HomeMy WebLinkAboutDiana Dreiss 6.17.25 Board Correspondence FW_ 2019 ACIP Meeting_ Patricia Neuenschwander.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Soderstrom, Monica
Cc:Mutony, Heather; Krater, Sharleen
Subject:Board Correspondence FW: 2019 ACIP Meeting: Patricia Neuenschwander: You owe the American people a gold
standard study!
Date:Monday, June 23, 2025 5:42:59 PM
Board Correspondence
From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:02 AM
To: Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>;
assemblymember.gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; Kitts, Melissa <mkitts@buttecounty.net>;
ca01dl.outreach@mail.house.gov; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Ring, Brian
<bring@buttecounty.net>; pcbs@countyofplumas.com; Stephens, Brad J.
<BStephens@buttecounty.net>; Durfee, Peter <PDurfee@buttecounty.net>;
teri.dubose@mail.house.gov; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>;
senator.dahle@senate.ca.gov; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Ritter, Tami
<TRitter@buttecounty.net>; davidhollister@countyofplumas.com; District Attorney
<District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; sheriff@pcso.net
Subject: 2019 ACIP Meeting: Patricia Neuenschwander: You owe the American people a gold
standard study!
Public comment for the Public Record
“Please do your job!
Patricia Neuenschwander: Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Neuenschwander. I'm a
pediatric nurse practitioner, and I've been a nurse for 25 years. I come to you today because, as
a healthcare practitioner, it is challenging for me to agree to something that hasn't undergone a
certain level of rigorous study. None of the vaccines on the current recommended schedule
have undergone large, inert, placebo-controlled trials, including Gardasil 9, which is one of the
things you're considering recommending in adults aged 26 to 45. The great study, as
mentioned earlier, is one of the strongest evidence used to review and make a
recommendation. So if I may briefly remind this committee what was presented in October by
Dr N...... The grade study evaluated 16 studies of Gardasil 2 and 4 in adults aged 26 to 45.
None of the studies were on Gardasil 9, and not a single safety or efficacy study was presented
using Gardasil 9 in this age group. Out of those 16 studies, seven were randomized clinical
control trials, which were all downgraded because they didn't use Gardasil 9.
Of the seven, six used aluminum as an adjuvant, a known neurotoxin as placebo. By the way,
one study, W....... did use 50 HIV infected women who received a saline placebo.
Because the manufacturer Merck didn't have placebo available. They combined the placebo
groups so that no real comparisons could be made between the 50 that received saline, the 176
that received aluminum, and compare that to the 226 that received Gardasil 4. In this study,
nearly 10% of participants in both groups experienced a serious adverse event, and the study
was stopped early due to futility. It simply didn't work. The evidence presented is not
acceptable to me, and it would not be acceptable to other healthcare providers if they were
aware of what you are using, I am asking that you require at least one large safety study with
Gardasil 9 using a saline control, a harmless substance, before making any recommendation.
By using evidence from one vaccine to recommend another, you are bearing false witness.
This historical practice of approving and recommending vaccines without adequate safety
needs to end now. It is not unethical to do this study. I believe it's unethical to recommend this
vaccine without it. Please don't turn a blind eye. You are scientists. You are doctors. You
know deep down that it is wrong to recommend something like this without rigorous analysis.
You owe the American people a gold standard study before unleashing this potentially 100
million people. Merck stands to make billions of liability-free dollars from this
recommendation. please require that they substantiate safety and efficacy first. In closing, if
this committee chooses to recommend this vaccine without adequate safety studies, will you,
the liaison representatives, that you're here representing, will you tell them that this
recommendation came without one safety study or efficacy study? Because we will! We will
scream this horrifying truth from the rooftops. Please do your job and protect public health.
Increase confidence in the schedule by requiring evidence-based science in your
recommendations. Thank you.”
February 2019 ACIP Meeting - Public Comment
https://rumble.com/v6uup5r-2019-acip-meeting-patricia-neuenschwander-you-owe-
the-american-people-a-gol.html
diana dreiss