Tracy Kettering PhD BCBA-D on Increasing Autism Numbers in New Jersey
Frustration Lasts Long After April

Study: Increased Rates of Cervical Cancer in Sweden Linked to Increase in HPV Vaccinations

HPV-test-alone-OK-cervical-cancer-screening-1440x810(Please see addendum)

Study: Increased Rates of Cervical Cancer in Sweden Linked to Increase in HPV Vaccinations


By Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

A new study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics examined cervical cancer rates among women in Sweden and discovered a link between increased cervical cancer rates among women aged 20-49 during a two-year period between 2014 and 2015, corresponding to increased HPV vaccination rates in this population group, years earlier, when mass HPV vaccinations started in Sweden.

Women above the age of 50, during this two-year period, saw no significant cervical cancer increase and were likely too old to have been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine.

Since the study casts doubt on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, and, in fact, links the vaccine to increased cancer rates, it is highly unlikely you will read about this in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media, where nothing negative about the blockbuster HPV Gardasil vaccine is allowed.

The study was conducted by Lars Andersson, PhD, from the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at the Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden.

Dr. Andersson states that:

…when the Swedish media discussed the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer, the health authorities were unable to explain the increase.

So Dr. Andersson discussed the possibility that mass HPV vaccination rates actually could be the cause of increased rates of cervical cancer:

HPV vaccination could play a role in the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer. About 25% of cervical cancers have a rapid onset of about three years including progression from normal cells to cancer.

Therefore, an increase may be seen within a short period of time.

Gardasil was approved in Sweden in 2006. In 2010, the vaccination of a substantial number of girls started. In 2010, about 80% of the 12-year-old girls were vaccinated.

Combined with 59% of the 13–18-year-old girls vaccinated through the catch-up programme in the same period, one can say that most girls were vaccinated.

Thus, the oldest girls in the programme were 23 years old in 2015; and this is well within the younger age group shown in Fig. 1.

Dr. Andersson points out that even the FDA’s own analysis of Gardasil in 2006 showed a higher risk of “premalignant cell changes” from the vaccine in certain groups that had already been exposed to some HPV strains:

Read more here.


Controversy has arisen around the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics article because the author had submitted under a false name to escape professional persecution. After consideration the the journal's editors decided not to retract the article and made the following statement:-

On May 8, the KI informed us that its department of physiology and pharmacology did not have any person of this name and requested us to remove the name of the institution. So, on the same day a correction was carried out and the name of KI was removed and duly intimated to KI.

Since then, we have investigated and learned the identity of the author. The author has said that he used a pseudonym because he believed the use of his real name would have invited personal repercussions from those opposed to any questioning of vaccines.

This deception of the journal’s editors is unacceptable. The author could have asked the editors for confidentiality, giving the reasons. Editors may choose to publish articles without revealing the true name of the author, if it is determined that the circumstances justify it.

However, we considered the matter and decided to keep the article on the site as the issues raised by it are important and discussion on it is in the public interest. The author’s true name is withheld at his request.




Jeannette Bishop

"Retracted"... more evidence that vaccine risks research is not even allowed... unless you find nothing problematic even if via methods of fraudulentology... then that's just fine...

Hans Litten

Dublin 2018 IFICA conference on HPV Gardasil Vaccination :

Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s responses to Dr. Brenda Corcoran’s comments on the IFICA meeting made on South East Radio’s Morning Mix – Monday 23rd April 2018. As an invited speaker at the IFICA meeting held on 21st April 2018 in Dublin, I felt obliged to respond to the authoritative public comments about mass HPV vaccination of young girls for cervical cancer prevention by Dr. Brenda Corcoran, Head of Ireland’s National Immunisation Office broadcast through South East Radio’s Morning Mix – Monday 23rd April 2018. The radio statements made by Dr. Corcoran are quoted in my responses as follows: Dr. Corcoran’s statement “HPV is a virus that causes cervical cancer” is half-true at best. The accurate statement should be that persistent infection by certain specific genotypes of HPV validated by L1 gene DNA sequencing carries the risk of developing invasive cervical cancer [1]. HPV is not one virus. There are at least 150 genotypes of HPV and more than 40 HPV types or subtypes are commonly found in humans. Most of HPV infections and even repeated transient infections by the high-risk HPV genotypes do not lead to cervical cancer. “HPV is a virus that causes cervical cancer” is a slogan commonly used to market HPV vaccines by the industry. The fact that “every year 90 women die and 300 get a diagnosis of invasive Cervical Cancer” in Ireland indicates a need to improve women’s health care because cervical cancer is primarily a disease among unscreened or rarely screened women. [2] “Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable”, as testified by Nancy C. Lee, M.D. Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, before the U.S. House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment on March 16, 1999. That testimony was made before any HPV vaccines were introduced into the market. In Ireland, “6,500 get a diagnosis of a pre-cancer that needs to have treatment - and that is diagnosed on a smear and that may lead to infertility problems or long lasting problems.” For the best women’s health care, each of these 6,500 cases should be reviewed for possible unnecessary overtreatment because more than 95% of referrals to colposcopy for diagnostic workup may be false positive and/or potentially excessive in that they are in fact performed on healthy women or women who have CIN 1 lesions. Under current industry-driven practice guidelines, screening with combined cytologic and HPV testing, regardless of patient age, leads to the highest number of excessive colposcopic referrals. [3] The statement “The vaccine we are offering protects against 7 out of 10 cervical cancers” needs a peer-reviewed reference to support its accuracy. The truth is that there is no proof that HPV vaccination has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in any countries. “The Expectation is that the vaccine will protect against all head and neck cancers and all HPV related cancers which both boys and girls get” is just a great expectation. Since head and neck cancers were not part of the scope of the clinical trials, this claim falls under the category of "off-label marketing" and should not be used as the basis for making health care policies. Dr. Corcoran’s declaration “We know that HPV causes these cancers, so, if we stop people from getting the HPV infection by vaccinating you will stop the cause of these Cancers” is not based on facts. We may not stop people from getting HPV infection by vaccination let alone stopping the cause of these cancers by vaccination. It is unfortunate that a 25-year girl has developed incurable cervical cancer, in Ireland. The question to ask is: Why this girl did not have proper gynecological care before the invasive cervical cancer was diagnosed? Was she unable to pay for the needed regular gynecological care in Ireland? Was the
HPV test not sensitive enough for the screening? Did the Pap smear tests miss the precancerous cells? Incurable cervical cancer does not appear suddenly without a preceding period in the form of abnormal Pap smears or a persistent HPV infection. In the United States, this would be a case of multi-million dollars malpractice lawsuit against the health care providers. Dr. Corcoran may consider initiating an official enquiry on this case, instead of using this occasion to market a vaccine. “There is evidence that the vaccine works, if you look at Australia, they are talking about eliminating or getting rid of Cervical cancer altogether”. Dr. Corcoran is probably not aware that Australian Olympic medalist Sarah Tait died from cervical cancer at the age of 33, even though she was vaccinated with Gardasil at a younger age. Dr. Beller of Israel reported in 2009 that two young women developed invasive cervical cancer shortly after receiving HPV vaccination in a clinical trial and urged precaution about relying on using this vaccine to prevent cancer. [4] Dr. Corcoran questioned the suggestion of “Why not enhance the Cervical Screening program”. I recommend that Dr. Corcoran read the Testimony on Cervical Cancer by Nancy C. Lee, M.D. Associate Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Before the House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment March 16, 1999. The then CDC associate director testified that screening and treating precancerous lesions actually prevents cervical cancer from ever developing. There is no evidence that HPV vaccination can replace cervical screening for cervical cancer prevention. Dr. Corcoran’s comment “The speakers at that conference are not regarded by the overwhelming scientific body as having the normal opinions on HPV vaccines” is creating an authority of “overwhelming scientific body” which apparently includes herself to endorse a set of “normal opinions on HPV vaccines” in order to suppress dissenting evidence. However, this strategy will not work in the current informational era because the internet through the widely available personal computers has now given the public the power of knowledge. There is no more absolute scientific or medical authority in this day and age. There is a group of Irish parents whose formerly healthy daughters have developed some serious illness after HPV vaccination. They are looking for answers and help which the overwhelming scientific body cannot offer with their normal opinions on HPV vaccination. It is a medical issue to these parents. They want to know why and how these medical conditions are related to HPV vaccines from any sources, including the speakers invited to speak at the 21st April IFICA conference. These speakers at that conference can be regarded by Dr. Corcoran as irrelevant. But the messages delivered by these speakers may carry the truth which Dr. Corcoran cannot conveniently dismiss. Dr. Corcoran stated “We are looking at facts about the vaccine" and “The vaccine contains a small portion of the virus that causes the immune system to develop antibodies, so in the future if you come in contact with the HPV virus those antibodies will defend you today from developing the cancer”. Since Dr. Corcoran steps into HPV vaccine and antibodies, let us look at the facts of HPV vaccinology: 1. It is well known that HPV evades the host immune system. HPV antibody levels induced after natural infection are very low. Specially designed HPV vaccines are needed to elicit highly augmented immune responses of the host to generate sustained high levels of HPV antibodies [5]. 2. Gardasil is a recombinant quadrivalent vaccine prepared from the purified virus-like particles (VLPs) of the major capsid (L1) protein of HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is not “a small portion of the virus”, as claimed by Dr. Corcoran. Since VLPs without the naturally packaged DNA are poorly antigenic, a special aluminum salt that can loosely bind anionic phosphate Toll-like receptor agonists (ligands) which serve as molecular adjuvant is needed to augment the innate immune response of the host to enhance antibody productions. [6-8] 3. In Cervarix, the disclosed Toll-like receptor 4 agonist is 3-0-descyl-4'-monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) isolated from a strain of Salmonella [7]. In Gardasil, a Toll-like receptor 9 agonist is used in the form of recombinant HPV L1 DNA fragments whose presence in the HPV vaccine has been confirmed by the FDA [9].

Hans Litten

Expert: vaccination can end cervical cancer within 20 years
Creator of HPV vaccine hopes crisis will encourage parents to have children immunised
Marie O'Halloran

Prof Ian Frazer, a co-creator of the HPV vaccine, says it protects against nine strains of virus which are together responsible for more than 95 per cent of cervical cancers. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh
The truth Ian-scoundrel is this isn't it :
Expert: Gardasil vaccination can clear Ireland within 20 years & return the land to forest !

Angus Files

Goody two shoes Pharma complicit in faking trials...aided and abetted by Eindecker

"What the pharmaceutical company should have done is inject one group with the vaccine and the other group with a non-vaccine placebo (i.e., saline)," writes Heinze. "What the pharmaceutical company did, instead, was inject one group with the hepatitis B vaccine, and the other group with a different vaccine. Then they monitored both groups and found that the recipients of their vaccine had 'no significant difference in the frequency or severity of adverse experiences' as compared to the recipients of other vaccines."

Whilst on trials I see that it is possible Eindecker et-al could be prosecuted under Superior orders committing genocide.
"The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Further information: States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The pro­vi­sion con­tain­ing the su­pe­rior or­ders de­fense can be found as a de­fense to in­ter­na­tional crimes in the Rome Statute of the In­ter­na­tional Crim­i­nal Court. (The Rome Statute was agreed upon in 1998 as the foun­da­tional doc­u­ment of the In­ter­na­tional Crim­i­nal Court, es­tab­lished to try those in­di­vid­u­als ac­cused of se­ri­ous in­ter­na­tional crimes.) Ar­ti­cle 33, ti­tled "Su­pe­rior or­ders and pre­scrip­tion of law",[27] states:

1. The fact that a crime within the ju­ris­dic­tion of the Court has been com­mit­ted by a per­son pur­suant to an order of a Gov­ern­ment or of a su­pe­rior, whether mil­i­tary or civil­ian, shall not re­lieve that per­son of crim­i­nal re­spon­si­bil­ity unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
2. For the pur­poses of this ar­ti­cle, or­ders to com­mit geno­cide or crimes against hu­man­ity are man­i­festly unlawful."

Under the Nuremberg trials which then caused the above law to spawn.Leaders right down to school teachers and less were being prosecuted and executed after the war for crimes committed.Their defence was "we were just doing our job" which was deemed at the time no defence so prosecuted and executed mostly.

Since then the above laws came to pass"Standing Orders" but saying, you were just doing your job Eindecker is not going to be an excuse when your day comes for assisting genocide.

Pharma For Prison


John Stone


The two references to substitute placebos leave one wondering whether you have the remotest idea what you are talking about. These are about the trial of new vaccines in a situation where there was existing vaccine deemed to be safe and effective (hoho), which had nothing to do with the circumstances in which HPV vaccines were trialled.

Of course, it doesn’t matter how big a study is if the method is flawed.


PS John, still no answer to my questions re your interpretation of the significance of the 656 Adverse Events, ??


@ John & Pharmster if you really want to understand the ethical, scientific & regulatory issues behind the use of placebos in vaccine trials can I suggest you read the following refs which go into great detail. Also note the use of saline or another, unrelated, vaccine as a placebo may be more or less relevant, depending whether the study is a Phase I or II early trial or a phase III registrational study. It’s far more complex than a simplistic question such as “why can’t they just use saline” The use of a placebo in vaccine trials(You have register with the Lancet, it’s free, to see the whole article) Placebo use in vaccine trials: Recommendations of a WHO expert panel The ethics of placebo use in vaccine trials
Also getting back to HPV there was a very large cohort study in Sweden and Denmark looking at health outcomes in almost 1,000,000 girls of which 300,000 had received the qHPV vaccine and 700,000 had not Autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events after immunisation of adolescent girls with quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Denmark and Sweden: cohort study the conclusions were that This large cohort study found no evidence supporting associations between exposure to qHPV vaccine and autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events. Although associations for three autoimmune events were initially observed, on further assessment these were weak and not temporally related to vaccine exposure. Furthermore, the findings need to be interpreted considering the multiple outcomes assessed.

cia parker


You might want to look at J.B. Handley's article Autism not Really on the Rise? And its discussion of a very meticulous 1987 study on autism prevalence in North Dakota at that time. And its discussion of how most people really can't begin to conceptualize the numbers involved.



lol. The clinical trial was such a joke.

Aluminum adjuvant placebos. Follow up period of 14 days. Investigators downplay or ignore side-effects. Possibly a lot of other unethical tricks we do not even know about.

They should have called it the "Gardascam". FDA and EMA approved of course.

Interestingly, about 2 weeks ago Iearned about the daughter of a friend suffering from chronic and disabling fatigue since getting the HPV vax.



The difference between the two;

“The principal difference between an adverse event and an adverse drug reaction is that a causal relationship is suspected for the latter, but is not required for the former. In this framework, adverse drug reactions are a subset of adverse event reports.”

By the way, interesting to hear that in the gardasil trial, researchers refused to even list some of the adverse events, or more likely adverse reactions, meaning even the number listed is certainly too low and not accurate.
From Slate, normally very pro vaccine; apparently even they could not stomach the way it was done...
From the article:
What is special about Lyng’s case is that she got sick during a clinical test—indeed, the largest-ever randomized placebo-controlled trial of Gardasil—years before the vaccine was approved (which it was, in 2006, in both Europe and the U.S.)....
But regulators never learned of Lyng’s plight. In fact, her repeated complaints of debilitating symptoms were not even registered in the study as potential side effects (“adverse events,” in medical parlance).

To continue from the article

To track the safety of its product, the drugmaker used a convoluted method that made objective evaluation and reporting of potential side effects impossible during all but a few weeks of its yearslong trials. At all other times, individual trial investigators used their personal judgment to decide whether or not to report any medical problem as an adverse event—essentially, as a potential side effect worth evaluating further.

So , "an adverse event" is actually in this case best defined as something the researchers sometimes decided to include and sometimes not. And it appears that at least in Lyngs case, that the more serious ones, the ones most likely to be caused by the vaccine, don't make the cut. Interesting.

Is it okay for researchers to leave people suffering with ill health post vaccine while somehow deciding not to include their reactions in the data base specifically designed to record adverse events? If this happened to you or someone you love, would you be okay with this "standard" of research?
I wonder what the true rate of adverse reactions, ( caused by the vaccine) actually was? I also wonder how many of the injured gardasil girls could have been saved if the data had been recorded correctly.
If the investigators did indeed leave out serious adverse events, do you believe that means they are morally responsible for adverse reactions to the vaccine, seeing that leaving out data would mean that potential vulnerable subsets could never be identified?



Thanks. It is described as "carrier-solution". 500 individuals. Assuming this was a equal to a placebo, why did the other 20000 patients in the study receive aluminum?

Jenny Allan

Eindecker - Give it a rest. No matter how much you 'spin' this issue or attempt to distract from the core issues regarding the safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines, you have plainly lost the arguments on this thread, and there is growing evidence public confidence in the vaccines is also evaporating in many countries, including Japan, France, and Ireland. Merck is countering this by selling its Gardasil vaccines to new markets, including a recent deal with China.

Merck's continuing profitability is closely linked to their Gardasil vaccines. It's admitted US sales have been less profitable recently, but attribute this to a change from 4 valent to 9 valent. US taxpayers might be interested to know:-
"U.S. taxpayers subsidized the development of Gardasil, and continue to fund their marketing of the vaccine."
I have always found the financial pages to be the best source of information about corporate 'bottom lines'. Merck's fierce defence of Gardasil is hardly surprising under the circumstances, and I find it shameful the way Governments collude in defending the indefensible, aided and abetted by persons like YOU.
Quote from above:-
"The pharmaceutical marketing trade publication, Fierce Pharma, announced this month (May 2018) that Merck has beat Wall Street expectations for their Gardasil vaccine sales during the first quarter of 2018, achieving 24% growth with $660 million for the HPV vaccine.

The report notes that sales in the U.S. are declining, attributing the decline in sales to the CDC decision to reduce their recommendation of the Gardasil vaccine to be only two doses, instead of three.
Nothing is mentioned about declining public opinion regarding Gardasil, nor the numerous lawsuits against the company outside the U.S.
The increase in sales for Gardasil is attributed to their entrance into the China market.
Gardasil remains Merck’s top vaccine by sales."


I am appreciative that fact this discussion at AOA is taking place because " the editors also took the unusual and courageous step of keeping the article on the journal’s website because “the issues raised by it are important and discussion on it is in the public interest.”"

I think as more people become aware of all the issues surrounding HPV the consequence might bring on investigations and lot more scrutiny which is a good thing.

More daylight and more discussions.


So what is the difference in adverse event and adverse reaction?

Are trying to state that two C word phrase in a different way ?

Most of us have had in the past great faith in the vaccination programs . We did vaccinate and watched an adverse event several times over. For me; I saw three adverse events in my son, two in my daughter, two in my husband. Well more for my daughter now since she is older and got three more vaccines; and that makes five. Can I now call them adverse reaction after that many times?

Is that what you wanted?


No answers yet to my 3 simple questions John, but as you said to my detailed reply earlier in this thread "Well that took a while" !

John Stone


Of course, that’s more than I know but I cannot see any purpose in having fake placebos except trying to mask the harms of the products being trialled.

susan welch

Eindecker, I believe this article from James Lyons-Weiler counters some of your arguments re HPV vaccine. It has some interesting comments re the integrity of the science your promote.


Pharmster the reference is given under the table in the blog:
Food and Drug Administration, Clinical Review of Biologics License Application for Human Papillomavirus 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 Virus Like Particle Vaccine (S. cerevisiae) (STN 125126 GARDASIL), manufactured by Merck, Inc, Vaccines Clinical Trial Branch, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Editor. 2006, Food and Drug Administration.



could you link to the actual study instead of citing a blog?


Amendment to my previous post re questions for John

Do you consider all 656 SAEs mentioned in the Cochrane Report to be caused by the HPV vaccine?


@ Pharmster, that's actually incorrect they did measure side effects in the saline v aluminium adjuvant v vaccine study
However there was one protocol (Protocol 18) conducted in 9-15 year old girls and boys where the placebo used was a saline solution. In this study 1184 were randomised to receive the vaccine and 596 randomised to receive the saline solution placebo. The proportion of participants completing the study was similar in each group. The proportion of systemic events was comparable in each group. Keep in mind that we expect some people to have a transient generalised response such as fever after a vaccine. These were generally mild to moderate in intensity. As would be expected, there were more injection-site reactions in the Gardasil group compared with the placebo group.

John see above and you seem very keen on asking questions but there is a deafening silence from you with any replies, I'll repeat the questions I've asked of you previously in this thread:

> Do you still think it's a mighty assumption if you equate HPV prevention with cancer prevention, when Prof Dillner's preliminary data from the Swedish/Finnish study is showing HPV vaccination is preventing cervical cancer?
> Do you understand the crucial difference between Adverse Event and Adverse Reaction?
> Do you think the figure of 656 SAE's given in the Cochrane report were due to HPV vaccination?

I await your replies



The other groups had 20000 patients, the saline only a few hundred and they did not attempt to measure various side effects in the saline while they did in the others. The saline group was worthless but great for advertising that your trial had saline placebos.

John Stone


Why do you think they could not trial the vaccines against genuine placebo?


John you asked the question, I gave you my answer and the reasons behind it, it was quite a detailed reply that I thought you might consider, but in less than 90 minutes later you published this “Yah de Yah” teenage reply, and BTW John there was a Gardasil study v an aluminium adjuvant blank and also a saline blank, you can look it up it’s in the 2006 FDA review of the licence application for Gardasil. 1 in 15/16 SAEs is a ridiculous rate for the brief period of follow up. Brief John? Shows how much you read my reply, the follow ups went on for years!!!!
Now perhaps, since I answered your question with a yes/no answer, you’d be good enough to answer 2 questions for me with yes/no answers
> Do you understand the critical difference between an adverse event and an adverse reaction in clinical studies?
> Do you believe the 656 SAE’s quoted in the Cochrane report were all triggered by the HPV vaccine?

Angus Files

Eindecker Lettuce Sea..

Cough! no broken Arms are excluded from the figure..

The following graphic shows how comparing the background rate with the observed rate of an event can help to determine the vaccine reaction rate (i.e. the rate of events that are actually caused by the vaccine)

Background rate
Background rates can be determined in a population prior to the introduction of a new vaccine or simultaneously in non-vaccinated people. If we measured the temperatures
of a population of 1 000 unvaccinated children during one week, some children would present a fever (defined as >38°C) during the time of observation (e.g., infections). For example: a rate of 2 cases of fever per 1 000 children per week.

Observed (reported) rate
The observed rate can be measured in pre-licensure clinical trials or post-licensure studies. If we observe the same population of 1 000 children but we now vaccinate all children and measure their temperatures daily there will be greater rate of fever. Thus, the rate of fever may increase to 5/1,000 children per week, with the increase concentrated in the 72 hours that follow vaccination.

Vaccine reaction rate (attributable rate)
Randomized clinical trials which are placebo controlled.
Post-licensure studies – passive surveillance. Thus, the vaccine attributable rate of fever will be 3/1 000 vaccinated children (that is the observed rate minus the background rate).

omparing observed with "expected" rates of adverse events
If the background rate of a particular adverse event is not known in a community (as is often the case), you will need to compare the observed rate in your population with the 'expected rate' published by the vaccine regulatory authorities. For example, this information, from WHO, shows the expected rates of AEFIs following some childhood vaccines:

Expected rates of AEFIs following some childhood vaccines
Vaccine Estimated rate of severe reactions
BCG 1 in 1 000 to 1 in 50 000 doses
OPV (oral polio vaccine) 1 in 2–3 million doses (or 1 in 750 000 doses for the first dose)
Measles 1 in 1 million doses
DTP 1 in 750 000 doses

As John rightly imply s something very wrong with this vaccine not that there has ever been an all right one.

Pharma For Prison


John Stone


Well, that took a while didn’t it? In view of the many families screaming with outrage and pain about the effects of the vaccine I think we can describe that as complete flannel. First of all you were quibbling because I accidentally omitted the word “serious” - though you must have known that they were SAEs all along - and now you come out with this. We have to examine that this was not against genuine placebo. Why? Because the manufacturers realised in advance that against placebo the results would be wholly unacceptable? 1 in 15/16 SAEs is a ridiculous rate for the brief period of follow up.


Eindecker, you do understand that there are no real control groups? What they call control is not a placebo!


I don't know why the formatting on this thread is coming out in bold, is it possible to fix it? and Hera I'm afraid wild speculation on DES doesn't really hold water why aren't women >50 showing an increase in cervical cancer? I think you'll find the increased incidence is due to widening the cervical screening program to younger age groups


Eindecker So 656 serious adverse events per 10,000 is acceptable? No John a figure of 656 SAE’s per 10,000 in isolation is quite meaningless, which you don’t seem to be able to understand.
You also never seem to mention the conclusion stated in the report “The vaccines do not increase the risk of serious adverse events, miscarriage or pregnancy termination”, I won-der why?
There were extended periods following up monitoring for AE’s: all trials evaluated vaccine safety over a period 0.5 to 7 years and ten trials, with follow-up 3.5 to 8 years, addressed protection against precancer, I’ll return to this comment below.
So to return to your question re 656 SAE’s you need to address the following to put this figure into context:
> How many of the SAE’s were likely to be vaccine related?
> Were there differences between the experimental and control arms in both the total number of SAE’s and the spread of types of SAE’s between the arms?,
> Were there any particular “safety signals” seen in the SAE’s of the experimental arm? (ie an un-expectedly high number of a specific type of AE)
Let me make it simple for you John, if I had been participating in the HPV vaccine study and, for the sake of argument, and I was diagnosed with a cancer during the study that would have been noted as an SAE in one of the 656 above.
Now if on reviewing the SAE report it was seen I had been under investigation previously for symptoms of the cancer that would be treated as unrelated to the drug under investigation, although it would still have been included in the 656 SAE’s,
However if other men were also diagnosed with the same cancer in the test arm but not in the control arm then that would clearly be flagging a potential safety issue for the test vaccine.
To illustrate the point even further John if I fell off a bike and broke my arm whilst on the study that would still have to be reported as an SAE and included in the 656 figure. Before someone says “nonsense” look up the appropriate Code of Federal Regulations dealing with reporting AEs in clinical trials
This is shown in real life by the link I gave to Hera of a retrospective Canadian study of hospital admissions within 42 days of 195,270 women following receipt of the HPV vaccine:
There were 958 hospital admissions amongst these women but only 4 had recorded a vaccine related adverse event. Look at Table 3 John, this is a listing of all the reasons for hospital admissions of women within 42 days of receiving their HPV vaccine, classified by their ICD codes, scroll down the list and, for example, you’ll see almost 14% of admissions were due to “Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes” there are many medical reasons behind the hospital admissions but only a tiny number were related to receipt of the HPV vaccine.
The point of quoting this paper John, which maybe you’ll read, who knows, is that people are admitted to hospital just as part of the normal course of life, and that includes participants in clinical trials, so just quoting the figure of 656 SAE’s is meaningless without putting it into context.
SAE’s & AE’s are often quoted to compare the control and experimental arms of a trial, it’s easy to do, look at the total number and the spread of AE types, if the numbers are comparable between the two arms and there are no potential “safety signals” of an increased incidence of a particular type of SAE. However post marketing surveillance reports such as the Canadian study where there is no “control” to compare against need to identify what AE’s are linked to the vaccine, ie true Adverse Reactions, as I posted and you dismissed as a a silly point, perhaps you understand better now John, who knows?
So John in answer to your question re the number of 656, yes, I am “cool” with accepting this as long as it is seen in context of
1 There was no difference in AE’s between the two arms (656 v 669)
2 There was an extended period of years to record the AE’s The Canadian study recorded c 0.5% hospitalizations within 42 days of the c. 200,000 women, so the extended period of years explains what at first sight appears a large number ie 1 in 15
3 The published review I previously gave you ( goes into detail on HPV safety with examples of HPV trials where the authors had analysed reported SAE’s subsequent to receiving the vaccine eg Harris et al. described an incidence of 7.5% (n = 10) SAEs following qHPVv vaccination, including reports of anaphylaxis, seizures, thrombocytopenia and a fatal case. Further review found that these reports were attributable to pre-existing conditions and no causal relation was attributable to the vaccine As I keep saying John just reporting SAE’s without determining if they are actually related to vaccine administration is meaningless
4 And of course the authors of the Cochrane review explicitly state “ The vaccines do not increase the risk of serious adverse events, miscarriage or pregnancy termination.



The older women in that study would likely be in the category of DES Daughters, and could be expected to have more cervical cancer in their lifetimes than the younger generation.

DES Daughters are defined as women born between 1938 and 1971 who were exposed to DES before birth (in the womb). Research has confirmed that DES Daughters are at an increased risk for: Clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA), a rare kind of vaginal and cervical cancer.

Really scary if the gardasil vaccine may end up causing a similar effect.

By the way, John Stone has asked you a question a couple of times now....

John Stone


So 656 serious adverse events per 10,000 is acceptable?

John Stone


Yes, we featured that too.


Global joint statement from 5 nations meeting in Japan exposes injuries and discrimination against HPV vaccine victims

Jenny Allan

@ Eindecker to me:-
"Jenny the anonymous Andersson gets his facts contradicted by Prof Dillner, nothing about any hypothesis. Have you read his paper??? In it he states “Thus, the oldest girls in the programme were 23 years old in 2015” he then goes onto compare increases in incidence in women between 20-49 and >50 years old. How crazy is that? "

In a free country Prof Dillner is perfectly entitled to publicly disagree with another scientist, or indeed anyone else. I have no interest in reading Dillner's 'paper'. In his position it would be obligatory to disagree with anything which threatens his country's vaccine programme, particularly issues about safety and adverse incidents.If members of the public are becoming cynical about the utterances of ‘Head Honchos’ regarding the safety of vaccines, then those members of the medical establishment who spin doctor or suppress facts and attempt to discredit all dissenting voices, have only themselves to blame.

I am perfectly well qualified to read scientific papers and I found nothing factually incorrect in Lars Andersson's paper. He makes no attempt to claim women over the age of 23 have had the vaccine, but a very large % of schoolgirls received the HPV vaccine after it was added to the schedule 2006.
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the change in cervical cancer rates , between 2006 and 2015. The age groups are split into 7 decades. By far the largest % change is in the 20-29 year old age group, but the following two decades have large increases too.

Fig. 2: The relative change in percentage of invasive cervical cancer incidence in Sweden between 2006 and 2015 in different age groups. The figure is based on data from the statistical database of the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden. The incidence of cancer is age-adjusted according to the standard Swedish population in 2000.

Lars Andersson discusses “some possible explanations for the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer amongst young women in Sweden.”
He states (quote):-
"Gardasil was approved in Sweden in 2006. In 2010, the vaccination of a substantial number of girls started......The oldest girls in the programme were 23 years old in 2015; and this is well within the younger age group shown in Fig. 1. For the older age group represented in Fig. 1, data on exposure to vaccinations is not available. In 2012–2013, most young girls were vaccinated.”

So there it is. Not ‘crazy’ at all but a logical discussion of possibilities, with no attempt to mislead readers, who are free to make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions.

John Stone

I somehow missed Eindecker’s comment May 15, 2018 at 1.40pm addressed to myself. No, I am only quoting data and terminology from the 2018 Cochrane Review. It looks as if I made a small slip in one of my replies omitting the word serious, which certainly should have been there. I asked him whether he was ‘cool’ with that number of adverse reactions when it should have been ‘serious adverse reactions’, which were based on the figures given by Cochrane. Instead of answering, he makes a silly point and accuses me of not understanding. So, I ask him now are the 656 serious adverse events per 10,000 recorded in Cochrane’s abstract an acceptable basis on which to market the products? Yes or no?


"Hence it is naïve to claim that HPV vaccines will be responsible for 1 in 15 serious adverse reactions by treating adverse event and adverse reaction as synonyms."

Why do a study if you aren't going to accept the results? Who but vaccine manufacturers and their government partners explain away serious illness and death after vaccination in previously young healthy women as coincidence?

John Stone

Really, I don't want to encourage such language but Eindecker is "blathering". Once we know that the vaccine has serious adverse events in 1 in 15 or 16 cases from the trials themselves, there really isn't more to be said. I don't know whether these people really wanted to eradicate cancer but they did not at all care about how they did it. Perhaps some of those 1 in15/16 cases will recover and some won't but the only way the vaccine lobby can handle it is by bad mouthing anyone who speaks up. The Katie Couric incident is perhaps the most vile act of virtual mob violence in the history of the internet. I don't want get waylaid, however. When it was pointed out that these serious adverse events were recorded by the manufacturers Eindecker simply shifted to another topic.



It is difficult to establish causality in epidemiology. Since we do not use placebo controlled RCTs we can only rely on epidemiology in which it will be difficult to establish causation.

Therefore the hurdle is set extremely high and can it make nearly impossible to prove causation.

You have turned things upside down. If I want to test a car I will test it under the most severe conditions or even unrealistic conditions that we will likely never see in the real world knowing that if the car passes the test it is unlikely to fail under real world conditions.

In vaccinology the opposite happens. We need to make sure the hurdle to pass is as low as possible and we really need to make sure that we do not ever err on the side of caution and disqualify a vaccine. This is insane.



It's referring to the same stupid paper in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, so yes, Grant Jacobs and I have refuted it more than adequately, didn't you notice?

susan welch

Perhaps you would like to refute all the information in this article, Eindecker, especially the deaths that have been reported. Not that they would matter to you, since picking out words that support your Pharma stance is all that you care about.


John either you're choosing not to understand or you don't understand. I was commenting on your use of SAE one moment and AE the next, but no matter look up definition of Adverse Event and Adverse Reaction here you are:

Adverse event means any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or not considered drug related 21 CFR 312.32

A suspected adverse reaction means any adverse event for which there is a reasonable possibility that the drug caused the adverse event. "Reasonable possibility" means there is evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the drug and adverse event.

Did you actually read my comment John? Did you not understand what the point was of providing examples of analysing reported SAE's and establishing the likelihood or not of connecting the SAE and the drug or vaccine?

Hence it is naïve to claim that HPV vaccines will be responsible for 1 in 15 serious adverse reactions by treating adverse event and adverse reaction as synonyms. Please explain what you don't understand John

John Stone


Absolutely no need for me to make my mind up. The Cochrane paper states in its Abstract that there were 656 serious adverse events per 10,000 and in Table 4 612 - there were of course an equal number of SAEs in the control groups but as we know they received other vaccines.


Make your mind up John is it “1 in 15 or 16 young women would have serious adverse events” or is it “Are you cool with 1 in 15 or 16 young women having an adverse reaction” Which is it John, AE or SAE?
(SAEs are generally defined as any medical occurrence that is life-threatening, requires or prolongs hospital admission, results in disability, incapacity or death)
A 2015 review of HPV safety went into some detail regarding HPV vaccine safety, I suggest you read this before you start quoting the Cochrane Review on HPV giving a 1 in 15 SAE incidence, which I’ll remind you, was very similar indeed between the HPV arm and the control arm. SAE’s reported during studies include all events described as SAE’s, irrespective of whether they were actually linked to the vaccine or not. The same Cochrane Review goes on to state No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established., ie there were no safety signals for SAE’s.

This is well illustrated by a couple of examples from the 2015 review, ie:
The incidence of SAEs following bHPVv vaccination described in Schwartz et al. study was 7.1%. The most frequently reported SAEs were appendicitis, abdominal pain, incomplete spontaneous abortion and ovarian cyst. One fatal SAE was reported in a participant who experienced aortic rupture during a heart operation. None of the reported SAEs were considered by the investigators as related to vaccination
Harris et al. described an incidence of 7.5% (n = 10) SAEs following qHPVv vaccination, including reports of anaphylaxis, seizures, thrombocytopenia and a fatal case. Further review found that these reports were attributable to pre-existing conditions and no causal relation was attributable to the vaccine
The review goes onto discuss specific areas of concern: lupus, VTE & GBS, but finds no good evidence for any links.
Yes there are AE’s mainly local reactions and syncope (fainting because of needle phobia)
Local symptoms, which include pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, are the most frequent AEs reported for both vaccines also in the post-licensure phase [55]. Pain was usually the most frequently referred local symptom after each dose, often reported more frequently in people who were vaccinated with bHPVv compared to qHPVv, followed by redness and swelling; generally, the incidence of AEs did not increase with increasing number of doses 42, 44, 56. In both vaccine and placebo groups, injection site symptoms were the most commonly reported, however, the incidence in vaccine groups is often significantly higher than in the control groups
So John in answer to your question “am I cool with 1 in 14 young women having an SAE” yes, because for the reasons given above that incidence does not reflect the true incidence of SAE’s actually due to the HPV vaccine, but merely the incidence of ALL SAE’s observed in the clinical and post marketing studies.
@ Hera here’s the link to the Canadian study in Vaccine
Usual blathering Angus….
@ Jenny the anonymous Andersson gets his facts contradicted by Prof Dillner, nothing about any hypothesis. Have you read his paper??? In it he states “Thus, the oldest girls in the programme were 23 years old in 2015” he then goes onto compare increases in incidence in women between 20-49 and >50 years old. How crazy is that?
And of course Jenny there’s Dillner’s statement about cervical cancer being seen in unvaccinated women but not in vaccinated women, now that’s real data, not some hypothesis

Grace Green

On the subject of pseudonyms, I changed my name many years ago, and I still use my qualification that I had before. I even got a job which required those qualifications. I made the change official, but a lawyer friend told me you don't have to, and I was teaching her daughter at the time. Indeed, she would have seen my degree certificate on the wall, under my previous name. So I think you're still qualified. As somebody said below, the publisher was informed of the author's correct name, so they presumably checked up on his qualification. Give the man back his PhD!

Jenny Allan

Eindekker -Ooh - I have rattled your cage. My post was not about the claims of (quote) :_
"Prof Dillner who is the head honcho of the Swedish cervical cancer registry who flatly contradicted the claims made in this paper."

I merely pointed out Lars Andersson was presenting a HYPOTHESIS, based on OFFICIAL figures. Grant Jacobs' in his blog accuses Lars Andersson of presenting a hypothesis as the truth-laughable since the paper title actually states only a "Possible link with HPV vaccination."

Lars Andersson hypothesises vaccinating to eliminate 2 or 4 (or even 9) strains of possibly cancer causing HPV viruses could result in other strains becoming more dominant or harmful. It's certainly a possibility. Also, young persons who have been exposed to HPV prior to vaccination might be at risk.

However, to get back to John's point. The percentage of known adverse reactions to HPV vaccines is far to high to be ignored. Something needs to be done and quickly!!

Angus Files

Eindecker and Grant there you are reporting adverse events as if its as organic as a spot of rain falling from the sky.A Dr saying space out vaccines is enough to get struck off! nobody hurt, nobody killed,but adverse reactions are just fine because its vaccines your both prime Pharma buffoons!!

Pharma For Prison



If possible could you link to that study please?

I think you will find the hospital results don't mean what you think they mean.

At one point in my life, many years ago now, I used to review medical records for insurance companies.

In this day and age people don't get admitted to the hospital unless they are seriously ill. They don't make it through the ER otherwise, but hospitals like to get paid.

So if the author was expecting he could tell if an admission was related to a vaccine injury based on the codes, then he would be making an error. It is extremely unlikely, regardless of whether there was a suspected link or not , that a code for vaccine injury ( in the ICd 10, this one, I think : T50.B95A, )would be used. I am more surprised it was actually used in 4 cases.

Depending on the skill of the coder, the code most likely to be used would either be the one that is linked to the highest reimbursements, or the one that the medical coder felt was the most descriptive. Increased hospital admissions above baseline is important; the code used to describe those admissions, unless followed up with a chart review, really doesn't tell you very much.

For example, the code of for a pimple on the lip could equally well mean life threatening acute cellulitis of the lip, if the coder is not to experienced... Your vague "digestive problems' code would be describing a pretty acute situation, or there wouldn't have been a hospitalization.

Your assumption that the code for vaccine reactions would be likely to be used is wrong, and the lack of it certainly can't be used to rule out vaccine injury, particularly since the two events may not even have been linked in the ER/hospital doctors mind anyway. They are more likely to be interested in quickly treating the immediate problem than doing an extensive history of vaccine reactions. And as mentioned before, even if they did connect the two, using that code would still be unlikely.
The Swedish apparently have an ICD 10 SE they use, so it would appear to be similar to the U.S. ICD 10.

John Stone


Are you cool with 1 in 15 or 16 young women having an adverse reaction to the vaccine?


@ Jenny So are you equally dismissive of the statement of Prof Dillner who above all else should know the true data. Grant Jacobs isn't "forcing his opinions on us and promoting his blog at the same time" he's merely trying to correct a gross distortion of the truth by "Dr(sic) Lars Anderson"

The indisputable facts are that no Swedish women older than 26 were vaccinated (determined by the licence date) The relative changes in cervical cancer incidence in Swedish women by age are very similar for 20-29's, 30-39's & 40-49's, the paper itself states that the oldest woman vaccinated was 23.

And more importantly Jenny, as I have posted below, Prof Dillner quotes preliminary data showing HPV vaccination is preventing cervical cancer

John Stone

Grant, Eindecker

The main reason I returned this post with an addendum was because I did not want to stop the discussion but I certainly agree with Grant’s point that we are on tricky ground if someone boasts qualifications without identifying themselves - but maybe the journal at least satisfied themselves on that point.

I think both of you however ought to attend to the issue that as we can see from the recent Cochrane review the two HPV vaccine products were marketed despite the fact that both manufacturers and licencers knew that 1 in 15 or 16 young women would have serious adverse events.



It has been observed in other countries that the rates are going up more in younger females and down in older age groups.

The vaccine might even have another unintended effect that will be seen in the future. It protects only temporary at best so the vaccinated might get lazy and stop going to screening which will increase cervical cancer mortality rates over time.

we have yet to see how this will play out over time in the real world.

Jenny Allan

@ Grant Jacobs states above:-
“A simple but careful inspection of the data offered in the 'comment' piece will show you that the women pointed to are almost entirely women who have been not vaccinated, i.e. the apparent rise in cervical cancer pointed at cannot be due to the vaccine.”

From his blog –linked above:-
“Code for Life is the blog of Dr Grant Jacobs who has wide-ranging interests in science-related subjects, especially genetics, bioinformatics and science communication”

It seems Grant Jacobs is forcing his opinions on us and promoting his blog at the same time. I’m afraid anything referring to the likes of ‘Skeptical Raptor and Retraction Watch’ are unlikely to be taken seriously here.

Lars Anderson, in common with Dr Wakefield et al in that 1998 Lancet article, makes it clear the possibility of HPV vaccines causing an increase in cervical cancer, in women 20-49 years of age is a hypothesis, worthy of further investigation. The fact most of these women were not HPV vaccinated is irrelevant. A percentage of them WERE and the possibility exists this could be linked to the vaccines. As for Lars Andersson using a pseudonym. It seems the Journal was informed of his real name and status and continued to publish.
Increased incidence of cervical cancer in Sweden: Possible link with HPV vaccination
Lars Andersson
Published online: April 30, 2018
“The increase in the incidence of cervical cancer was shown to be most prominent among women 20–49 years of age while no apparent increase was observed among women above 50 (Figure 1). The number of cases in the 20–49-year group increased from 202 cases in 2006 to 317 cases in 2015 (an increase of 50%). In 2015, there were 1.9 million women in Sweden between 20–49 years of age according to Statistics Sweden (2). The incidence of cervical cancer is therefore 0.17% for women in the 20–49-year group (317 cases per 1.9 million women). Figure 2 shows the relative change between 2006 and 2015 for each 10-year age group cohort, which illustrates the more pronounced increase in the incidence of cancer among the younger age groups.”

Hans Litten

Posted by: Grant Jacobs | May 15, 2018 at 04:44 AM

Is it true or not Grant , that Japan no longer recommends Gardasil ?
And why is that ? Tell us all please ?


Thanks Grant, this is along the same lines of my comment below quoting Prof Dillner who is the head honcho of the Swedish cervical cancer registry who flatly contradicted the claims made in this paper
"We have one of the strongest increases in cervical cancer in the age group 40 to 49 years, that is, a group not covered by any HPV vaccination,"
Who do you trust, Prof Dillner or this anonymous “scientist” who’s pulled previous stunts like this and had their comments severely criticized?
Also John re your previous comment “Of course, you make a mighty assumption if you equate HPV prevention with cancer prevention, and we were talking above about a study in which cancer went up.”, I hope you noted Dillner’s comment
There was a Swedish-Finnish study because, as mentioned, we did not have enough observations in Sweden. Here it was also statistically significant. There was not a single case of HPV-associated cancer in those who took the vaccine and ten among those who had not done so.
Dear Hans do try reading & understanding the Vaccine paper Among the 195,270 females who received HPV vaccine, 958 were hospitalized (1053 hospitalization events) within 42 days of immunization; however only 4 of those hospitalized had a reported AEFI (see above) let me spell it out for you dear Hans, 958 of the 195,270 women were hospitalised within 42 days but only 4 of those hospitalised reported an adverse event following immunization. Look at table 2 in the paper to see the wide range of reasons the women went to hospital the most frequent at 15% being “diseases of the digestive system”. In the normal course of life people are hospitalised for a whole variety of reasons, the annual Scottish figure (for all ages) is about 10,000 emergency admissions per 100000 population, Perhaps you shouldn’t trust Mike Adams quite so much Hans…
But on a more serious note why does AoA still have this piece of the web site at all or at the very least without a whole series of caveats

Grant Jacobs

A simple but careful inspection of the data offered in the 'comment' piece will show you that the women pointed to are almost entirely women who have been not vaccinated, i.e. the apparent rise in cervical cancer pointed at cannot be due to the vaccine. More here:

(PS: re "was conducted by Lars Andersson, PhD" - as the author faked his name and address we have no idea what his qualifications are.)


No interview was cited in the paper. The footnote refers the reader to:

I don't see breakdown by age group in the above, but I believe that it says that it's available. Could be wrong.

Jeannette Bishop


Trying to merge autism IDEA data counts from the 2016 files and the 2005 files I get 655,674 (2016 total: 76,090 age 3 to 5, birth years approx. 2011-2013, plus 578,765 age 6-21 birth years approx. 1995-2010), plus 10,885 (2005, age 18-21, b.y. '84-'87), plus 71,889 (2005, age 12-17, b.y. '88-'93), plus 17,312 (2005, age 11, b.y. '94)

Total: 755,760 across a 30 year span (birth years approx. 1984-2013, aged 5-34 today), but this is only those within IDEA in the two "snapshot" years I used (i.e. only those officially counted in the IDEA system, the younger ages may particularly not be fully diagnosed, and possibly some may have graduated out and not be counted in the totals for ages 18-21 I used), and of course, all this is assuming that I'm able to add up effectively today...

Hans Litten

Posted by: Jill | May 10, 2018 at 08:00 AM

I think the autistic numbers globally is greater than >100M
(That should shake her "turn a blind eye" tree)

And how stupid do people have to be , to believe our governments any longer ?
"we don't know what it is - but its definitely not the vaccines" - its an absolute joke !

Holocaust times 20 I'd say. This is the big ONE (of all time)

And I suspect the true figures from vaccination-decimation to be far worse if all the other rumours are true. I think they are .


Oops, the original wasn't merely a comment. Sorry.


John a direct quote from the anonymous author's abstract of the IJME paper

The increase in the incidence of cervical cancer was shown to be most prominent among women 20–49 years of age while no apparent increase was observed among women above 50.

But this is from a newspaper interview given by Joachim Dillner who is Professor of Infectious disease epidemiology at Karolinska Institutet and Registerhållare for the National Quality Register for Cervix cancer prevention and analysis, NKCX.

"We have one of the strongest increases in cervical cancer in the age group 40 to 49 years, that is, a group not covered by any HPV vaccination,"


"There was a Swedish-Finnish study because, as mentioned, we did not have enough observations in Sweden. Here it was also statistically significant. There was not a single case of HPV-associated cancer in those who took the vaccine and ten among those who had not done so.

"There is nothing to criticize that the problem is and is very serious. In recent years we have had the order of 100 additional cases per year of cancer. It is a minor disaster for cancer prevention. But how the author managed to get this together with HPV vaccination, I almost do not understand.

Here is the original Swedish article which, with the wonders of Google you can translate into English
I think the anonymous author has a lot of explaining to do.....


Is "Lars Andersson" in Sweden like "John Smith" here, more or less telegraphing that the name is a pseudonym? Such a remarkably dumb thing to do. But the article is only a "comment" so that's mitigating, in my opinion.

"Lars'" observation about the FDA noting premalignant cell changes in non-naive subjects appears to be correct. In the body of the FDA document we find:

"An exploratory subgroup analyses for study 013 suggested a concern that subjects administered Gardasil who were seropositive and PCR positive for the vaccine relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia] or worse cases as compared to such subjects administered placebo. Review of the potential imbalances in baseline characteristics of this subgroup revealed that a higher percentage of these subjects administered Gardasil had High Grade Intraepithelial Lesion (HSIL) on Pap test at baseline [6.5%] as compared to placebo recipients in this subgroup [3.7%]. In addition, a slightly higher proportion of Gardasil recipients in this subgroup [35.9%] had a history of prior cervicovaginal infection as compared to the placebo recipients [32.1%]."

This somewhat alarming situation is summarized in the FDA's over-all conclusions thus:

"Females who are naïve to vaccine HPV types are expected to derive the most benefit from the vaccine in prevention of vaccine related HPV disease. Other females who are PCR positive and/or seropositive for one or more of vaccine HPV types may still benefit in prevention of disease due to HPV type(s) for which they are not already PCR positive and/or seropositive."

Seriously, that's how you sum that up? Like a "good news bad news" joke, but you leave out the bad news?

Angus Files

Jill a study below from the CDC but the autism numbers will be much greater and nobody in Goverment want to really know.

About 1 percent of the world population has autism spectrum disorder. (CDC, 2014)

Prevalence in the United States is estimated at 1 in 59 births. (CDC, 2018)

More than 3.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder. (Buescher et al., 2014)

Prevalence of autism in U.S. children increased by 119.4 percent from 2000 (1 in 150) to 2010 (1 in 68). (CDC, 2014) Autism is the fastest-growing developmental disability. (CDC, 2008)

Prevalence has increased by 6-15 percen.........................................

Pharma For Prison


Does anyone know how many people actually have autism in the U.S.? Let's just say a ball park figure for age group under 40 years old? I recently had a conversation with someone who has been in special ed for many years. She must have repeated herself 10 times telling me, "Oh no. It's not the vaccines. They have proven that over and over that it's not the vaccines!" Really. So, I did give her some things to look up for herself on the internet and then I told her what the new numbers for autism were (not very new numbers, but numbers they are acknowledging...) Not a lot of reaction from that. Really. So, I thought, maybe people can't wrap their head around 1 in 36 and instead need to hear a big number. A really big number - how many people have been diagnosed with autism in the last 30 or so years? Thank you.

Jenny Allan

The 'Nursing Times' has a different perspective on the Cochrane HPV vaccine review:-

Quotes from above:-
"A new vaccine that targets nine types of HPV was not included in the review, because it has yet to be compared to a placebo in a randomised controlled trial."

".....they could not judge whether the vaccine had helped prevent cervical cancer as it could take years to develop following HPV infection, and none of the trials they looked at had been running for long enough."

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is now used in Australia, Europe and Canada, and several other countries. It would appear, the Cochrane Review is reviewing vaccines which have been, or are in the process of being, phased out in many countries.


In my last comment I forgot to post the American Cancer Society link I referred to:


"About 25% of cervical cancers have a rapid onset of about three years including progression from normal cells to cancer."

Is this new? We were always told that cervical cancer is very slow growing - that it takes 10 years to develop and that was the basis upon which the recommendation was changed from yearly Pap smears to every 3 to 5 years. None of this makes any sense. Has HPV vaccine altered not only the incidence, but the nature and course of the disease?

Why are you talking about Cochrane when the post here is about a new Swedish study?

Re mortality - only healthy young girls are accepted into these studies. It is patently absurd to consider 11 or 14 deaths out of 10,000 as a positive result. That's 1 to almost 1-1/2 out of 1,000, dead, after taking this vaccine. If we were talking about wild measles, they'd be saying the sky is falling with those stats. They'd be talking epidemic. No one in a million here. Now more than 1 in 1,000 dead is just fine. What is the mortality rate from cervical cancer?

And then there's the American Cancer Society jumping on the HPV vaccine sales wagon by declaring that there are more cervical cancer deaths in the US than previously thought. Makes one wonder. Here's their explanation: "Black women age 85 and older had the highest death rate using the new calculation."

Is anyone dealing with a full deck anymore?

Hans Litten

The orchestration is so blatant and so clear .

The BBC had that "Gardasil is good for you" story on their website at 6am today !!!!
But the Cochrane study is dated the 9th of May.

So two things here .

One - they are both working in full collaboration clearly !
Two - which we all suspected would happen anyway , Cochrane has been compromised and is no longer worthy of any serious attention.


Hans Litten

Lead story on the BBC today (Health section - try not to laugh).
Sounds like the "vaccine electorate" are turning away from dark side Eindecker to me.
Are the rates of refusal of Gardakil rising ? I bet they are .

Funny the BBC didn't report the Swedish study at all ?
Why is that ?

Hans Litten

Posted by: John Stone | May 09, 2018 at 08:25 AM

This was a meta-analysis study I believe ?
A team of Cochrane researchers has summarized results of 26 studies in 73,428 women conducted across all continents over the last eight years.

Looks like we can no longer trust Cochrane.
Pharma has its tentacles in there now !
Marc Arbyn, Lan Xu, Cindy Simoens, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch

Is a Plain Language summary usual practice for these papers ?
I haven't seen that before.

And the dead giveaway is the amount of orchestration involved here !
First published: 9 May 2018

And the BBC picks it up immediately ! And every other site.

Eindecker , we are still waiting for the BBC to publish the name William Thompson .

There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and women who are vaccinated between 15 and 26 years of age. The protection is lower when a part of the population is already infected with HPV. Longer-term follow-up is needed to assess the impact on cervical cancer. The vaccines do not increase the risk of serious adverse events, miscarriage or pregnancy termination. There are limited data from trials on the effect of vaccines on deaths, stillbirth and babies born with malformations.


John Stone

Hi Eindecker

Of course, you make a mighty assumption if you equate HPV prevention with cancer prevention, and we were talking above about a study in which cancer went up. Let's see what they were saying about adverse events.

"The risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty). The number of deaths was low overall but there is a higher number of deaths in older women. No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established."

It is important to understand these were not placebo controls (ie against saline) but against other vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants - indeed it is hard to see how you would get any adverse events in a proper placebo group. But here we are talking serious adverse events in 1 in 15 cases. 11 deaths in 10,000 for controls and another 3 deaths (14 in 10,000) for the vaccines.

Is this nuts?

Angus Files


It must be hard for you to see that from birth you`ve been lied to and are trying to convince yourself more than us on here.

The immaculate vaccination youll never be free of your sins unless you repent.Gonna be hot where your going very hot and it gets hotter the longer you leave it..

Pharma For Prison



A Cochrane review has just be published on HPV vaccines
Some main conclusions
"In young women aged 15 to 26, who are high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) negative or HPV16/18 negative at baseline, HPV vaccination reduces the risk of persistent HPV16/18 infection, high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) associated with the vaccine types. Average rates of CIN2+ reduced from 164 to 2 per 10,000 and CIN3+ from 70 per 10,000 to 0 per 10,000. The findings in these unexposed groups are relevant for adolescent girls prior to sexual debut. Our review suggests that fewer than three doses may offer protection against HPV16/18 endpoints in this age group. We found no evidence that one or two doses of bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine provide significant protection against any CIN2+, irrespective of HPV types, in young women (15 to 26 years)"


"Although the trials were large and no safety concerns were established, vaccine safety requires evaluation in surveillance studies after introduction of vaccination programmes." so no red flags yet


"The findings of this review should be seen in the context of surveillance studies which have been conducted globally since the licensing of the vaccines and have demonstrated a consistently good safety profile in population usage as reviewed by the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) of the WHO on multiple occasions. A single French study found a small increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome among HPV vaccinated girls but this was not confirmed in seven other studies."


I was stunned that a So. Cal. newspaper actually printed this letter to the editor from Sherri Andrade....regarding Sen. Pan's proposed bill, the recent HPV vaccine "court" decision, etc.

Way to go Sherri!!

Bill Killing Free Speech


The vaccination program has been such a success that they need to resort to censorship to protect it.


They sleep at night because it's all about the Benjamins to them. Monetary gain. Sad, really.


The answer is HPV vaccination at birth, OBV.

Or in the womb.

bob moffit

After reading entire article .. which notes case histories too numerous to read .. I am once again struck by the thought .. how can ANYONE involved with the manufacture, promotion, recommendation and approval of this vaccine SLEEP AT NIGHT?

Even studies done by these very same people have shown how ineffective and dangerous for some the vaccine is .. yet .. they continue on as if all is well .. nothing to worry about here.

Whether "population control" is intended or not .. (I believe intended) .. it none-the-less appears to be the ONLY success of the vaccine.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)