By Norma Erickson, President
Medical professionals rely on studies published in medical journals to keep abreast of new developments in their field. What happens when published studies raise more questions than answers? Where does that leave trusting medical consumers?
On July 12, 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to formally offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to their young men. HPV vaccines have been advertised as ‘cervical cancer’ vaccines. Boys obviously do not have a cervix, so how do you ‘sell’ males on the idea of a three shot series of the most expensive vaccine on the market?
Miracle of miracles – almost immediately press reports begin to come in from around the world about a new study that supposedly demonstrates evidence of HPV vaccinations providing protection to the unvaccinated population. What an outstanding way to convince boys it is their duty to protect those around them.
Unfortunately, none of the articles reporting this ‘miraculous’ development provide a link to the actual study so a person can check for themselves. So much for responsible journalism!
“Vaccine-Type Human Papillomavirus and Evidence of Herd Protection After Vaccine Introduction,” by Jessica A. Kahn, MD, MPH, et al., was accepted for publication in April 2012 by the medical journal Pediatrics, but will not be formally published until August.1
Historically, academic ‘experts’ paid directly or indirectly by the industry have cherry-picked populations with a high prevalence rate of HPV infections or cervical cancer to generate a set of data. They extrapolate the ‘scientific’ data obtained from irrelevant populations to promote a vaccine with questionable value or an analytically inaccurate HPV test for use in the general population.
In 2001, a group of employees of the National Cancer Institute, a major patent holder and financial beneficiary of HPV vaccines, did just that when they used a population with an extremely high cervical cancer rate in a subpopulation of Costa Rica during development of the HPV ‘cancer’ vaccine and an HPV test for cervical cancer screening.2 Then they helped expedite approval of HPV vaccines and an inaccurate HPV test through the Food and Drug Administration to be used in populations with little threat of cervical cancer progression.
In their most recent study, Jessica A. Kahn and her coauthors have done the same thing by using a cherry-picked subset of African American women with an extremely high rate (68.3%) of HPV infection for a statistical analysis to justify wide spread implementation of the HPV vaccination policy through so called “herd protection.” The authors conveniently ignore the fact that most American women under the care of gynecologists in private practice have a less than 10% HPV infection rate even when the most sensitive nested PCR amplification is used for detection. They also ignore the fact that African American women usually carry different strains of HPV viruses than women from other ethnic backgrounds.3
It is well known that test results obtained in a population with high disease prevalence rates cannot be extrapolated to a population with a low prevalence of the disease. These authors knowingly misapply their statistical data to support this “herd protection” hypothesis as if HPV infection had become a contagious disease like influenza in the classrooms of all high schools throughout the world.
It is unfortunate that their opinion, supported by public funding, is published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics as a continued medical education material to influence the practice of the pediatricians, policy-makers and health authorities.
This is particularly true when a careful reading of Khan et al.’s article reveals the following points:
- Vaccine-type HPV infections reportedly decreased by 21.9% in vaccinated participants; but vaccine-type HPV infections also showed a decrease of 14.8% in the unvaccinated group when compared to the data from 2006-07. These changes are especially remarkable given that many participants were sexually experienced, presumably exposed to HPV, and only 1 HPV vaccine dose was required to be considered “vaccinated” in this analysis.
- The authors should know there are 3 subtypes of HPV-18, namely the European, the Asian-American and the African subtypes.4 In the U.S., 91% of the HPV-18 isolates from white women are reported to be of the European and Asian-American variants, and 64% of the HPV-18 isolates from African American women belong to the African variants.5 The production of the Gardasil® HPV-18 VLPs uses the HPV L1 gene from the SW756 cell line6 which carries an African subtype of HPV-18.4 Therefore, any “herd protection,” even if conveyed to a subset of African American women by Gardasil® vaccination, cannot be automatically extrapolated to other races or ethnicities.
- Why do the authors of the study consider one shot of Gardasil® to give the participants vaccinated status when the recommended dose is a series of three injections? If one shot is enough, is three too many?
- The study utilized the Roche Linear Array for HPV typing. According to World Health Organization documentation, only 8 of 17 datasets in a worldwide survey using the Roche Linear Array assay reported a 100% proficiency result in HPV genotyping.7 (table 2) In 7 of the 17 testing sets, false positive HPV types were detected by the Roche Linear Array assay.7 (table 3) This information brings the entire study into question.
- The authors of the study state, “the overall HPV prevalence increased “modestly” between the two studies.” How can this happen if the vaccine provides herd immunity?
Consider the following data taken from the soon to be published article regarding this ‘modest’ overall increase in HPV infections. This chart is a representation of HPV prevalence changes discovered when the post-vaccination surveillance group of 2009-10 was compared to the pre-vaccination surveillance data from 2006-07:
|
HPV |
All |
Vaccinated | Non-vaccinated |
| Any Type | 8.5% increase | 9.0% increase | 1.8% increase |
| High Risk Type | 1.1% increase | 5.2% increase | 7.5% reduction |
| Vaccine Type (16/18/11/6) | 18.3% reduction | 21.9% reduction | 14.8% reduction |
| High Risk Vaccine Type | 14.2% reduction | 17.8% reduction | 12.0% reduction |
| Non-Vaccine Type | 14.0% increase | 15.2% increase | 7.6% increase |
| Non-Vaccine High Risk Type | 7.6% increase | 13.6% increase | 2.7% reduction |
Why was there no statistically significant change in HPV infection rates among the unvaccinated participants? Does this mean that other types of HPV are taking over the role of the vaccine-suppressed HPV types in the vaccinated? If so, will the other types become more dangerous than the suppressed ones?
Does this mean the manufacturer targeted the wrong types of HPV for this population? Or, does it simply mean the vaccine doesn’t work?
Does this article provide evidence of herd immunity or potentially dangerous HPV mutation/type replacement?
Is this simply another example of the quality one can expect from industry sponsored ‘scientific studies’ destined to be blindly accepted and widely quoted to influence worldwide health policies?
This study raised far more questions than it answered. Medical consumers deserve better.
References:
- Kahn JA, Brown DR, Ding L, Widdice LE, Shew ML, Glynn S, Bernstein DI. Vaccine-Type Human Papillomavirus and Evidence of Herd Protection After Vaccine Introduction. Pediatrics. 2012 Jul 9. [Epub ahead of print] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/07/03/peds.2011-3587.abstract
- HPV co-factors related to the development of cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica. Hildesheim A, Herrero R, Castle PE, Wacholder S, Bratti MC, Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Burk RD, Morales J, Rodriguez AC, Helgesen K, Alfaro M, Hutchinson M, Balmaceda I, Greenberg M, Schiffman M. Br J Cancer. 2001 May 4;84(9):1219-26.PMID: 11336474 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article Free textRelated citations
- Dunne EF, Unger ER, Sternberg M, McQuillan G, Swan DC, Patel SS, et al. Prevalence of HPV infection among females in the United States. JAMA 2007; 297: 813-9.
- Lurchachaiwong W, Junyangdikul P, Termrungruanglert W, Payungporn S, Sampatanukul P, Tresukosol D, Niruthisard S, Trivijitsilp P, Karalak A, Swangvaree S, Poovorawan Y.: Whole-genome sequence analysis of human papillomavirus type 18 from infected Thai women. Intervirology 2010, 53:161-166
- Xi LF, Kiviat NB, Hildesheim A, Galloway DA, Wheeler CM, Ho J, Koutsky LA. Human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 variants: race-related distribution and persistence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Aug 2;98(15):1045-52.
- Hofmann KJ, Neeper MP, Markus HZ, Brown DR, Müller M, Jansen KU. Sequence conservation within the major capsid protein of human papillomavirus (HPV) type 18 and formation of HPV-18 virus-like particles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Gen Virol. 1996 Mar;77 ( Pt 3):465-8
- http://jcm.asm.org/content/early/2012/04/19/JCM.00840-12.abstract
Excellent article emphasising many most relevant and hitherto unanswered questions.
Statement from the study: “The increase in nonvaccine-type HPV in vaccinated participants should be interpreted with caution but warrants further study”. The word “caution” is relevant. Regarding increase in nonvaccine-type HPV in vaccinated participants it is crystal clear that nature never leaves a void. The strains removed WILL be replaced and it is unknown whether the new strains will be more carcinogenic than the original ones.
Here is evidence that the answer to this important issue is unknown to the vaccine promoters:
Gardasil was approved in US under the condition that there would be an extensive research project carried out in Norway, which in fact meant that the vaccine would be included in the children’s vaccination program. (There was implication of corruption in connection with this agreement, but that’s another story!)
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm111283.htm
The research contract which was negotiated between FDA, Merck and the Norwegian government includes:
“….to assess whether administration of GARDASIL® will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types”.
Jessica A. Kahn and her coauthors have knowingly mislead by extrapolating results obtained in a population with high disease prevalence rates to a population with a low prevalence of the disease.
This reminds of the strategy used by Merck when Gardasil was advised for different age groups, yet had never been tested in for example young girls under fifteen years old.
Extrapolation in these and in many other cases is not only illogical and unscientific, it is in fact extremely misleading and borders on cheating.
The question as to why only one dose of Gardasil was administered makes one wonder. Were those who carried out the study dubious as to whether their “research objects” would be willing to have more than one dose – for perhaps obvious reasons?
I live in Australia and neither my teen daughter nor my preteen son will get this toxic jab. From the information I have seen that is given to parents by the schools, we are not receiving the full story about the risks of this vaccine compared to the alleged benefits. People are making a decision based on far too little information because they are too trusting of the system.
But Prof Frazer was on TV here in Brisbane saying that it works, so how can you uneducated people not believe the inventor and a person with a PHD. He must be right. A lot of funding came from CSL in Australia and Merck in the US for the research. Merck always tell the truth don’t they and CSL would never leave a flu vaccine on the market that caused the death of a child here in Australia, would they.
Did Prof. Frazer take the shot? Do all the medical professionals take the shot?
And where is the proof that the HPV (the virus) causes the disease in first place?
We are not uneducated. We have brains and we can read the publications and think for ourselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that all PhD’s tell the truth? Cannot they be wrong and/or biased, not to mention paid by the drug companies?
And the big Pharma companies are the last I would trust.
They try to impress us by just throwing into our faces “it was scientifically proven”… and when you check their so-called proof, you just can’t find it.
Did Prof. Frazer take the shot? Do all the medical professionals take the shot?
And where is the proof that the HPV (the virus) causes the disease in first place?
We are not uneducated. We have brains and we can read the publications and think for ourselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that all PhD’s tell the truth? Cannot they be wrong and/or biased, not to mention paid by the drug companies? And the big Pharma companies are the last I would trust.
They try to impress us by just throwing into our faces “it was scientifically proven”… and when you check their so-called proof, you just can’t find it.
I think Les Bailey was being sarcastic, Eva.
As the old saying goes, there are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics. Never is this more true when it comes to the statistics used to justify dangerous (but highly profitable) unnatural medications such as Gardasil, Vioxx, Avandia, Fosamax, Bextra and on and on.
Sadly and often tragically, the maim-stream medical industry has seldom let a little (or a lot) of death and suffering get in the way of profits when it comes to one of their cash cow blockbuster drugs.
Men can’t get cervical cancer, but what about “cuncer?” There are more cases of throat and mouth cancer today from oral sex than there is from tobacco.
For those of you who follow this type of thing, we saw the same thing happen with Prevnar and the pneumococcal vaccination. Originally, Prevnar 7 was offered, but when it was later demonstrated that non-vaccine serotypes were gaining ascendency and creating more difficult to treat cases of pneumonia, the new Prevnar 13 came riding in on a white horse. Now, even those who had prior vaccination are encouraged to get the new vaccination. Talk about cash flow!!
http://lifecarechiropractic.com/blog/2011/want-to-vaccinate-our-way-into-health/
.INEFFICACY OF THE HPV VACCINE SEEN BY DOCTOR OF DEEP PERÚ
From its inception until the appearance of cervical carcinoma (UCC), takes on average 25 to 30 years, the research of this vaccine have begun in 2000, it is evident that the scientific efficacy of this new vaccine will be determined the years 2025 – 2030.
HPV not causes definitely the (CCU); at the onset of this disease involves multiple risk factors, including the suspected HPV, but scientificaly is proven by epidemiology and statistics that the sex is what generates this disease .: Mix in 130.000 nuns found not any UCC.
http://www.portalesmedicos.com/publicaciones/articles/1832/1/Epidemiologia-del-carcinoma-del-cuello-uterino.html
To accept that a virus or a bacteria causes a infection disease must unfailingly fulfill the five Koch’s postulate
http://www.xatakaciencia.com/salud/los-postulados-de-koch
1 – The agent must be present in every case of the disease and absent from healthy.
2 – The agent must not appear in other diseases.
3 – The agent to be isolated in pure culture from disease lesions.
4 – The agent of causing disease in a susceptible animal being inoculated.
5 – The agent must again be isolated lesions in experimental animals.
http://es.scribd.com/doc/44558220/MICROBIOLOGIA-1
Consequently, HPV not fulfill not any principle of Koch’s postulate. by not meeting this postulate, that is accepted as dogma in medicine, scientifically we must be ensure that the HPV is not the causative agent to the UCC..
Until August 2012 this vaccine produced only in the United States: 265.640 adverse events ( 264,162 females, 9490 males and 5290 unknow sex); permnent disability 8910( 8890 females, 90 males and 110 unknow sex), 1220 deaths (1011 females, 70 males and 140 unknow sex), abnormal PAP 4930, cervical dysplasia 1970 and cervical cancer 570
http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/hpv-vaccine-adverse-events-reported-to-vaers-as-of-july-13-2012/
http://therefusers.com/?s=cervarix
The Vaccine efects advers reactions (VAERS) ensures that only complaint between 1% to 10% of the adverse effects produced by this evil vaccine;this figures shown are calculated according to the statements of the VAERS: to 10%.
http://www.noticiero.enkoria.com/2011/diez-menores-que-sufrieron-reaccion-adversa-a-la-vacuna-vph-d
http://www.pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
Dr. Harper, who contributed to the development of the vaccine by Merck, reports that the vaccine was not investigated in children under 15 years and the vaccine given to children under 11 years is a big public experiment.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html
The vaccine was approved to give girls uncontaminated with HPV, Dr. Howenstinc ensures that the women are vaccinated with HPV contaminated, have the possibility to acquire a 44.6% CCU
http://www.newswithviews.com / Howenstine/james170.htm.
Merck did not disclose that the vaccine was transgenic, the Sane Vax has discovered, which is transgenic because it has been found that the vaccine is contaminated with DNA recombinant vaccine Gardasil (DNArPVH) and has raised its concerns to the president of the FDA Margaret Hamburg. The FDA replied that the vaccine will not cause any damage transgenic
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=26075
A vaccinated child was ill with rheumatoid arthritis, which is an autoimmune disease. 24 hours after vaccination and found that the aluminum adhered to DNArPVH, two years after vaccination and in autopsy 6 months after death in a New Zeland girl Jazmine Renata which had recibed this deadly vaccines
http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php?topic=9331.0
Management time to get market approval of a drug the FDA is at least three years, it is a drug for cancer 15 years, but the authorization Merck had only six months and the European Medicines Agency (EMA in English) only 9 months: To introduce the vaccine are using the marketing of fear
http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna-del-marketing-del-miedo-67210961.ht http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna -of-marketing-of-fear-67210961.ht
HPV is ubiquitous; lives in wild and domestic animals, pollute us from birth, is on the doorknobs, on towels, on nails, on fomites, in gloves and specula of gynecologists,. sexual intercourse is not the only means of contamination.
http://spa.myhealthygood.com/cancer-cervical-vacuna-contra-el-vph/investigadores-descubren-el-v
HPV also lives in the 400 nm outermost of our skin and mucous membranes. ,
If you live in our skin, our immune system produces cellular and humoral immunity is acquired or that our body is self vaccinatinge by PVHs living on our skin and mucous ..
http://www.conganat.org/seap/bibliografia/HPVToday/HPVToday007SEAP.pdf
The PVHs is not distributed uniformly worldwide. It has been found that in Canada HPV 18 only reaches 3%; is more often HPV 31, in my country Peru no studies have determined that HPV types predominate; Gardasil contains 225 mcg. aluminum and Cervarix 500 mcg, that produce the Alzheimer, Parkinson and autism, produce too neurotoxic and immune system disorders (Blaylock 2012) and Polisorbato 80, a powerful contraceptive, that in experimental animals produces sterility, atrophy of the testicles and disturbance organic and funtional of the organs of the reproduction; is carcinogenic and mutagenic; also contains sodium borate considered poison unused in medicinal preparations (NLM)
http://www.telefonica.net/web2/paramahamsa/vacunaninosalerta.html http://detenganlavacuna.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/gardasil-cervarix/
Have been discovered to date 200 types of HPV; HPV is not infectious, contagious; the intercourse is not only that the persons is contaminated
http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-papiloma-humano.html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
On 22-11-2010 FDA approved Gardasil for males aged 9 to 26 to prevent warts and cancer to the anus, is overkill
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
http://salud.aollatino.com/2011/02/02/aprueba-fda-nueva-indicacion-vacuna-tetravalente-vph-eeuu/
For the reasons since from deep Peru Huancayo, I believe that this vaccine is a fraud?, robbery?, swindle?, rough joke?.
The HPV is not scientifically proved for the moment that produce the UCC its effectiveness shall be verified just the years of 2025-2030.
Dr. Godofredo Arauzo
E mail: godo.ara@ gmail.com
You actually make it seem so easy together with your presentation however
I in finding this topic to be actually one thing that I believe I might by no means understand.
It kind of feels too complicated and very large for me.
I’m having a look ahead in your subsequent publish, I’ll attempt to get the dangle of
it!