Do you have any evidence which shows that anything said in this article is untrue?
She is representing lawyers who are trolling for business. The onus is on HER to prove her statements, some of which are conjectures.
As I mentioned, I do have reservations about Gardasil, but Brockovich is just another scam artist.
>> Do you have any evidence which shows that anything said in this article is untrue? <<
I certainly don’t spot anything in the article which is untrue. But as evil as I Commandant Perry’s mandate is, Merck’s ads state that they do not Gardasil does not treat cancer, and does not prevent all forms of HPV which cause cancer. And not in some mumbled jumble of legalese, but in very clearly spoken assertions. Brockovitch’s article makes it seem like they’ve exposed some sort of cover-up.
First, I'm not necessarily of fan of Merck, nor do I have any vested interest in the vaccine.
It's not that there may be anything untrue, but there is no context for the statements made. Given the large population of people who've already received the vaccine, one has to ask, "how many deaths and serious adverse events have occurred, and is that number statistically significant?"
Judging from the FDA's own site, only 6% of the events reported to date, are considered serious. Every late-stage clinical trial will have its share of AEs and SAEs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the drug is without merit. It's certainly possible, though unfortunate, that the deaths were a result of some rare allergic reaction.
The law firm running this ad doesn't share the context however, so to me, it looks like they're just chasing ambulances and trying to get some settlement with Merck.
It's not what is in the article, it is what is left out.
~9000 adverse reactions, some of them serious, but the article leads you to believe all were serious, and doesn't mention how many total doses those ~9000 reactions are out of.
I'm willing to bet most nuts are far, far more deadly to a higher percentage of people than this drug. Most things will produce an adverse reaction in at least some people.
Just reading this article you would think that the drug hadn't gone through the process of getting FDA approval that takes years and extensive trials. The author just ignores that and presents a subjective opinion that not enough testing was done and that our daughters are being used as guinea pigs.
I don't see how you can take a critical look at this article and say that it wasn't written to intentionally mislead people rather than to help them make an informed decision about the drug.