Schoolgirls Are Given Toxic HPV Vaccine – Gardasil – Serious Adverse Reactions

Why are so many schoolgirls suffering serious health problems after they get Gardasil the HPV [human pappillomavirus vaccine] with some dying? It looks like international safety organisation SaneVax has found one of the reasons.  Contamination with an internationally known and recognised biohazard – toxic genetically modified recombinant DNA – it is recognised this can cause mutation and worse. 

For details read the report reposted below from Natural News Thursday, September 15, 2011 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of

Why do the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines Healthcare and Products Regulatory Agency authorise these dangerous vaccines and then hide the adverse reactions which then occur?  When are their officials going to be sent to jail?  When are drug company Board Directors going to be sent to jail?  You cannot get the real news in the press or on TV.  You cannot trust them to do their job or tell you the facts.  But there are independent sources on the web which will tell you.

The following CHS reports also provide further background reading in addition to Mike Adams’ report in full below on the SaneVax laboratory test results of Gardasil revealing the presence of known biohazard recombinant DNA:

Gardasil Victims – In Memoriam – Healthy Young Women – Aged 15 to 21

Gardasil – HPV Vaccine – The Injured Continue To Pile Up

FDA Halts HPV Vaccine Roll-Out – SaneVax News Release

SANEVax – Our Daughters Should Not Be Experiments for The Drug Industry

HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally


[Source SaneVax/]

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. There, they found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard — the rDNA of HPV. In conducting the tests, Dr. Sin Hang Lee found rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, which were described as “firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it’s toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard — something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As SANE Vax explains in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced “acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours” of being injected with an HPV vaccine. (…)

rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered

The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not “natural” rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is a genetically engineered form of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

“Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) — genetically engineered — to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA

What all this means is that through Gardasil vaccines, innocent young girls are being injected with the recombinant DNA of HPV, and that this biohazardous substance persists in their blood. The implications of this are rather scary, as Dr. Lee explains:

“Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants.

SaneVax source documents:-

1.     SANE Vax Inc. Letter to FDA Requesting Investigation into Gardasil Contamination

2.    Policy on the use of Bio-hazardous Agents and Recombinant DNA in Research and Teaching Laboratories at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

3.     Gardasil Patient Product Insert 

4.     EMEA Scientific Discussion on Gardasil    

5.     VAERS Data

Watch this astounding video of Merck scientist Dr. Hilleman openly admitting that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer:…

It’s called “Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines – Dr. Maurice Hilleman” and was partially narrated by Dr. Len Horowitz. You can view the full transcript of this extraordinary interview at:…

If you thought vaccines were safe, think again. Get informed. Learn the truth, and please share this story so that others may also be informed.

Listen up, folks: Why do you think the vaccine industry pushed so hard for total financial immunity under the government’s vaccine injury compensation plan? Because they knew that if the truth ever got out about how many cases of cancer, autism and even death were truly caused by vaccines, they would be financially wiped out!

The Scandal of Vaccines and Drug Industry Profits.

No big article – just these thoughts:

But for vaccines, which can harm, 21st Century treatments would exist now saving millions of third world kids.  75%  still die – despite vaccines being claimed to be effective – which for the third world 75% clearly are not.

This is the kind of unnoticed damage the drug industry is doing to healthcare today.

Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Gorski & His Internet Bullies Admit Sabotage

Another priceless opportunity to expose Dr David Gorski and his band of these self styled “skeptics” and others going out of their way to actively sabotage genuine independent attempts to carry out such studies, to compile data on healthier unvaccinated children.

This shows the anti-vaccine safety lobby are people who are not “skeptics” but internet thugs and bullies out for sport at the expense of vaccine injured children.  And they really don’t like it when they get a taste of their own medicine.

The following also shows why they just don’t want the studies done. [Which should be a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective.  But we show below they are not.]

Gorski himself claims others engage routinely in sabotage:

this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.”

[Of course that may not be true.  PZ Myers is welcome to comment here about that].

The following  also shows the lack of analytical, technical and scientific credibility of these people and the criticisms they throw up [with information posted elsewhere on CHS the position is damning].

Gorski’s main blog and the comments on it are found here for those interested

A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly – Posted on: August 31, 2011 3:00 AM, by Orac

The Sabotage

The survey is certainly currently being sabotaged by the direct involvement of people like Dr David Gorski and what he describes as his “minions”. Others are involved too [full quotes from Gorski et al with links appear below].

Gorski on his own blog draws his self-admitted “minions'” attention to the fact the survey is ongoing and open to continuous addition. Then one of his minions admits on his blog she posted false data on the survey and later confirms “other skeptics” are doing the same. Others join in the “fun”.  After yet again being caught out for what he is Gorski then disingenously claims his “postscript” was not intended to have that effect.

That is really low and base conduct but what is to be expected of those who claim to be “skeptics” and scientific but are in fact internet trolls and bullies, who don’t have two cents worth of science to rub together and even if they did clearly do not give the appearance of having the ability to do anything with it if they had.

One participant in this deception claims other “skeptics” are involved in this kind of foul and base behaviour. These are not “skeptics” at all but internet frauds, trolls and bullies who cannot allow any point of view to be known other than their own.

We have already demonstrated that Dr Gorski is a “brick short of a load” when it comes to analytical skills and that he appears to be mathematically challenged. This is aside from his unreasonable approach, abuse, bullying and emotional and often apoplectic tirades and rants. The fact he has “minions” and other followers does suggest something about the kinds of people who lap up his internet scribble-drivel as if it had some kind of validity. We have shown it does not.

And then we come to the sabotage.

13 The survey does indeed appear to still be ongoing at

Kind of tempting to mess with their results…

Posted by: Ash | August 31, 2011 11:15 AM

37 Well the “open” survey now has 7,799 participants…I think the 7,799th “child” might be “mine”. I filled out the survey on behalf of my six year old…who is unvaccinated and has 10 siblings. I entered “yes” to every question about disturbed sleep, fussiness, medical issues and developmental diagnoses.

I haven’t had so much fun messing up a “survey” since I responded to a robocall from the Tea Party Voter Choice Telephone Survey.

Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 4:04 PM

42 I just entered data on “another child” of mine on the open survey. This child is 10 years old, has four siblings and is vaccinated. My “10 year old child” has none of the problems listed on the survey and I ticked off “NO” on all the questions about behaviors, physical diagnoses and developmental diagnoses on the “survey”.

Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 5:12 PM

43 Should we inlcude a couple of children who died from complications to measles or whooping cough?

Posted by: KeithB | August 31, 2011 5:33 PM

88 I think the survey “researchers” have a lot more than me to worry about. The internet survey has been visited by other skeptics who have also entered false data. That’s what happens when you “attempt” a “scientific” survey on the internet and notorious anti-vax bloggers provide links to the “open internet survey”.A vaccinated versus non-vaccinated survey is unethical and this internet survey is unethical as well.

Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 1:14 PM

76 Yes, I entered data on the open survey from my one computer site and it is probably just a valid as the data from the other “participants”… and might even be “more valid”.

When you have an open internet survey with ambiguous wording anyone can “wander” over and enter data to skew the results. Now I am not accusing anyone at ChildHealthSafety for deliberately putting a bogus survey up on the internet to encourage multiple false entries and I’m not stating that the design deliberately did not meet any of the criteria for a survey…but it is less valid than the Tea Party Telephone Survey that I participated in several weeks ago…which really was a robo call randomized survey.

The folks at ChildHealthSafety have no way of knowing what percentage of the participants really have a child…no less a vaccinated or unvaccinated child and no way of knowing if any, some…or most of the participants are childless paranoid cranks who are against big government and/ or Big Pharma. Indeed, perhaps some of the participants are manipulating the publicly held stock of vaccine manufacturers.

Now I’m no computer techie, but I know enough about entering data on a public site requires you to provide a valid email address…which I did not…and surprise, surprise!!!…the data was accepted.

Yes indeed, the data I entered was probably just as valid as the data entered by the other “participants”.

So here’s the deal, unlike other participants I publicly stated that I entered data which was false and easily “verifiable” as false by the “researchers” by simply contacting the invalid email addresses.

Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 9:42 AM

And of course not forgetting firstly Gorski drawing attention to the survey being open:

The enjoyment I get watching that assuages my guilt for picking on homeopaths so.

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.


And then his disingenous denial he had any intention this might provoke his “minions” to sabotage the survey – and please note the abuse and disparagement Gorski cannot help himself including – priceless:-

63 …… this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to give our friendly neighborhood German homeopath an “out.” His survey was badly designed enough, and his results, for autism at least, are completely within the range of error of estimates for autism prevalence. In brief, I was too amused by the fact that this “study” actually comes far closer to refuting the vaccine/autism hypothesis than providing evidence to support it. Of course, as I said before, the survey is so bad that it really doesn’t tell us much of anything, but CHS is too scientifically ignorant to realize that.

Posted by: Orac | September 1, 2011 12:01 AM

Lack of Analytical, Technical and Scientific Credibility of these People and their Criticisms

[ED: Phil,Re: Your comment 2011/09/02 at 2:05 am

Firstly, let’s look at how you started out in your comments:-

This “study” as they call it is a joke.”

Disparagement and denigration. The usual trolling behaviour which we will come back to later. Not civilised debate. Not the approach of someone genuinely wishing to engage in debate.

Secondly, we will expect to see differences between unvaccinated children and the vaccinated. You completely fail to address the fact that government health officials refuse resolutely to carry out these kinds of studies. The reason is very simple. They know that particular ingredients of vaccines cause conditions like allergy, asthma, diabetes and suchlike. In fact you do not have to go far to find this out. It is on the information sheets for patients and for medical professionals and sets out long lists of conditions which are caused by the various vaccines – and that does not include the conditions caused by multiple vaccines in single individuals – a topic never studied.

We also know that vaccine adverse reactions are heavily under reported, so any survey like this could show that.

Thirdly, you fail to acknowledge that on the assumption all of the participants make genuine responses, ie. are parents of unvaccinated children, the data can and does tell us something about them and their children. [And we will come back to the genuine responses part later in the context of the particularly nasty kinds of internet trolls who infest these areas on the web with misinformation.]

You also fail to acknowledge that it may be possible to make comparisons to vaccinated children. For example, if the differences are so huge it is difficult to ignore them. If none of the unvaccinated children had the problems the vaccinated have that would be particularly interesting.

Instead you trot out all the usual criticisms without putting them into any context. Some of the points you make are of issues directed to excluding potentially confounding factors. You do not for example put into context the extent to which such confounding factors might alter the value of the data. If there is a minimal effect but the differences shown by the data are so large that the potentially confounding effect is small then whilst the criticism may have validity it does not prevent conclusions being drawn from the data.

So your claim this study “lacks any validity or credibility” immediately is in difficulty and your other arguments with it.

So the point that “data is data” is valid, as is the point this is the data available along with some other similar studies and some peer reviewed literature supporting the matter – the one example we gave of the latter you studiously ignore – the De Stefano paper. There are others in addition to the known conditions vaccines cause which are heavily under reported.

In other words, whilst we can see you have worked hard to look reasonable in your latest post, you came here not to make a balanced assessment but simply to attack with no objectivity and certainly with partiality and prejudice – your own and those of the others like you who troll the internet and engage in that kind of behaviour – and more comments on that will appear below.

You also fail to address that the survey is intended to be an ongoing one. It could build up a large body of data and of contacts with parents for further study, albeit currently anonymous there is potential to contact participants via email. So again, you also fail to recognise there is value in this kind of study.

Your criticism that “It is based completely on inference” demonstrates a comprehensive lack of understanding of proof of cause and effect. Cause and effect is determined by inference. We infer X is a cause of Y from the evidence presented to support that proposition.

So again, you demonstrate you come here to attack from a basis of fundamental misconceptions of the subject matter you attempt to address. Your claim to be “someone that does research” therefore has to be treated with skepticism – similar to that of a teacher who responded to such a claim of a pupil with “where, in the toilets?”.

You criticise that the survey is “biased in its sampling”. Of course it is. It is surveying parents of unvaccinated children. But that is not a valid criticism. That is the purpose of the survey. It is a known and intended bias. Hidden biases that would be a different matter. The survey tells us about the participants. It is not hidden. It does not prevent comparisons. So again, you fail to understand what is meant by bias and when bias is and is not an issue.

You complain it is “anecdotal evidence”. Really? If a parent reports on the conditions a child has or does not have, how exactly is that “anecdote”? If a scientist writes up a paper recording the results he or she claims to have recorded, would you call that anecdote too?

You complain the survey “falsely implies causation”. But we have already demonstrated above that it is to be expected that unvaccinated children will have fewer of the conditions seen in vaccinated ones. You have also not commented on the De Stefano paper [and there are more we can cite].

So there is biological plausibility underlying this survey. Another point you fail to address because you came here not to engage in balanced reasoned debate but to make unbalanced out of context attacks – and at the end of the day, because you have done that what you say lacks credibility. And that is despite the strenuous efforts you appear to have gone to to appear reasonable in your latest post [no doubt through gritted teeth].

You complain the survey “lacks any validity or credibility in the methods or results of the survey”. How can that be if at the very least the data is telling us something about the participants? The survey does tell us something. It tells us a great deal. Valid criticism tells us how it might be improved. And it is ongoing, which brings us to the final point.

Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Apoplectic Dr David Gorski Excels Again

It is too priceless an opportunity to let it pass. The obsessive blogger Dr David Gorski [aka ORAC] has gone into apoplectic overdrive [again] over the CHS article here:  New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism

It is not every day we can rip into the science free zone of Orac’s brain [aka pharma’s very own Homer Simpson of the blogosphere, Dr David Gorski – David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You].  But aside from the difficulty locating it, [his brain, if there is one] that is only because we don’t usually have the time – no other reason.

In Gorski’s latest rant Gorski’s apoplexy [standard issue for him] is in evidence. So not a reliable source to start with but it gets worse. Wot a nutter.  Apologies to our usual readers for the lower than usual standards.  These have been suspended for this post to write it in Gorskieese, Gorski’s style of scribble-drivel.

His near 2500 words we can encapsulate in a few quotes.

First the abusive rhetoric and derision which is the main basis for all his arguments [ie. bullying – so he obviously has a personal issue over self-esteem].

a study that’s just so mind-numbingly, brain-meltingly awful”

“the sheer intensity of its burning stupid”

“a starving cheetah ripping into its prey look downright restrained”

“anti-vaccine loons” “anti-vaxers”

“… they’ve been clamoring for what they like to call a “vaxed-unvaxed study.”

“Now they’re at it again”

“anti-vaccine propaganda”

“now this “study” will no doubt join the Generation Rescue “study” in the annals of crap vaccine/autism science, to circulate around (where it belongs) and be dredged up as “evidence” periodically.”

Then we get the “scientific” criticisms [Ha] buried in Gorskidrivel:-

the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

“an anonymous Internet survey that anyone can fill out? Let’s … have an actual control group, namely vaccinated children.”

“Generation Rescue did a crappy and arbitrary job of it”

“a poorly designed phone survey”

“entirely unvaccinated children.”

“Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine.”

“the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine”

“99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children”

So wee Davy Gorski, if you don’t like it, its about time we had a well funded independent objective and impartial study done. Stop complaining when independents take a crack at it. Its their taxes which are being spent wasted on the vast amount of useless medical research [genetics is a prime candidate along with cancer and psychiatry – the latter being the least successful branch of medicine in history].

And don’t fob the public off with the usual unscientic junk studies put out in drug industry funded medical journals to claim everything apart from Gorski’s brand of medicine is valid – people are voting with their feet – GorskiCare kills people and injures them in droves in the USA with adverse drug reactions and botched procedures

Then Gorski spews out in a rant the usual complete tosh to justify the nonsensical claim that:

…. such a study is neither feasible nor ethical”

But this is the real hoot. These children might really have asthma but because they don’t have any symptoms their parents don’t know. Ha ha ha ha ha ha …..:-

a lot of these children could have subclinical or mildly clinical disease that goes undiagnosed because they never take their children to a real doctor”

“One of the most common presentations of asthma is cough alone” …. “milder cases of asthma can be difficult to diagnose in children”.

“what the parents report probably doesn’t tell us much. Neither does the claim that far fewer of these children had allergies.”

What the Mighty Officials of GorskiCare did not tell you is that asthma and allergy have increased so dramatically in the 25 or so years since the late 1980s drive for vaccination that his profession in the UK were instructed just a handful of years ago to go out and look for as many cases as possible. The Mighty Officials then wanted to use the increased statistics to claim the science shows it was all greater awareness and better diagnosis. LOL.

And then Gorski reveals he has had an analytical skills total bypass from birth and his math education was wasted. He says:

Apparently, basic math isn’t a homeopath’s strong suit ….. if 20% of autistic children equals four, then there could only be 20 autistic children, but the survey suggests that there were twice that many in unvaccinated children.”

Really David? Let’s see what he bases this on and show that Gorski’s math is sadly a long way from his strong point [if he has one].

The numbers cited are entirely in keeping with the text:

  • there were 44 children reported as having an autistic condition
  • over 80% of parents reported the autistic conditions in children were mild and of the Asperger type.
  • only 4 were reported as having severe autism

What does that tell us?

  • Over 80% means 35 of the 44, leaving 9 or less cases.
  • 4 of the 9 were reported as having severe autism.
  • That leaves 5 cases where 1) either the parents did not say what kind of autistic condition their child had or 2)there were less than 5 cases of severe autism in those 5 or both.
  • Let’s say it was 5 cases and the parents did not say. At over 80% the probability is of those 5 cases 4 were mild, leaving 1 which might be the more severe autism.

So Gorski, 4 cases of severe autism or even 4 +1 is not 20% but that is still consistent with “over 80%” of parents reporting mild autistic conditions.  We hope that is not too hard for you to understand.

And here is another hoot:

a prevalence of 0.57%, even if this survey were accurate, would be within the range of estimated prevalences found in various studies.”

0.57% is 1 in 175. But wait a mo’. In the USA the figure is nearly twice that at 1 in 100. In the UK the figure is three times that at 1 in 64.

And in the UK 30% of autistic conditions are the more severe autism – in the US we understand the number is higher.

Yet for the unvaccinated this survey suggests the number [4 cases or less than 10%] is 300% lower or 1 in 2000 cases which is close to the pre vaccine era of 4 in 10,000. And the affected children had higher exposure to mercury or heavy metals.

And David, these figures reflect the kinds of differences seen in the Generation Rescue telephone survey you decry don’t they [see end for details]?

And this GorskiDrivel is a hoot too:-

autism prevalence is so obviously not appreciably different in the unvaccinated in this survey compared to reported prevalence numbers”

When Gorski in the same passage notes that:-

depending on the age range it ranges from 0.37% to a whopping 2.36%, ….. 3,075 were for children under two years old, … autism might very well have not been diagnosed … the reported prevalence was 0.37%, while in the 11-12 year range the prevalence was highest, at 2.36%.”

But at the same time ignores that in the 15-16 year age group the figure is 0.62%.

But that does not stop the science free zone between Gorski’s ears from concluding so stupidly it burns:

The prevalence of autism in unvaccinated children in this survey does closely match reported numbers for overall population prevalence in populations where the vast majority of children are vaccinated.”

This result is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmair and his groupies …

But hang on Gorski old boy, didn’t you just say a mere few million drivel points earlier hidden in abuse and rhetoric that:

the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

We told you he is a nutter. That demonstrates it – the stupid it burns.

And what is Gorski and his band of amateur night pseudo-scientists going to do. Yep you guessed it they are going to sabotage this genuine effort to get data that everyone has been clamouring for for years.

How do we know? GorskiCare’s postscript to his blog:-

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.”

Here are the results of the Generation Rescue Survey mentioned above:-

Cal-Oregon Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Survey

All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)

Older vaccinated boys, ages 11-17 (about half the boys surveyed), compared to older unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.58)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 317% more likely to have ADHD (RR 4.17)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 112% more likely to have autism (RR 2.12)

(Note: older children may be a more reliable indicator because many children are not diagnosed until they are 6-8 years old, and we captured data beginning at age 4.)

All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR), compared to unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.85)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 279% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.79)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism (RR 2.46)

All vaccinated boys and girls, compared to unvaccinated boys and girls:

  • – Vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma (RR 2.20)
  • – No correlation established for juvenile diabetes

All vaccinated girls, compared to unvaccinated girls:

  • – No meaningful differences in prevalence were noted for NDs (which may be due to the smaller sample size of the study because girls represent about 20% of cases.)