My Post-Its Have Arrived!
Dr. Eve Switzer Would Rather We Recover Our Children from a Pond than their Autism

Puerto Rico Requires Genital Wart Vaccine for 11 and 12 Year Olds

Gardasil Puerto RicoNote: Could the increase in genital warts be due to a decrease or flat our refusal to use condoms and not due to a "lack of vaccination?"  From LiveScience: The percentage of sexually active teens who use condoms has declined over the last decade, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2013, 59 percent of high school students who had sex in the last three months said they used a condom during their last sexual encounter, down from 63 percent in 2003, the report said.

From Washington Post, aka Merck's Daily Sales Sheet.....

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Puerto Rico’s government is ordering all students ages 11 and 12 to get vaccinated against HPV by next year.

Monday’s announcement follows a rise in cancers tied to the human papillomavirus across the U.S. territory. Health officials said the rate of cervical cancer in Puerto Rico is 11 percent compared with 7 percent in the U.S. mainland.

Health Secretary Rafael Rodriguez said the requirement applies to both public and private schools. Students can opt out for medical or religious reasons if they present a sworn declaration or a doctor’s certification.

Officials said those lacking health insurance will receive free vaccines at health centers.

At least two states and Washington D.C. require that students be vaccinated against HPV.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ATSC

Eindeker,

I don't know how you can expect thinking people to trust vaccine science when its researchers have concluded that mercury in vaccines is good for children's brains, that the mercury in vaccines is safe because it leaves the blood faster than methylmercury, and that the MMR studies show that vaccines and vaccine ingredients don't cause autism.

Then there's the HPV study that JBaby posted earlier where the only adverse events listed under "Safety" for the 25% of subjects who remained in the study to the end were: a fatal road accident 4.7 years postdose; tonic-clonic movements after a bloodtest, 7 years postdose and a cranial nerve paralysis 131 days postdose which (surprisingly) was "determined by the investigator to be vaccine-related". Would anyone seriously consider that the other two events 4-7 years post-vaccine could have been vaccine-related, or that other participants had perfect mental and physical health immediately after vaccine administration and for the duration of the eight-year study?

Did anyone follow-up the 56 participants who received only one or two doses of the vaccine and ask them why they didn't continue with the series? We are not told but perhaps they suffered strong reactions considered too common after other vaccines to be mentioned - such as pain, redness, or swelling in the arm where the shot was given, fever, headache, feeling tired, nausea, muscle or joint pain (CDC) - and didn't want to experience vaccine-caused illness again. I don't think these reactions should be considered not serious AEs, simply because they're common, do you?

Now this is real science. @37.35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=448DKHpbvMU


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/12/peds.2013-4144.full.pdf
Long-term Study of a Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

Rtp

“You use school yard name calling”

From the guy who called me a lunatic. Good one.


“Lesson 1 in Statistics for beginners RTP Look for confounding factors”

Ok. Here’s a confounding factor. Doctors typically refuse to diagnose the condition if the patient is vaccinated. This renders all the data supposedly showing a fall in the disease after the vaccine has been introduced invalid.

“in your bizarre example, it probably demonstrates that contraceptive use (by prostitutes) has a negative correlation with childbirth, OK”

Wow! You’re amazing! You figured that out all by yourself! More to the point, retrospective studies allow the authors to *choose the controls* they want allowing themselves to “disprove” any link between any variables they like.

“This was the basic error that Hooker made in his flawed analysis of the DeStefano data, by ignoring the potential confounding issue of MMR being administered to children if they entered the state care system when behavioural issues became apparent, DeStefano actually mentioned this issue in the discussion at the end of the 2004 paper.”

Irrelevant. We are talking about whether it has been shown that vaccines *do not* cause autism not whether some of the papers showing that they do are flawed. As per usual with the baby-poisoning crowd it is one red herring after another.

As for positive evidence of their link - we know there is a very strong correlation at the population level – and this is true all around the world despite differences in pollution levels, diet etc – but in all places with mass vaccine programs. So there is a very strong suspicion of a connection in terms of statistics.

However, the most powerful argument for vaccines causing autism isn’t statistics it is challenge, rechallenge equivalents. The fact that there is an extremely strong correlation *at the population level* as well as this tells us that vaccines cause autism and they do it a lot.

If the same kind of challenge, rechallenge equivalent stories were relayed by parents for any other consumer (even medical) product then every single last one of them would be taken off the shelves immediately. Indeed, just a challenge story would be considered compelling enough for most of them.

“You don't understand statistics and you should stop using them. You can't use sampling data to prove two variables aren't correlated - that is known as the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis. Oh dear RTP the Null Hypothesis works by assuming there is no correlation between 2 variables and then testing to see if there appears to be a correlation & the likelihood of this occurring by chance alone.”

Poor Eindecker completely out of his depth here.

You completely missed the point and demonstrated your terrible understanding once again.

You start with the assumption there is no link. If you *don’t* find evidence that assumption is wrong then you throw the paper away. You found nothing of interest. You HAVE NOT proven that your initial assumption is correct – sampling data can’t do that – you merely haven’t shown it is wrong. Again, you can reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject it. You can never accept it.

It is like asking Johnny Cochrane to find his client’s murder weapon. If he did then you would know it existed but if he didn’t then it would tell you exactly nothing about whether it existed. And he could search for a million years, find nothing and it would still tell you absolutely nothing about whether it existed.

“Lesson 2 in Microbiology for beginners RTP Abx also kill germs. But the germ killing isn't what fixes the problem Funny how choosing the correct antibiotic has a major impact on clinical outcomes in bacterial infections, otherwise why all the concern over the rise in antibiotic resistance, http://www.antibioticresearch.org.uk/ ??”

I can’t believe you went there. The concept of abx resistance is just as devastating for your belief as recurrent antibiotic use. Which I noticed you didn’t respond to. Funny that. It is always the same with you isn’t it? You ask a question, I answer it in a way that actually destroys your position even more and you just go on to the next point without addressing the flaws in your own beliefs.

Now, why is abx resistance devastating to your belief? Well it isn’t consistent is it? When patient X has something blamed on strep they give them abx A and they get better (as in their symptoms are reduced). Patient Y down the hall in the hospital also has something blamed on strep and they are also given abx A but they don’t get better.

Doctors say “oh no! Abx A isn’t working on patient Y because the germ is resistant now”, completely ignoring what just happened to Patient X. So in one patient the bacteria is resistant, in the other one the exact same bacteria are completely vulnerable to the abx.

So bacterial resistance has nothing to do with it. Because the bacteria has nothing to do with it. Well not nothing. Bacteria play an important part in cleaning up dead tissue and killing them with abx as well as other germs are harmful to us, but the bacteria don’t cause the disease and the abx – whilst they kill germs – don’t reduce the symptoms as a result of reducing the bacteria.

The different effects of the same antibiotics (thought to be on the same germs) is because of the differences in patients in terms of where their healing phase is up to. In some cases the abx can actually exacerbate symptoms in other cases they suppress them. Analgesics and natural treatments can do the same by the way – they (especially natural treatments) usually aren’t as potent in terms of their effect on the brain though so the problem is less noticeable.

Jesus baby

"...he is certainly a pharma professional - or on behalf of some public relations agency of the pharmaceutical government complex."

Ah, the ole "pharma shill gambit", John? Jolly good!

Morag

Hello John, don't worry about these online [" Chanty Wrastlers "]-" Bed pan movers and shakers" Pushing their own envelopes for profit! If they havn't even got the courage of their convictions to identify themselves properly ,then they are probably not worth giving their personal opinions the time of day to .
Emeritus Professor Uisdean or Huisdean FMedSci FRSE Aberdeen Uni. A scholar and a gentleman of bacteriology by comparison.
"Aye,aye Professor ewe'r absolutely right we have always ironed our tea towles with an iron on the highest setting anyway " It's basic common sense ,good hygiene standards for basic "elf n safety risk assessments in anyones kitchen home pr commercialised "
Your articles and intentions are considered honourable,well balanced and well researched ,that stands out a mile ! What is CHS short for? Your hard work is much appreciated , Thank you .

Hans Hitten

Eindicker

EU Courts Rule Vaccine Injuries Can Exist
06/22/2017

In the United States, you can’t sue a pharmaceutical company due to a vaccine injury. But now in the EU, you can consider a vaccine to be the cause of an illness, at least if you are a Doctor. The bold ruling came down today via the Court of Justice.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Wednesday that courts may consider vaccines to be the cause of an illness, even in the absence of scientific evidence confirming a link.
by Taboola
The EU’s highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person’s receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof.
The ruling stemmed from the case of a French man known as J.W. who was vaccinated against hepatitis B in 1998 and developed multiple sclerosis a year later. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disorder in which the body’s own immune system attacks the brain and spinal cord. The disease scars nerve tissue and causes a range of symptoms, from vision problems to paralysis. J.W. died in 2011.

EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific evidence

John Stone

Eindeker

Obviously Brian Hooker was not the only person who was not satisfied by the explanation for excluding African Americans from the 2004 paper: another person who comes to mind is William Thompson, the co-author who identified the problem to him and stll wants to testify to Congress about it, although the US's pharma bought out congressman don't want to hear him. Beyond that one should also mention the Cochrane review of 2005 which commented in its mealy-mouthed way:

"The conclusion, however, implied bias in the enrollment of cases which may not be representative of the rest of the autistic population of the city of Atlanta, USA where the study was set."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=6FE0084412306C5E4EE4D7C16F32E848.f02t02

Of course, you can read your flannel explanation from some self-appointed fact arbiter like Snopes but it won't do.

John Stone

Morag

Eindekker with an extra "k" was apparently a small German First World War aircraft - I don't know what the origin of the fantasy is but plainly he buzzes AoA, and I think his by-line has appeared on CHS. Before that he used to turn up JABS Forum with another pseudonym indicating a preference for simple explanations - perhaps this goes along the lines that the rich and powerful are always right and the only people who never commit fraud. I do appreciate that there is a certain gentlemanly good nature about him at least by intent.

I don't know whether he does it on his own behalf - he is certainly a pharma professional - or on behalf of some public relations agency of the pharmaceutical government complex. Obviously they have been interested in me in Whitehall for many years and it is me he generally goes after.

Eindeker

Let's keep it short and sweet RTP 2 gems from you that is known as the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis. & Abx also kill germs. But the germ killing isn't what fixes the problem You use school yard name calling Alternatively, you're an abject fool and logic.
Lesson 1 in Statistics for beginners RTP Look for confounding factors, in your bizarre example, it probably demonstrates that contraceptive use (by prostitutes) has a negative correlation with childbirth, OK. This was the basic error that Hooker made in his flawed analysis of the DeStefano data, by ignoring the potential confounding issue of MMR being administered to children if they entered the state care system when behavioural issues became apparent, DeStefano actually mentioned this issue in the discussion at the end of the 2004 paper. You don't understand statistics and you should stop using them. You can't use sampling data to prove two variables aren't correlated - that is known as the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis. Oh dear RTP the Null Hypothesis works by assuming there is no correlation between 2 variables and then testing to see if there appears to be a correlation & the likelihood of this occurring by chance alone.
Lesson 2 in Microbiology for beginners RTP Abx also kill germs. But the germ killing isn't what fixes the problem Funny how choosing the correct antibiotic has a major impact on clinical outcomes in bacterial infections, otherwise why all the concern over the rise in antibiotic resistance, http://www.antibioticresearch.org.uk/ ?? If the only effect of antibiotics is to relieve symptoms and killing bugs isn't important we have nothing to worry about with the rise in antibiotic resistance and the lack of new antibiotics do we RTP??
That's wasted enough time on your silly nonsense RTP you go and live in your belief bubble

@Hera Read the paper, there is a good discussion on which ICD codes were used and why, there was a 2 year follow up and the data are from the Norwegian national registry, where if it follows UK example disease classification by ICD code is mandatory. Come back when you've read the paper with your questions.

Hans Hitten

EinDicker - this has got to hurt :

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/06/stop-fake-news-network-presses-vaccines-can-blamed-illnesses-diseases.html

The European Union Court (EUC) recently (June 21, 2017) sent a mammoth gaff into the side of Big Pharma’s most sacred cows, Vaccines!

How dare the EUC do such a thing, especially since the U.S. CDC/FDA and SCOTUS seemingly suck up to; probably tap out or into Pharma’s “cool aide”; and even may brown nose Big Pharma’s pseudo vaccinology ‘science’.

Morag

Gruss Gott Eindaker-["one wing"] ? Is Eindaker a nickname ? Reminds me of crooks and coronets 1969 comedy with Telly Savalas as Herbie Haseler . No personal offence intended chum !
Charactistics of bleeders in 2002 and 2005 -- vegetable,animal, mineral or people . from 2007 paper
VIOXX/ Rofecoxib --Full paper to read at www.acedemia.edu/ Upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the changing use of cox-2 non- steroidal, anti- inflammatory drugs and low dose asprin 2007
Direct observation of obituary column statistics are not anecdotal and will not be abusively sanitised by academic amadons who wish to attempt to forensically fondle the appendigages of their own data!
equivilent to writing their own exam questions marking their own exam papers and deciding their own pass mark !
As we used to say in Dachau General Hospital Staff room . Quick quick ,look look , the data doesn't have a full set of tea cups and saucers in it's own tea cups and saucers cupboard!

John Stone

I notice that Eindekker retreated on another thread when having asked me to compare the conflicts of Andrew Pollard with Andrew Wakefield and I made it clear that it worked out very unfavourably to "poor Prof Pollard".

Hera

Eindeker,
Smetimes bless you, you do come across as seriously naive. You really can't imagine how a researcher could manipulate large data sets to get a desired result?

Well, lets take a hypothetical product X. I suspect perhaps that it causes neurological problems in some cases,perhaps also paralysis, autoimmune issues, sometimes death.
What could I do?
Well, I could take a very large number of cases, and look at ALL the ICD codes that are used by the doctors office and see if any increase after the patients take product X . I could see for example if there is an increase in codes relating to paralysis, nerve damage etc. I could even see if there was an increase in referrals to specialists in these or other areas. I could see if there was an increase in hospitalizations, too. I could look at death rates and diabetes diagnosis rates, multiple sclerosis etc diagnosis rates over the next several years, knowing how long it can take to get an autoimmune diagnosis.
But let us say that I love product X. For some reason, ( maybe my current or future funding is going to be dependent on my results) I need product X to look good.

Well, I am not going to look at all those ICD codes, because I will probably find something. I am certainly not going to follow out for three or four years to look at long term health. I would probably stack the non product user side of the deck with much sicker people ( say use people who were hospitalized a lot as part of my non product X group.)
Then I would have to appear to be looking at something. So, maybe I would choose to look at a very controversial diagnosis, that most doctors don't like to use in ICD codes. Perhaps for our product X example, maybe we could choose "chronic fatigue",or something else that isn't being used much to describe neurological problems, and then sure enough, no more diagnoses in my product group.

So now, I would report these results. Al perfectly legit and completely accurate. No data fudging here. Most likely these results will be reported in newspapers etc as showing how safe product X is. All I may have really shown in our hypothetical example is that doctors may choose to use different codes to describe neurological damage, but it might look really good if no one looks closely at the study, doesn't it? Do you think you would be fooled in my hypothetical case?

rtp

"There are multiple sets of data on almost 1,000,000 individuals, to me it's inconceivable that a data set so large could be manipulated."

That's funny considering you believe the autism numbers are all wrong and just represent better diagnosing etc.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand statistics and you should stop using them. You can't use sampling data to prove two variables aren't correlated - that is known as the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis.

The very act of undertaking this particular study is fraud. Here is an example:

Let's say you wanted to prove there was no link between sex and childbirth. You could take 500,000 married (non-prostitute) women and 500,000 unmarried prostitutes. You compare the number of times each person in each group had intercourse and the number of babies born. You would likely find that there was a *negative* correlation between intercourse and childbirth.

According to you, it is against the laws of physics for a statistical study to be wrong if it has at least 1 million participants so we must conclude that sex has nothing to do with having children.

Alternatively, you're an abject fool.

Baby-poisoners worship statistics but not a single one of them has the slightest clue how to use them correctly.

You can't use sampling studies to disprove two links because you can't escape the problem that if you don't look, it is remarkably easy not to find. Not finding something tells us precisely nothing about whether something is there. Finding it tells us it is, not finding it doesn't prove that it isn't.

That is why you can reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it, but you can *never* accept it.

The authors on these studies should know such things as they are rookie errors but they don't care because they know that all baby poisoners will believe anything that supports their evil.

The one and only valid method of proving the safety of a product is through a stress test. Cohort studies might be appropriate to give an appreciation of the sorts of reactions you would more be more likely to see but cannot be used to demonstrate you can't have any reactions at all.

And when are you going to answer my questions on the other thread?

John Stone

Eindekker

Nothing to do with Rummy, much more to do with your habit of adding on to what I am supposed to have said. I was pointing out that the paper - contrary to your original submission - was institutionally completely conflicted. As to the list of people perhaps I was having a joke at your expense but I wasn't sure why you listed them.

You are right, perhaps I ought to see whether I can get a free subscription to Science Direct, though I can't recall ever claiming that HPV vaccines cause CFS/ME.

Han Litten

Eindicker ? Assuming this disastrous news is true . Autism rates in London are now at 11% .
And climbing to the Seneff projection levels .

which of the following condtions applies to you :

1. Worried about the depth of the criminality you have involved yourself in ?
2. Worried about any retribution that might come your way for this (given we all know all electronic communication is fully traceable , including yours , including TOR , including inscription , including logarithms , there is no hiding place ?
3. Jumping around your living quarters , whooping sounds of celebration at the success of the largest mass poisoning of the human race in all history .

I am guessing its number 3 . Eindicker ?

Eindeker

Who's this from John I am only suggesting what I am suggestingquote from Donald Rumpsfeld?
What's this mean Johnperhaps they are all your intimate friends???
"Obviously, I can't comment on methodology but you began by conveying false information. The link is no better than previous one I tried to help John & remain civil, a long time ago I had signed up to Science Direct as an individual, perhaps you should do so, it didn't cost me anything.

Nevertheless here's the summary section from the paper:
Methods

Individual data from national registries, including the Norwegian Population Registry, the Norwegian Patient Registry and the Norwegian Immunisation Registry were linked using the unique personal identification number. Yearly incidence rates of CFS/ME for 2009–2014 were calculated among the 824,133 boys and girls, aged 10–17 living in Norway during these 6 years. A total of 176,453 girls born 1997–2002 were eligible for HPV vaccination and included in further analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) of CFS/ME were estimated using Cox regression. Risk differences (RDs) of vaccine uptake were estimated with binomial regression.

Results

A similar yearly increase in incidence rate of CFS/ME was observed among girls and boys, IRR = 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.19) and 1.15 (95% CI 1.09–1.22), respectively. HPV vaccination was not associated with CFS/ME, HR = 0.86 (95% CI 0.69–1.08) for the entire follow-up period and 0.96 (95% CI 0.64–1.43) for the first two years after vaccination. The risk of CFS/ME increased with increasing number of previous hospital contacts, HR = 5.23 (95% CI 3.66–7.49) for 7 or more contacts as compared to no contacts. Girls with 7 or more hospital contacts were less likely to be vaccinated than girls with no previous hospital contacts, RD = −5.5% (95% CI −6.7% to −4.2%).

Conclusions

No indication of increased risk of CFS/ME following HPV vaccination was observed among girls in the first 6 birth cohorts offered HPV vaccine through the national immunisation programme in Norway.

Han Litten

Eindicker , are you there ? Better diagnosis , is that it ?
Ok JDS > 10 Percent . But 11 percent and climbing means all these low level collaborators have gotto be seriously worried for their own safety and their involvement in this ?

Eindicker ? 11.1 and rising - Eindicker ?


John Stone

Hans

(I seem to be surrounded by counterfeit Germans) my headline focussed on the number 10,000 but I think 11.1% would be far too precise. But it is likely in that region.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/05/10000-new-cases-of-autism-in-london-a-year-as-bureaucrats-plan-to-dump-children.html

Han Litten

Eindicker , JDS

Seriously jDS , Autism in London at 11.1 % . Is this a new headline ?
Isnt this the top story ?

Even Eindicker knows this is ABSOLUTELY HUGE NEWS ¬!!!!!!!!!!!!Q!!!!!!!!!!!

John Stone

Eindeker

I am only suggesting what I am suggesting. You began by suggesting that this was an independent paper when it was a group of people monitoring their own policy (which is undesirable). After all who will be to blame if they find anything? The findings related anyway solely CFS/ME. What does it mean to list their names - I can't vouch for any of them - perhaps they are all your intimate friends. As a body NIPH are committed to the extending the vaccine program as an instrument of health policy.

Obviously, I can't comment on methodology but you began by conveying false information. The link is no better than previous one: it is odd how many publicly funded research papers are restricted access these days.

Eindeker

John, I'm sorry you couldn't follow the link, try this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308083 . The quote regarding funding was a straight lift from the paper; the authors and their affiliations are

Berit Feiringa, , ,
Ida Laakea, ,
Inger Johanne Bakkenb, ,
Margrethe Greve-Isdahlc, ,
Vegard Bruun Wyllerd, ,
Siri E. Håberge, ,
Per Magnusf, ,
Lill Trogstada,
a Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Modelling, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway
b Department of Child Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway
c Department of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway
d Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Health, Akershus University Hospital, 1478 Lørenskog, Norway
e Division of Physical and Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway
f Division of Health Data and Digitalisation, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway

Are you suggesting the results were "fiddled" or "massaged" to get the outcomes required? There are multiple sets of data on almost 1,000,000 individuals, to me it's inconceivable that a data set so large could be manipulated. If you could see the paper there are numerous cross referenced analyses, not just a simple vaccinated/unvaccinated v HPV yes/no. The answers they give are a coherent whole, eg the observed increase in Norwegian CFS/ME diagnosis was the same in boys and girls, there was a significant correlation between "previous medical history" and CFS/ME diagnosis but not with HPV vaccine status.

This impressive analysis on an exceedingly large data base does really lay to rest the hypothesis of HPV vaccination and CFS/ME diagnosis, unless you are going to invoke some gargantuan conspiracy theory.

John Stone

Eindeker

I could not download the paper or any information about it from the link you provide. Hovever, I note your comment:

"The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors"

But to be clear I read in another report:

""This is a major study where we have investigated the association between HPV vaccination and chronic fatigue syndrome. The incidence of this disease has increased in Norway, but we found no association with HPV vaccination," says first author of the study, Berit Feiring from the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Modelling at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health."

Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-06-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-hpv-vaccination.html#jCp

So, it was Norwegian Institue of Public Health (NIPH) and they were investigating their own policy.

To get this further in context I turned up an announcement of an event hosted by NIPH:

" Norway to host global epidemic preparedness organisation, CEPI

"The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) will host the new global Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). The CEPI Secretariat will be a separate, independent organisation based at the NIPH premises but with nodes in London and Delhi.

"Published 24.01.2017

"CEPI was launched during the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos on January 19th. At the launch were Erna Solberg, Prime Minister of Norway, Guinea's President Alpha Konde, Bill Gates, as well as Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust and Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline.

"CEPI is a partnership of public, private and humanitarian organisations that will stimulate, coordinate and fund the development of vaccines against selected diseases, particularly where development does not occur through market incentives."

https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2017/folkehelseinstituttet-skal-huse-den-globale-organisasjonen-cepi/

Eindeker

Re Further information on Gardasil adverse events, an on-line version of a forthcoming paper shows no correlation between HPV vaccine and CFS/ME in a very large cohort of Norwegian adolescents http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308083
Using a national database the authors looked at any association between receiving quadrivalent HPV vaccine and occurrence of CFS/ME :Yearly incidence rates of CFS/ME for 2009–2014 were calculated among the 824,133 boys and girls, aged 10–17 living in Norway during these 6 years. A total of 176,453 girls born 1997–2002 were eligible for HPV vaccination and included in further analyses.
The authors concluded No indication of increased risk of CFS/ME following HPV vaccination was observed among girls in the first 6 birth cohorts offered HPV vaccine through the national immunisation programme in Norway.

The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

Angus Files

Exposing Pharma and its cult following to vaccine injury is like exposing a silver cross to a vampire -perish.

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

susan welch

John Stone. I wholeheartedly agree with your comments to Jesus Baby. I can only assume that he has cognitive dissonance or ties to Pharma. Either way, he is totally lacking in empathy for families who have suffered vaccine injury.

John Stone

Jesus Baby

People should follow the Medwatcher link for themselves and decide on their view of it. It seems to me obvious that siding with the injured against the vested interests of industry and state is not the professionally easy option. The professionally easy option is siding with liars and bullies, and styling yourself with the sarcastic "Jesus Baby" just to make the point that you are one of them.

As I have pointed out we have a system which absolutely never recognises vaccine injury voluntarily, and systematically abuses anyone who speaks up. Just occasionally for those very legally adept in the US it may make private concessions. But the whole thing is based on a crazy legal fiction. Even look at the FDA package inserts and we know that the products cause injury, but as things stand the bureaucracy can just walk away and snear 99.9% of the time.

Are these honourable people? No, they are the manipulators of public institutions that Eisenhower was warning about in his farewell address in 1961. All it illustrates is that once the checks and balances are removed from the system, once ordinary people are denied normal legal redress, everything will fall into the hands of criminal exploiters and go to hell. That is what happened with the Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, and that is exactly where we are now - and being taunted by you, as if that was not bad enough - as the wreckage piles up.

I think - taking my cue from Linda - that you are beginning to out-stay your welcome.

Jesus baby

John,

The quote you didn't reference comes from the April 2015 bulletin "Med Check - The Informed Prescriber", a Japanese newsletter, with Hama listed as Editor-in-Chief. The numbers they use are based on reported adverse events, which is, again, anecdotal, although they equate them as side effects.
http://www.npojip.org/english/MedCheck/Med%20Check-TIP%2001-4-25.pdf

You don't know what's in it for Hama. You're concerned that an author in the Pediatrics study is from Merck.

Med Check-TIP is supported by Medwatcher Japan, an NGO founded in 1997. It is funded from a foundation of personal injury lawyers.
http://www.yakugai.gr.jp/en/about/
Medwatcher states they have "been building a cooperative relationship with attorney liaisons, consisting of lawyers who handle class action lawsuits relating to drug-induced disasters in Japan (this group was founded in 2004)." Healy is a guest speaker for them.
So which is more likely, one Merck employee manipulated data in a vaccine study despite 12 other authors and the Pediatrics review panel, or Hama writes bogus news bulletins attacking drugs to give ammunition to the personal injury lawyers who pay his salary?

John Stone

Just to add there is no point at which the system genuinely acknowledges harm, it only makes no fault payments at best while preventing the decisions being made public to avoid establishing precedent (that is in the US). In the UK there is another no fault system which was virtually never activated for years until the Department for Works and Pensions embarrassed the High Court by actively lying over the payment criteria. Also, while in the UK there is a theoretical possibility left of suing the manufacturer the politicised Legal Aid Agency would actively prevent it - and even then proof would be at the civil level, and would not acknowledge that damage had ever certainly happened. Moreover, anyone who gave evidence would end up in professional trouble.

But the fundamental principle of government in relation the vaccine program is hit and run - the challenge to the citizen in any single case is prove it with every organ of government (not to mention mainstream media) ranged against you. It is exactly how they behave which proves the point: if they were concerned they would be listening, sympathetic. Instead we have the naked discretion of government: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Linda1

"Where are all those sacrificed young women, I mean other than anecdotes like YouTube videos and VAERS dumpster-diving? Why do study after study fail to find them? Like this one:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/12/peds.2013-4144.full.pdf....

Who exactly has died from HPV vaccination?...

Please stop spreading the myth that HPV vaccination causes primary ovarian failure also."

I always appreciate AOA's editorial tolerance, and I'm not criticizing. But you know what, I don't think this outrageous trolling, lying and disrespect for the casualties of this war should be published. This is too much from JB, more like Rosemary's.

Jeannette Bishop

Measles death rate (per 100,000) in U.S. about 10 years prior to vaccination (pp. 85, 547-548 or 93, 553 & 554 PDF pages):

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf

John Stone

Jesus Baby

Ipso facto, every report that you or the government you don't like is dismissed as anecdote. In my article for DavidHealy.com I cited data from Rokuro Hama and Japan (where the government don't support the vaccine), but I don't know what's in it for Dr Hama - he's just putting himself in the firing line for a lot of very powerful and ruthless people. On the other hand, the last named author in the study you link to - by convention the last named author is important - is actually an employee of Merck.

I note this is about Cervarix not Gardasil:

"Abstract: Incidence of serious adverse reactions to HPV vaccine is 3.2% per year according to our recalculation using the latest data (3,200 cases per 100,000 person years). This is almost equivalent to the incidence rate of serious adverse events within 1.2 years after the first vaccination (annual rate of 2.8%) reported in the randomized controlled trials (RCT) of Cervarix. In Cervarix RCTs, the excess incidence of serious reactions, autoimmune diseases and death after 3.4 years comparing with those during 1.2-3.4 years was calculated as 4,000 patients, 630 patients and over 100 deaths per 100,000 person-years respectively. These might also occur in Japan. As to the epidemiological surveys from Europe and North America that Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) based on as the evidence for safety of the vaccine have flaws in their methodologies. One study confuses prevalence with incidence, and the other two have serious bias derived from “healthy vaccinee effect”. While there is no evidence confirming that HPV vaccination decreases incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer yet, supposing that the vaccine could halve the cervical cancer mortality, the expected maximum benefit would be two deaths per 100,000 person-years at the most. Hence, the harm experienced is overwhelmingly greater than the benefit expected."

Hama is a special advisor to the Cochrane Collaboration. And at least in this case Hama is not alone, there are quite number other scientists who have put their careers and livelihoods on the line to criticise these awful products and their promotion.

As I have pointed vaccine lobby advocates don't pick and choose what they support, they support everything as a matter of principle however flawed.

John Stone

Eindeker

I am only responsible for what I write, and I don't know whether Del Bigtree would like to respond. The point is I am not trying to minimalise the risk of cervical cancer, but I am pointing to the disgraceful way that victims of the program are being treated (about which so far you have nothing to say). And bear in mind we are not talking about people who mis-trusted the vaccine program, but people who trusted it. The only way the government-industrial complex can deal with it is with lies, hate and social repression. No one is thanking the victims for their sacrifice, they just get further abuse.

Rodrigues was either lying, incompetent or being misreported - whichever way it was a political statement associated with oppressive measure against any standard of human rights and being manipulated the US news media, and this is what you support. If not, please say so. The Bigtree stuff is a distraction as was your original intervention. I hadn't mis-stated anything. The way Rodrigues stated the case left him out by a factor of 1000, whereas he might only been out by a factor of 10 if he had said something else which you thought he might of meant, but it was still lies.

Del should be clear about his data but at least he is not in bloody power.

Jesus baby

John,

Where are all those sacrificed young women, I mean other than anecdotes like YouTube videos and VAERS dumpster-diving? Why do study after study fail to find them? Like this one:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2014/08/12/peds.2013-4144.full.pdf
And remember, sending man to the moon was once considered a pipe dream. So was eliminating smallpox.

Grace,

Now that you understand cervical cancer doesn't largely affect older women, we can get more detailed. In the US in 2012 89% of women had had Pap smears in the last 5 years, and currently about 78% have had them in the last 3 years. Pap smears have a sensitivity of about 50%, and they only prevent invasive cervical cancer in that they can identify precancerous lesions that can be treated before they progress to that stage.
Concerning "median age", that means half of the patients are younger than 49. Here's a graph:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=3521146_fig-1.jpg
Who exactly has died from HPV vaccination?

Cait,

The above information should be helpful to you. Please stop spreading the myth that HPV vaccination causes primary ovarian failure also.

Eindeker

If it was in a good cause you wouldn't have to lie. What like Del Bigtree did in his "conversation" with Kathy Newman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHqt8Cz2nLk

You know enough about measles John would you say Bigtree's statements were lies or just that he didn't know what he was talking about & made stuff up, such as virtually "no measles deaths" before vaccines and a mortality rate of 1 in 300,000 cases of measles

and really all you are saying is that it was all in good cause. I didn't say that at all John, in fact I gave the correct figures which were nearer to those that you quoted than those that were stated in the article

John Stone

Eindeker

I am terribly sorry, but even if the efficacy was not completely speculative, the fact that it is only sustainable by a vitriolic campaign of lies and hatred against the victims of the product make it utterly wicked.

I made criticisms about a statement on the risk of disease which was not remotely true, and really all you are saying is that it was all in good cause. If it was in a good cause you wouldn't have to lie.

Cait from Canada

JB: The HPV vaccine has also been associated with infertility in the form of primary ovarian failure. The average victim is at least 30 years younger than your average 49-year-old cervical cancer victim.

You say there are 4,200 cases of cervical cancer deaths per year in the US "despite screening" — I assume you mean "despite the availability of screening" since it seems likely that some of those who died had not, in fact, been screened in a timely manner.

Grace Green

Jesus. How many of those 4200 have undergone regular screening, and how many 49 year olds are going to be concerned about infertility? Teenagers and children as young as 9 years old have died from the HPV vaccine, and some have been made infertile. Just compare the ages.

Eindeker

Grace & John
Jesus Baby gave a succinct summary but just 2 more stats in the UK 3300 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed every year, that's 1000's of women facing surgery and/or chemo plus the knowledge that they have been diagnosed with cancer, the corresponding US figure is just under 12000. There maybe co-factors John such as age of the start of sexual activity & HIV coinfection but the 100% requirement for cervical cancer to develop is for the women to be colonised by HPV, and, as Jesus Baby points out there are a limited number of HPV strains implicated in cervical cancer, so eliminate these and cervical cancer should decrease, there's already strong epidemiological evidence that the pre-cancerous lesions are significantly reduced in women vaccinated against HPV.

You can press for as much cervical screening as you want but as one of the recent articles on AoA rather appropriately said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure......

John Stone

Jesus Baby

But even if it is not a pipe dream, what about all the young women you have sacrificed to building Rome (the collateral damage)?

Jesus baby

Grace,

The median age for cervical cancer in the US is 49. Despite screening about 4200 women in the US die from it each year, which is about 1/3 the number of new cases annually, so it's not easily treated. The treatments commonly cause infertility and can be pretty brutal.

John,

Over 99% of cases are due to high-risk strains of HPV, so immunizing against them should prevent most cases. It takes a long time for HPV to cause invasive disease, but we've already seen significant reductions in precancerous lesions. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Grace Green

Eindeker/Jesus Baby(NOT), to add to the comments already made by other vaccine safety advocates, there are also the points that cervical cancer has a life-style connection, it is easily tested for, and treated, and also largely affects older women. I've heard, on a video, a vaccine pusher saying, it would be terrible for these girls we're vaccinating to die of cancer at such a young age. Well, they won't! That is so disingenuous, and these "doctors" know it.

John Stone

Eindeker/Jesus Baby

But the fact is that there is no evidence that vaccines will reduce the rates cervical cancer - this is a purely speculative benefit for the future - meanwhile hate campaigns have to be mounted against anyone who speaks up about the adverse and often catastrophic effects:

https://davidhealy.org/the-couric-incident-hpv-vaccine-mass-bullying/

On the most basic ethical assessment the HPV vaccine program was never even worth thinking about, and the products should never have been developed because it was impossible to demonstrate that they were effective in any realistic time scheme. An interesting question is why they were. Here the principle is first do a lot of harm and then see whether we get any benefit.

It is curious how vaccine lobby advocates have to defend absolutely everything.

Eindeker

I note your hairsplitting correction, which only serves to make the general point more strongly.

-------

My father once remarked about death that it is almost invariably messy (and of course no one escapes it). But when you see so many young lives wrecked by bureaucratic whim, and when you see the mopping up operation against anybody who tries to speak up, the end certainly does not justify the means.

I do not think Jesus Baby is a very nice person, but Eindeker ought to know better.

PS If we accept a lifetime risk of cervical cancer of 1 in 135 for women, then that of course is still only 0.7% not 7%.

Jesus baby

You can also look at the number of UK women dying of cervical cancer per year - like 890 in 2014.

Eindeker

It has not been tested against a saline placebo, only a toxic aluminum adjuvant or the previous version of the vaccine, also not tested against an inert control. That statement is factually incorrect John one study did indeed compare Gardasil with a control that was neither a previous version of the vaccine nor did it contain an aluminium adjuvant.

Cait from Canada

Eindeker: These comments pertain to an article that purports to state the rate – not the lifetime risk – of cervical cancer.

Lifetime risk of cervical cancer is worth considering. But in fact it is really quite low as cancers go (1 in 135), with a risk of mortality of about 1 in 400. I don't think this level of risk warrants mandating a vaccine whose safety profile remains questionable, and whose efficacy (against cancer) remains speculative.

Eindeker

The actual statistic you should look at is the lifetime risk of a woman developing cervical cancer: in the UK it is 1 in every 135 women http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer#heading-Zero (0.74%) the US figure is 0.6% https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html
The UK 10 year survival rate is 63%, the US 5 year survival rate is 67%

Cait from Canada

A couple of days ago I filled out a form on the Associated Press site to notify them of the error in this article. As I haven't heard anything or seen a corrected version anywhere (the same article appeared in other newspapers), today I sent this message to the Washington Post:

"There is an significant statistical error in the June 12 Associated Press story “Puerto Rico orders students to get vaccinated against HPV”.

According to the article, “Health officials said the rate of cervical cancer in Puerto Rico is 11 percent compared with 7 percent in the U.S. mainland.” These rates have been overstated — whether by the health officials or by the AP reporter — by a factor of 1,000. The actual rates are not percent, but per 100,000 per year."

I am curious to see if they will post a corrected version of the article.

John Stone

Fals scientists

Not 1% either - see previous comments.

False scientists and reporters suck

Sounds like Health Sectetary Rodriguez of Puerto Rico and or the Washington Post are morons. They need to rectify their exaggeration in reporting 11 and 7% instead of approximately 1%.

Jesus baby

Bob,

Cervical cancer protection for Boys?

No, Bob. Is it too abstract?

John Stone

Indeed, Eileen Iorio commented under the story, not that it will make any difference to these scum:

E Iorio
6/13/2017 5:26 AM GMT
Please check your figures: "Health officials said the rate of cervical cancer in Puerto Rico is 11 percent compared with 7 percent in the U.S. mainland"
In fact Cervical cancer is 7 cases per 100,000 in the US mainland... and 12 cases per 100,000 in Puerto Rico.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6414a5...

Forcing children to undergo a medical treatment like a vaccine (which carries risk) when duration of efficacy has not been established, is an uncontrolled experiment. Mandating this vaccine is not allowing the children or their families informed consent. Cervical cancer cannot be caused by HPV alone, there are other risk factors which can be avoided. Cervical cancer can be detected via pap screening and treated. This vaccine should never be mandated on any child anywhere. Read the risks associated with this vaccine here: http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/ga...
It has not been tested against a saline placebo, only a toxic aluminum adjuvant or the previous version of the vaccine, also not tested against an inert control.

John Stone

Cait,

Oh, so they just multiplied by 1,000. That sounds like vaccine science today.

Cait from Canada

John, these purported stats jumped out at me too. This is wildly erroneous information. According to American Cancer Society statistics, the rate of incidence of cervical cancer in the US is around 7 — not percent — per 100,000. That's 0.007 percent. If we can similarly adjust the PR statistics (dividing by a thousand!), they would have a rate of 0.011 percent. Mortality rates for cervical cancer in the US are much lower, at about 2.3 deaths per 100,000.

kws

Yeah - it's become absurd now. I'm not sure where this will end. Vaccinating teenage boys to prevent cervical cancer when the vaccine has not been proven to work and reports of serious adverse events are emerging left and right ?

Holocaust is a apt description. The poor kids in Puerto Rico are now guinea pigs in Merck's evil and greedy experiment. The resulting data will make you cringe with pain. Hang on, this is going to get worse.

Linda1

Incidence stats straight from Pharma's evil marketing department. Wonder how many will be fooled.

John Stone

11% and 7% of what? 7% of women in the US do not have cervical cancer and I am sure 11% don't in Puerto Rico. What the hell are they talking about? This is Associated Press re-cycled by the Washington Post but they can't be arsed to report anything sensible.

Bob Moffit

"...... U.S. territory. Health officials said the rate of cervical cancer in Puerto Rico is 11 percent compared with 7 percent in the U.S. mainland."

The rising rate of cervical cancer is most likely due to the failure of Puerto Rico's "sex education" teachers .. to properly EDUCATE their students on the need to practice SAFE SEX. Unfortunately .. when career health officials have only hammers (vaccines) in their tool box .. every problem (cervical cancer) becomes a nail.

"Puerto Rico’s government is ordering all students ages 11 and 12 to get vaccinated against HPV by next year."

ALL students? BOYS as well as GIRLS? Because the "rate of cervical cancer" is 11% compared to 7% in US? Cervical cancer protection for Boys?

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY.

Ottoschnaut

Can you say, "cognitive dissonance?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/big-pharma-gives-your-doctor-gifts-then-your-doctor-gives-you-big-pharmas-drugs/2017/06/13/5bc0b550-5045-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

John Stone

Or could the increase in genital warts be due to vaccination?

Han Litten

Damn criminals.
The big squeeze is on.
Depopulation at full speed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)