This is what google shows: 7 deaths out of 24K vaccinated individuals.

"An Indian government committee and subsequent investigations concluded that the seven deaths were most probably unrelated to the vaccine itself. The reported causes included drowning, snake bite, intentional ingestion of poisonous substances (suicide), malaria, brain hemorrhage, and viral fever."

This was in a trail for the HPV virus so presumably they wanted subjects who were not yet sexually active. Girls were chosen because HPV can affect the cervix. So you vaccinate them, and then follow them up for maybe 15 years and see how it turns out.

Enrolling young children in a trail like is always going to ethically hard to justify. And it's well possible they chose India instead of California for this reason. However the protocol makes sense.

I worked in clinical trails for years, believe me the LAST thing anyone wants is problems like these because you'll end up losing billions.

To market something in EU or USA you need EMEA or FDA approval. They will check every single piece of paper and can tank your entire decades long project.

Respectfully, you're blowing this way out of proportion, this is just more "billionaire hysteria"

Deaths of "many girls", when the parent comment said it was at most 1 out of 2300 participants (a suicide)? Those numbers might, however, be untrustworthy. I don't know India well enough to know how much to trust statistics compiled there.

What sources are there on the hospitalisations?

Your article is careful to never explicitly state correlation between the vaccine and those seven girls deaths. Without such a link, your argument falls apart.

> So answer me honestly: Did that same billionaire (Bill Gates) and his organisation (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) do the same exact trials in his home country (USA)? "clinical trials of unproven vaccines on thousands of poor minor girls, without consent of then and their parents"

This accusation is toothless. You would need to show two things:

- There were actual unacceptable risks or side-effects from the vaccine under test (your article completely fails to show this, and if you believe it does, then you are simply a victim of clickbait formulations)

- The study was done in India because of risks to subjects deemed unacceptable in the US (and not simply because it was cheaper)

What the article does show is that there was shoddy handling of consent. Which is valid criticism! But it is also somewhat unsurprising given the low literacy rate at that time and place. And this alone is simply not sufficient foundation for your accusations.

What exact vaccine are you talking about, first? Gardasil is actually approved for use not only in India itself, but also the US (and Europe), FYI.

Trials where also done both in the US, Europe and a bunch of other countries (see https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?quer...).

> So WHY did BMGF and PATH not take INFORMED CONSENT before giving a dangerous experimental drug? Why were the minor patients MISLED on what they were being given? Why was no medical insurance provided to the patients unsuspectingly undergoing this risky experiment?

First: Your only source that you keep citing found no harm in trial patients linked to the drug. What they did found was a shoddy consent process, with high likelihood driven by efforts to keep costs low.

What your own source primarily blames are local regulators allowing this.

> 6. Is it okay to avoid doing clinical trial in home country with consent, but ethical to do it in another nation on poor unsuspecting minors without consent?

First: absolutely yes. If it is ethical to do a trial in one country, it is ethical to do it elsewhere. Why wouldn't it?

Secondly, clinical trials on Gardasil were done in both the US and Europe before 2008 (see source above).

> I can throw more and more facts and links here. But you already know the game is up, don't you?

I just explained how the sources you cited so far are insufficient to sustain your conclusions and accusations.

But this sentence alone makes me highly suspicious that you have your view set in stone, and that you are cherrypicking and misreading facts to fit it.

This is foolish. You should always ask yourself what information would be necessary to change your view-- my personal conclusion is that nothing really could, because you want to sustain your witchhunt more than you want to know the truth.

Personally, I came into this somewhat curious if there truly was some hushed up medical disaster in India caused by the Gates foundation, but by now my answer is a pretty conclusive no.

Your primary point is "the study harmed participants, and Gates is responsible"

But your own report contradicts this, and finds the deaths unrelated.

You also argue that Gates is suspect, because HPV vaccine trials were only done in India. This is also false, I sourced that already in the previous response, you did not comment on it.

You keep coming back to the same Indian Parliamentary committee report, which explicitly finds that the girls deaths are completely unrelated or "unlikely related" to the vaccine, and then keep accusing the study of "killing schoolgirls".

You are either arguing in bad faith or lying to yourself here.

Unless you can actually state with a straight face what kind of evidence would change your outlook ("Gates responsible for harmful study"), I see no point in continuing this argument.