February 18, 2009
Escrito en Buitrago del Lozoya (Madrid, España), el miércoles 18 de febrero de 2009 por Juan Gérvas Médico de Canencia de la Sierra, Garganta de los Montes y El Cuadrón (Madrid). Profesor (Salud Pública) en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
1/ In order to begin, I insist on which “informed consent” would be due to ask pre-adolescents and/or parents. We know of effects adverse serious (“chances” that says), until death, from 2007. The minimum is to sell the vaccine with its “adverse advantages” and their effects, by more doubtful that they are (not more doubtful the adverse effects that the advantages, and those are precocious). It is I infuriate, and of an absurd paternalism, to sell the vaccine only with advantages. The minimum is the honesty in the sale of the product. It would be possible to be protested by that to sell the benefits without announcing possible damages.
2/ I insist on in the short term distinguishing between adverse effects (death, convulsions, síncope, fading, intense pain, arthralgias and others) and adverse effects to long term. They increase the congenital anomalies in the embazadas women who are vaccinated. I have already indicated the increase of abortions in the vaccinated women ( nonabortions in whom they are vaccinated being pregnant but in the vaccinated ones that soon remain pregnant). Of that nothing is said, but the EMEA has a group of vaccinated Norwegians in pursuit, by the preoccupation on the matter. On the other hand, in the long term, it is possible to wait for a change of the “ecology” of the vagina and the neck of uterus, by the effect of the “empty niche” (virus oncogénicos against which the both bovine disappearance of); there are data that suggest the development of cancers of more aggressive neck of uterus in the vaccinated ones.
Also to long term it is possible to wait for changes in the sexual conduct of the vaccinated children, perhaps in form to accept more immune risks when feeling front to the more frequent sexual disease (and when ignoring that they only defend of two virus of the fifteen well-known oncogénicos) what will entail more sífilis, gonococia and clamidias, and more pregnancies nonwished (and voluntary abortions) and sterility.
3/ Of the VAERS data American a frequency of 625 adverse effects declared can be deduced by each million doses put of the vaccine against the VPH (it includes 1.8 deaths associated by million dose).
With the vaccine against the meningitis, we can consider a frequency of 424 adverse effects declared by each million doses put (it includes 0.6 deaths associated by million dose). That is to say, the first vaccine is associated to more declarations of effects adverse, and more serious (the triple,
with respect to deaths). In Spain 1.200.000 doses of the vaccine against the VPH have been put already, soon we would have to wait for 750 declarations of adverse effects, of them serious 6% (that is to say, 45, that probably includes some death).
4/ He is showy that the vaccine against the VPH is being put in Spain and the world, mainly to women noncovered by the vacunal program (this one, of children and pre-adolescents, only represents 25% of the business in Spain). In agreement it increases the age diminishes the effectiveness. In the nonvirgin women it is of as soon as 17%, until the 28 years; later it gets to fall to 0%.
5/ He is serious that the vaccine in the children has been tried in hardly thousand five hundred minors of 16 years ( to apply it soon to million throughout the world), but in addition in these thousands only five hundred the humoral immunity has studied (in the blood) when the natural immunity is in the cells of the uterus neck. It is a scientific unfounded extrapolation to happen of cellular humoral immunity to and supposing beneficial effects by the change in the antibodies in the blood.
6/ He is urgent that commits the pharmaceutical companies to become position of the expenses of the adverse effects, of the damages that the vaccine causes, and in his case of the expenses that entails the massive revaccination in the long term (if the duration of the immunity is of less than 30 years). He is ridiculous to demand “causality” proven for the association with adverse effects, because the own vaccine does not have “proven causality” of effectiveness, but simple association with less injuries produced by the virus against which bovine (effectiveness of the 17% if east effect referred to the injuries is only considered associated the virus against which bovine, and if the analysis becomes of the clinical tests since there is to do it, “by intention to treat”). And
7/ The infection by VPH is frecuentísima, almost in 90% of the women, but the death by cancer of uterus neck is muy-muy infrequent (for example, of 0.3% in Spain). Es decir, las mujeres tienen un potentísimo mecanismo defensor inmunogénico frente al VPH oncogénico. ¿Vamos a modificarlo y a jugar a aprendices de brujo?