybe I will never get answers to the questions I have asked of government.  There is still some sort of communication but getting a copy of the contract, or deal, or agreement, or whatever it is that the BC Government has made with the Merck pharmaceutical  has not emerged yet.  My voice simply is not one of power or influence, but meanwhile how many thousands of innocent little girls, and now soon, it seems, also little boys as well,… are being given three shots of a chemical mixture, that puts a tidy sum of money into the Merck company, FROM the pockets of BC taxpayers.

These little children are not sick.  They are not ‘sexually active’, unless those precious kids are being used by predators.  But this is another form of predation.  Children have little control over things like immunizations.  Generally they trust the adults in their lives to love them and protect them.  BUT IS THIS PROTECTION?  You parents, guardians, politicians, school board trustees of these trusting children,……do you know what the interplay of chemicals designed to change the child’s normal body chemistry will do beyond the purported possibility that they’ll be kept from one of the many possible sexually transmitted diseases, or one of the myriad cancers that the human race suffers?  

You do not, and cannot know what other chemical changes Gardasil will do in the little child’s body, …… whether soon, or farther down the road.

Spend quality time with your children.  Teach them to reach for all the good things that life has to offer.  Guide them to save their precious bodies for committed, lasting, loving partners, not to assume that they must give in to every impulse, like this horrific program of injections assumes.  Little children need protection and help to grow up to maturity where they are equipped to live adult lives.  

This assumption that all little children will not have self control, will likely get diseases, and must therefore be given Merck’s shots while in public school and at public expense is morally reprehensible.

What a wonderful boon to Merck and what an awful thing being done to our trusting little children.

I ask every thinking adult who reads this to demand answers from your government, your school boards, Health departments, and Merck.

Here’s part of an email I sent, among the many that to date have yielded no answers.  Note that the information I got from the BC Government is not even close to the side effects that Merck itself lists.   That should give pause to you people who want to provide love and protection for your precious little kids.)

To: Lake.MLA, Terry <Terry.Lake.MLA@leg.bc.ca>; deJong.MLA, Mike <Mike.deJong.MLA@leg.bc.ca>; premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>;ed.fast.c1a@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Using tax-dollars to inject Gardasil into little children under the guise of saving them from future sexual HPV disease.

To Health Minister Terry Lake, and Finance Minister Mike de Jong, Premier Christy clark, and MP Ed Fast:

Under Freedom of Information would you provide me with the amount of money we have paid, to date, to Merck, the pharmaceutical company that makes Gardasil?

Please provide a copy of your agreement with Merck. 

Have you committed BC tax-payers to a long-term agreement? 

Have you agree to persuade more children to accept this shot for Merck?

Are you aiming to fulfill the Merck goal of making these injections MANDATORY FOR ALL LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Please provide the number of children in public schools who have been given this injection to date.

Please provide the number of children you expect to persuade in the future, via their guardians, to get this injection.

Please provide the number of children who’ve had adverse reactions to the Gardasil shot. (The only information I was able to get from you, the government to date, was woefully inadequate, citing a nonchalant and dismissive comment under ‘What are the risks and side effects?’…answer…...’Possible side effects include a low fever and soreness where the shot was given.’ )

That does not mesh with the thousands of voices raised in warning against this invasive medicine for an illness that does not exist, and need never exist in the future of that child. Please view some of those protesting this enormously lucrative deal for Merck, and highly suspect benefit for children. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/07/07/pfizer-vice-president-blows-the-whistle-tells-the-truth-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry/

I know you can buy experts to authenticate any desired outcome, but surely injecting the chemicals in Gardasil into little children for sexual activity that we should encourage them to keep for a life-long partner, is nowhere near the category of giving shots for mumps, measles and chicken-pox , those things they can catch just by being in the same room as other children!

Please provide what data children and their guardians receive in advance, in order that they may be well-informed as to the risks, as well as the purported benefits.

How much do you anticipate this program will cost on an annual basis?

Do you have any idea what these chemicals will do in these young bodies later on? Will girls have more miscarriages? Can these chemical cocktails lead to depression, or to ALS or Multiple Sclerosis. MANY voices from within the medical community are warning us about giving Gardasil to little children. Please listen to them. 

Below is a list of autoimmune diseases. Many people believe these are on the increase due to the unknown and extremely complex inter-reactions within our bodies when we inject or ingest chemicals.

Have you in the BC Government taken the warnings into account before you urged that little children should have THREE shots of Gardasil, to possibly prevent a sexually-aquired disease, long before we want our little children to be giving their bodies to satisfy the lusts of others?

Now the Canadian Cancer Society wants to give the boys to Merck’s bottom line:

Male HPV-related oral cancer rates on the rise: Canadian Cancer Society

Canadian Cancer Society calls on provinces and territories to expand free HPV vaccination programs to boys

CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 19, 2016 1:55 PM ET

Terry Patterson was 49 when he was diagnosed with a tumour on his tonsil caused by HPV. He is advocating for young people to get vaccinated against the virus. (Hannah Yoon/Canadian Press)

Related Stories

External Links

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Mouth and throat cancers now represent about a third of cancers induced by HPV in Canada, according to a new report.

The Canadian Cancer Society and Public Health Agency of Canada released their annual report on cancer statistics Wednesday, with a special chapter on cancers linked to the human papilloma virus.

Almost 4,400 Canadians will be diagnosed with HPV-linked cancers this year and about 1,200 die from it annually.

About one third are cervical cancers.

“If you look at the trends there we’re seeing that cervical cancer is relatively stable,” said  Leah Smith, an epidemiologist with the Canadian Cancer Society. “But rates of HPV mouth and throat cancers in males are increasing.”

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease in Canada and the world, the society said.

Most people never even know they have the virus since the infection usually clears within two years without causing physical symptoms. They can pass it on to their partners without knowing, which highlights the importance of prevention.

There is a vaccine to protect against most common types of HPV that cause cancer.

Vaccines can protect against some infections associated with cancer, such as HPV and hepatitis B. (Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press)

“HPV vaccination is something relatively easy parents can do to protect their children from cancer,” Smith said.

The HPV vaccine is offered to girls in all provinces and territories and to boys in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I. and Quebec.

Smith said vaccination policies should reflect that one in three HPV cancers are diagnosed in males. That’s why the society is calling on other provinces and territories to expand free vaccination programs to boys.

Canadian men are more than four times more likely to get an HPV mouth or throat cancer than women.

Why that’s the case isn’t clear, Smith said.

“It does seem that the male immune system is responding differently to HPV infection than the female immune system,” Smith said. “What we are seeing is men are more likely to get an oral HPV infection and then once they get the oral HPV infection, are less likely to clear [the infection.] It’s the persistence of HPV infection that ultimately lead to cancer.”

Smith said the hypothesis is changes in sexual behaviour, including potentially oral sex, are behind the increase in infections.

(….. Okay, we know cancer is a pervasive disease, but have a thoughtful look at the major ways to prevent cancer. Lets teach some common sense healthy living to our kids. How sure can we be that altering a little child’s body functions with the chemicals in Gardasil will not in fact be a trigger to serious problems and even cancer.  We warn people about so many environmental factors that can cause harm, and then willy-nilly go shooting chemicals into the bodies of helpless children?  Something really sick is going on here.)

Leading cause of death in Canada

More generally, cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada, responsible for 30 per cent of all deaths, followed by cardiovascular diseases such as heart disease and stroke, and accidents.

New cancer cases and deaths continue to rise steadily as Canada’s population grows and ages, according to a new report.

Current estimates suggest an estimated 202,400 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Canada this year and there will be 78,800 deaths from cancer.

Half of new cancer cases will be lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Of these, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death — more than the other three combined.

While the majority of Canadians who develop cancer, 89 per cent, are over 50, cancer was also the leading cause of disease-related death in children under 15 in 2012.

The society said the risk of cancer can also be reduced through measures such as:

  • Avoiding smoking: Tobacco is responsible for nearly one-quarter of cancer deaths worldwide, making it the single greatest avoidable risk factor for cancer.
  • Following a healthy lifestyle: Eating well, being active and having a healthy body weight can prevent about one-third of the 12 major cancers worldwide, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund.
  • Reducing alcohol consumption: Alcohol is a risk factor for many different types of cancer, and the risk of cancer increases with the amount of alcohol consumed.
  • Avoiding overexposure to sunlight and not using tanning beds or sun lamps: Limiting time in midday sun, wearing protective clothing, seeking shade and using sunscreen can help reduce the risk of skin cancer while still allowing people to receive the health benefits of sun exposure.
  • Preventing cancer-related infections: Vaccines can protect against some infections associated with cancer, such as the HPV and hepatitis B. Lifestyle can also play an important role in preventing infection.
  • Reducing exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens: These include radon, asbestos and many industrial chemicals.

With files from The Canadian Press

In the summer of 2006, Health Canada approved the vaccine Gardasil manufactured by Merck Frosst to help prevent cervical cancer, genital warts, and precancerous lesions caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) among Canadian women. $300 million was set aside in the 2007 federal government to launch a nationwide vaccination program to reduce the incidence of cancer of the cervix. The vaccination is  approved in Canada for females between the ages of 9 and 26.
The group especially recommended for receipt of the vaccine by the provinces are girls between 9-13, ideally before they become sexually active. It will be up to the provinces and territories to decide who should receive the vaccine, and whether to make it available at no cost.Type of incentivesFinancial incentives to the provinces to make the vaccine widely available to girls between 9-13. Several provinces (e.g. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, Ontario) have decided to move forward with the voluntary vaccination of school age girls. For instance, in the fall of 2007, the Ontario government will offer free vaccines to an estimated 84,000 girls in Grade 8.Groups affectedCanadian girls between 9-13(Please note the Degree of Controversy is HIGH.)

Characteristics of this policy

Degree of Innovation traditional rather innovative innovative
Degree of Controversy consensual controversial highly controversial
Structural or Systemic Impact marginal marginal fundamental
Public Visibility very low very low very high
Transferability strongly system-dependent system-dependent system-neutral

Top of page
Stakeholder positionsAfter the announcement was made that the federal government would make funding available for use of the vaccine by the provinces and territiories, the promotion of the vaccine became controversial in Canada, with some medical professionals arguing that the introduction of the vaccine needs to be more evidence based (Lippman et al, 2007; Canadian Women’s Health Network, 2007) while others, such as the Public Health Agency and Health Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) stating that there is enough supporting evidence to move forward with a vaccination program for girls who have not yet become sexually active.The common ground is that the vaccine needs to be part of an overall strategy around healthy sexual behavior and lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking cessation) and access to primary care, including a regular Pap test. However, according to the Canadian Women’s Health Network (2007), accessibility to primary care is hindered by the absence of female health care providers, time constraints, costs (direct and indirect) of getting services, childcare, language and literacy differences, lack of knowledge, cultural differences, safety concerns (history of childhood sexual abuse and/or history of abuse at the hands of healthcare professionals), and health care providers’ attitudes towards cervical cancer.Another point of contention seems to be the exclusion of males from the mass vaccination procress. Vaccinating males would curb the vector of the virus (Canadian Women’s Health Network, 2007).Another key area is the role of lobbying efforts by Merck Frosst, which manufactures Gardasil, the only approved vaccination against the HPV virus.Lastly some groups are concerned that widespread availability of the vaccination can lead to a weakening of parental responsibility to educate their children about sexual activity.(NOTICE THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY LINE IS EMPTY, AS IS THE LINE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY.  Why is that?)Actors and positionsDescription of actors and their positions

Public Health Agency of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
national Advisory Council on Immunization very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
federal government very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
provincial governments very supportive supportive strongly opposed
Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Council of Medical Officers of Health very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
The Federation of Medical Women of Canada very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Civil Society
The Canadian Cancer Society very supportive supportive strongly opposed
GOC Task Force on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control very supportive very supportive strongly opposed
Institute of Marriage and Family very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Canadian Women’s Health Network very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Scientific Community
Researchers very supportive opposed strongly opposed
Private Sector or Industry
Merck Frosst very supportive very supportive strongly opposed

Influences in policy making and legislationCanada’s federal government 2007-2008 budget included $300 million to be distributed to the provinces and territories to fund the new HPV vaccination to reduce cervical cancer rates in Canada.Legislative outcomesuccessActors and influenceDescription of actors and their influence

Public Health Agency of Canada very strong very strong none
national Advisory Council on Immunization very strong very strong none
federal government very strong very strong none
provincial governments very strong very strong none
Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists very strong strong none
The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada very strong strong none
Council of Medical Officers of Health very strong strong none
The Federation of Medical Women of Canada very strong strong none
Civil Society
The Canadian Cancer Society very strong strong none
GOC Task Force on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control very strong strong none
Institute of Marriage and Family very strong weak none
Canadian Women’s Health Network very strong weak none
Scientific Community
Researchers very strong weak none
Private Sector or Industry
Merck Frosst very strong strong none

Adoption and implementationThe funding for a mass vaccination of girls was provided in the 2007-2008 federal budget. There were no obstacles noted in any of the literature, though several medical professionals (e.g. Lippman, 2007) have argued that the introduction of a mass vaccination program is premature and more evidence is needed around its long-term effectiveness and its effectiveness when given with other immunizations. The provinces are responsible for implementation; some (Ontario for example) are further ahead than others.(NOTE THAT THIS POLICY IS TOUTED TO CONTROL SOME STRAINS OF HPV.  WHAT AN AMAZING RISK FOR SO LITTLE ASSURANCE. )Monitoring and evaluationThe intended consequence of this policy change would be a reduction of the incidence of cervical cancer among Canadian women through the control of some strains of HPV. Formal monitoring would be done through provincial and federal Medical Officers, and the Public Health Agency of Canada.Review mechanismsno formal plans for review have been announcedResults of evaluationNATop of pageExpected outcomeIt remains debatable how effective the vaccination program will be because the current focus is on girls between the ages of 9-13 and there is very little research evidence on the effectiveness and long-term consequences of the vaccine on girls of that age. Moreover if the effect of the vaccination is to reduce the use of Pap tests among young women, other strains of HPV which can lead to cervical cancer could go undetected. Under the best of circumstances there will be a reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer and genital warts among Canadian women with no serious side effects attributable to the vaccine. Some researcher suggest that more would be accomplished if the $300 million in federal funds had been allocated to increasing access to Pap tests.Impact of this policy

Quality of Health Care Services marginal rather fundamental fundamental
Level of Equity system less equitable four system more equitable
Cost Efficiency very low high very high

There are no reports as yet on the impact of the funding initiative. The expected impact is that it will improve quality, reduce equity issues in accessing the vaccine amongst young girls but not among older teens and young adults, and perhaps improve cost efficiency.Top of pageReferencesSources of Information

  • Lippman, A., Melnychuk, R., Shimmin, C., and Boscoe, M. “Human Papillomavirus, Vaccines and Women’s Health: Questions and Cautions.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 177(5): 484-487. 2007.
  • Canadian Women’s Health Network. HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations.Winnipeg, 2007.
  • The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada. GOC Responds To Public Concerns Regarding HPV Vaccine And Cervical Cancer Prevention, 2007.

Author/s and/or contributors to this surveyTorgerson, Renee and Margaret MacAdamSuggested citation for this online articleTorgerson, Renee and Margaret MacAdam. “HPV Vaccine Funded in Canada”. Health Policy Monitor, October 2007. Available at http://www.hpm.org/survey/ca/b10/2