Update: New Study Links Lowered Probability of Pregnancy in Females 25 - 29 to HPV Vaccination
Here is an addendum to this post from the study author, Gayle Delong, PhD:
In connection with my paper, the question has been raised: Given that married women who had the HPV shot were less likely to conceive than those who did not receive the shot, were the former more likely to use birth control than the latter? My result that married women who received the shot were less likely to conceive could be explained if those women were more actively trying to prevent pregnancy than married women who did not receive the shot.
The three questions on NHANES that provide insights into contraception are 1) SXQ251: In the past 12 months, how often had you had sex without a condom? 2) RHD442: Are you taking birth control pills now? 3) RHQ520: Are you now using Depo-Provera or injectables to prevent pregnancy?
I seek to determine whether married women who received the HPV shot are more actively seeking to prevent pregnancy than married women who did not receive the shot. I define “actively seeking to prevent pregnancy” as women who at the time of the interview were using condoms at least half the time or taking the birth control pill or receiving an injectable. I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.
This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot. I’m happy to discuss details of my results with researchers who are interested.
A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papilloma vaccine injection
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640
ABSTRACT Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per 1000 females aged 25–29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged. This study analyzed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women residing in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived. For married women, 75% who did not receive the shot were found to conceive, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted.
Gayle DeLong, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Economics and Finance in the Bert W. Wasserman Department of Economics and Finance at Baruch’s Zicklin School of Business. Dr. DeLong has published in leading journals, including Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of International Money and Finance, Financial Management, and Journal of Financial Research. Research interests include bank acquisitions, regulatory capture, and conflicts of interest. DeLong, the 2013 recipient of the Abraham J. Briloff Prize in Ethics as well as the 2010 recipient of the Zicklin School of Business Teaching Excellence Award, holds a PhD in finance and international business from New York University.
Citation: Gayle DeLong (2018): A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640
It is perfectly alright to critique DeLong’s paper: the issue is the repulsive bullying which goes on to get a scientific paper retracted because it is politically off-message. DeLong simply indicated that this required further investigation, but we cannot trust science if safety issues are buried like this -meanwhile you immediately acclaim the usual hatchet job as a triumph.
You don’t get it, do you?
Posted by: John Stone | December 12, 2019 at 04:33 PM
You tell 'em John Stone.
Eindecker; lets put you upon tha medical table and give you that DTaP every three years, and flu shot every year and see how long it will be till they give you an X ray and measure that shrinking brain.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 12, 2019 at 03:03 PM
Oh look... a squirrel!
Eindecker with his repeated fake questions attempted distraction. Why isn’t there a question about the pandemic of disabled and dead kids after vaccines? Why isn’t there a question asking Pharma with all its vaccine blood money- is going to do about it? Brain jam Eindecker many autistics have it brain jam and many on here can help you with it, change the record. The side you don’t want to hear is Vaccine Blood Money , Bobby knows.
Pharma For Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | December 12, 2019 at 02:39 PM
In DeLong's rebuttal to criticism of her paper copied by John Stone earlier in this thread DeLong says "My data show that women who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant. The correlation between the HPV vaccine and lowered fertility could be spurious," The age range being completing the questionnaire was 25-29, yet the data shows that college educated women have their first child significantly later than those without, so it is probably simply a question of college educated women have their first child later in life:
The average age to have a baby for women varies based on their marital status, education, and where they live in the U.S. For example, the average age to have a baby for women with a college degree is 30.3 years, compared to 23.8 years for women who don't have a degree. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-average-age-to-have-a-baby-in-the-u-s-4582455
In DeLong's paper 50.1% of women receiving the vaccine had a college degree, but only 34.3% of unvaccinated women had a college degree. Perhaps her earlier statement that the correlation between HPV vaccine and lowered fertility could be spurious is the most pertinent comment, rather than seeking some other Byzantine explanation
Posted by: Eindecker | December 12, 2019 at 02:22 PM
Eindeker - I expect John and others will also respond to your challenge but your questions merely invite more speculation.
"Now since I have answered your question would you answer a few of mine:
Q.Do you accept that the removal of thiomersal from childhood vaccines in the UK and Europe has had zero effect on the incidence of ASD?"
A.To be blunt I have no idea. The Madson et al so called 'epidemiological 'study' (which involved that 'wanted felon' Poul Thorsen), initially appeared to show mercury was positively beneficial to children, although this result was quietly toned down. There is no way to measure what you claim is a zero effect on ASD by the withdrawal of Thiomersal from vaccines, particularly since the incidence of ASD is in itself a hotly disputed subject. However, I am very relieved mercury was removed from child vaccines in Europe, although it's still in vaccines destined for the third world, in spite of appeals to the United Nations from representatives from several African countries. Unused vaccines containing Thiomersal is treated as toxic waste, which of course it is. MMR vaccine, still suspected of causing neurological and gut disorders, does not contain mercury and never did.
Q. What would your recommendations be in the case of an outbreak of measles such as in S Wales a few years ago or currently in Samoa?
A. The 2013 S. Wales measles outbreak was quite ridiculously over hyped with cases stated to exceed 1500. The ACTUAL number of cases for the whole year was 327 including adults up to age 57. The outbreak peaked in April with 220 cases. A large cohort was children aged 1-4 an age group then claimed to be vaccine compliant. The Welsh health authorities ordered thousands of vaccines, but the uptake, particularly amongst teenagers was low. Wasted vaccines cost the taxpayers a fortune. No child died and we were not told of any permanent injuries. The young man who died was failed by the hospital. His mother claimed he was measles vaccinated as a child.
As for Samoa I can't get my head round all the propaganda and counter information. Sherri Tenpenny deals logically with this:-
"The Real Crisis in Samoa"
Sherri asks the following questions:-
"According to ReliefWeb, UNICEF delivered a total of 115,500 doses of measles vaccines to Samoa since October 1, including the required diluent, syringes and safety boxes, as well as sufficient supplies of Vitamin A. Vaccinations started, with the first death from measles occurs on October 15. Within a month, hundreds of cases of measles were reported and the government declared an emergency on November 15, leading to mass vaccination of everyone, irrespective of age, vaccination status or previous recovery. And then, the government requested USD$10.7M from the UN to prevent “future outbreaks.”
Now that everyone has been vaccinated, or revaccinated, including adults, another outbreak should not happen for at least the next ten or so years, right?
And why did they need 215,000 doses of measles vaccine when the entire population of the country is less than 198,000 and the population of Samoan children, aged 0 to 5 years (which would be given two doses of MMR) is only 22,555?
And why do they need all that money after-the-fact?"
Do you accept that herd immunity is a fact, not a concept?
A. Absolutely NOT, This is nothing more than a hypothesis. I object to this kind of wishful thinking being dressed up as science.
I am unaware of the AoA article to have quoted from. Can you provide a link? Was this from a comment or an article?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | December 12, 2019 at 02:16 PM
You confirm my basic point that you present yourself as a moderate sort of guy but you actually believe in coercion and silencing dissenters - so you are in fact a bully and an extremist, which is what I took you for. Equally, I am (deeply) unimpressed with Hotez. The first article is just the sort of gaslighting that Joel Harrison was indulging in the other day. And I wonder how our American hosts feel about your superior presumption that compulsion is fine in the US but possibly not suitable in the UK. It is not actually that you mind about policemen or army personnel coming to cart people's children away, but you might feel uneasy if it was happening in Surrey.
The title of the article on herd immunity which you cite "Vaccine herd effects" rather gives the game away. No one would be surprised at "effects", that you could temporarily and locally suppress a disease, but the concept of being able to eradicate a disease consistently breaks down with the problem that the disease might change or the vaccine become less effective. It is interesting that the article doesn't even cite measles which truthfully was already becoming a disaster are in 2011. In Samoa we are witnessing the extraordinary situation that the disease became rampant after the mass re-vaccination was well underway.
At the end of March 2013 health officials were telling the Swansea Evening Post that there were 432 case in the city but when I checked the official record in early May they still only had one confirmed case for the entire month.
Meanwhile, the UK lost its coverted "measles free" status earlier this year with a strain of the virus which is not susceptible to the vaccine.
In those conditions you can vaccinate as much as you like and it will not stop the disease. And the truth is that proplem has been created by the policy and not by its critics.
The answer is, Eindecker, that as far as you are concerned heath officials can lie their heads off to manipulate people and it is perfectly alright, and no one is entitled to question them. Iam afraid, as with anything else there should be proper accountability which we are being denied.
Posted by: John Stone | December 12, 2019 at 02:01 PM
"Is it ethical for the AoA to publish articles, not comments, with statements such as If vaccines work, why in nearly every “outbreak” of pertussis, measles, and mumps in our country has the majority, if not a full 100%, of those infected been vaccinated? That should not be the case if vaccines work as claimed, and it makes null and void the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity. Blatantly untrue example given is from Laura Hayes
I look forward to your answers John and no strawmen or “whataboutery”"
I find it remarkably ironic that you would complain of strawmen and whataboutery while engaging in strawmen and whataboutery.
Oh, I forget...you can freely do so because SCIENCE!!!!
Posted by: Craig | December 12, 2019 at 12:52 PM
Why don't we take the mass sterilization discussion to the people via the mainstream media's?
Lets find out what they think ? Eindecker (after all the very idea is complete nonsense isn't it ?)
Why is this suggestion surrounding Gardasil being so carefully silo'ed ?
Why not crucify us all on here out in the open on the BBC ?
Tell the nation what a ridiculous person I am for saying mass sterilisations are occurring.
Tell the 83% of the UK what I am saying Stanley-Frazer have done and then destroy my nonsense ?
Why is it that the Ovarian failures are only discussed by the people interested enough to drill down into the subject of vaccination ?
This vaccine was invented in 2006 and really only came into popular use by 2008.
Why is it necessary in 10+ African countries (at present) who surely have far more pressing immediate health requirements than Cervical cancer ?
Why is NY trying to mandate this entirely unnecessary & unproven & untested (GS) vaccine ?
Posted by: Hans Litten | December 12, 2019 at 12:26 PM
It strikes me, Eindecker, that you're employing highly selective and tautological evidence here: criticism of the DeLong article was "pretty universal" among those who criticized it. In fact she has received many requests for the article from sympathetic medical professionals. And what about the work of Deirdre Little, Harvey Ward, Ludmilla Tomljenovic, Yehuda Shoenfeld, and others on the HPV vaccine and premature ovarian failure, which dovetails with DeLong's findings? Moreover, as Hans Litten notes below, HPV vaccinated married women were much less likely to use contraception than their unvaccinated counterparts, a fact that seems to strengthen the possible association between the vaccine and ovarian failure.
Again -- and I hope I get through to you this time -- neither I nor DeLong nor John Stone claim that the association between the HPV vaccine and ovarian failure is absolutely proven. But the research I've mentioned gives us very compelling reasons to suspect that such an association exists, and to conduct further research into a possible connection. The safety of the HPV vaccine is an open scientific question, and far from proven. We are calling for free scientific debate, whereas you and those who secured the retraction of this article want to shut down that debate. To tell young girls and their parents that there is no reason to doubt the safety of this vaccine is a violation of the basic medical ethic of fully informing a patient about the possible risks of a procedure. It is a glaring example of the "misinformation" that tech companies claim they want to stop, and it could have disastrous consequences for a generation of young women.
Posted by: Jonathan Rose | December 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM
That is the position of Peter Hotez and probably the position of David Gorski who uses hate language. Please give some examples of “hate speech” John, 2 recent publications by Hotez seem quite measured in their language https://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2018/10/30/defending-vaccines/ & https://www.jci.org/articles/view/129121
You keep asking me questions & demanding answers….well I try and answer your numerous questions, often strawmen, so in answer to the latest I do not dissociate myself from Hotez’s analysis of the science and the risk:benefit ratio of vaccines; as to compulsory vaccination that is an ethical, not scientific question, and the two are not necessarily linked. The US is a very different society from here in the UK, tending to see things in far more black & white terms so I cannot comment of the ethical interpretations of such actions in the US. My major concern is that such compulsion could actually be counter productive and entrench opposition to vaccination.
I will continue to support Gotez in his attempts to disseminate the facts regarding vaccines, as opposed to the errors, half truths and plain mythology spread on social media.
Now since I have answered your question would you answer a few of mine:
Do you accept that the removal of thiomersal from childhood vaccines in the UK and Europe has had zero effect on the incidence of ASD?
What would your recommendations be in the case of an outbreak of measles such as in S Wales a few years ago or currently in Samoa?
Do you accept that herd immunity is a fact, not a concept, references supplied on request, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/
Is it ethical for the AoA to publish articles, not comments, with statements such as If vaccines work, why in nearly every “outbreak” of pertussis, measles, and mumps in our country has the majority, if not a full 100%, of those infected been vaccinated? That should not be the case if vaccines work as claimed, and it makes null and void the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity. Blatantly untrue example given is from Laura Hayes
I look forward to your answers John and no strawmen or “whataboutery”
Posted by: Eindecker | December 12, 2019 at 10:03 AM
I asked you if you are not an extremist to dissociate yourself from the people you appear to support who want compulsory vaccination and to suppress all public discussion. That is the position of Peter Hotez and probably the position of David Gorski who uses hate language.
Disagreeing with the paper would be a perfectly honourable thing but it is obvious that something else is going on. There is a cadre of people who simply do not want vaccine science and vaccine policy to be publicly discussed and they want absolute compliance. Ultimately, there are no finer arguments, and this is what you have become tangled with.
Posted by: John Stone | December 12, 2019 at 05:49 AM
Jonathan ""Pretty universal criticism" of the DeLong paper? Then how do you explain more than 24,000 downloads?" Downloads does not equate to agreement, it's a clickbait controversial title.
Suggest you look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690856/ The Effect of Vaccination against Human Papillomavirus on FecundabilityThere was little overall association between female vaccination (FR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.08) or male vaccination (FR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.46) and fecundability.
This is also a good discussion of the DeLong paper https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2019/08/11/concerns-about-a-paper-on-hpv-vaccination-and-pregnancy-rates/ including
Take a look at this graph, published in the New York Times about a year ago. It shows that women with college degrees, on average, have their first baby at a later age than women without a college degree…...Women with a college degree or higher are on average 30.3 years old when they have their first baby. So if you interview women who are 25-29 old and ask if they ever had been pregnant, that means you are leaving out women who did not have their first baby YET
In the DeLong paper women with college degrees were almost twice as likely to have had HPV vaccination that those without degrees (50.1% v 34.3%). This is such a fundamental confounding variable the paper’s conclusions are worthless
There is also a letter from 2 Japanese authors exposing flaws in the data analysis https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2019.1586032 this gives fertility data over time in countries with high HPV uptake.
Posted by: Eindeker | December 12, 2019 at 05:29 AM
Eindecker: "Pretty universal criticism" of the DeLong paper? Then how do you explain more than 24,000 downloads? In fact the original paper did take account of education levels. As she pointed out, the data on birth control usage is fragmentary and not very useful, but what we have suggests that it would not affect the results very much. Again, even if the paper isn't absolutely conclusive, you don't seem to be bothered at all by the very real possibility that Gardasil is causing infertility on a massive scale. Don't you at least want to check this out?
Posted by: Jonathan Rose | December 11, 2019 at 10:37 PM
No ad hominem - you are supporting people who want compulsory vaccination and to suppress public discussion, so you ought to make up your mind. If that’s not your position don’t support them. I am not surprised that a lot of people did not like the DeLong paper and it would not surprise me if they were paid, but it does not answer her charge. The journal had no explanation except that they had been bullied into it.
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2019 at 04:06 PM
Pretty good ad hominem John "You are the people advocating for extremism." Who's "you" John. I don't support compulsory vaccination, except in cases of medical emergency. They DeLong paper was met with pretty universal criticism, she initially ignored potential co founders such as use of birth control (!!!) and then education level.
Hans re Kenya I suggest you look at the Kenyan birth rate stats before and after the tetanus campaign, guess what there has been no alteration whatsoever in the trend for a slow decline in birth rate going on before the MNT campaign. I'm not going to spoon feed you on where to find them, there are easily available on the web
Posted by: Eindecker | December 11, 2019 at 03:01 PM
No, Kennedy’s comments were in no way comparable: first of all Gayle Delong had not personally attacked Gorski, secondly the length and vitriol of Gorski’s oration might have aroused the admiration of Hitler (he really should use some brains), thirdly Robert Kennedy is not advocating for medical totalitarianism like Hotez. You are the people advocating for extremism.
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2019 at 12:41 PM
Your contribution at 10.39 is the most sensible one that you've ever posted, sums up your thinking Hans
The initial scientific critque of the paper by Gorski was obfuscated by hundreds of words of hate filled ad hominem which by any historic standard of decent behaviour ought to have compromised any points of substance which followed. Thought you were talking about Kennedy's rant then John
Posted by: Eindecker | December 11, 2019 at 12:10 PM
Posted by: Hans Litten | December 11, 2019 at 10:39 AM
Naturally I was upset when my best friend showed me the email retracting her article. But the publication of the retraction notice has itself spurred a flood of requests for the article, which had already enjoyed tens of thousands of downloads. As a historian of censorship, I can point to this as yet another example of the "Banned in Boston Effect", where the very act of suppression calls attention to what the authorities are trying to suppress. Before their respective revolutions, French and Russian readers eagerly read Voltaire and Solzhenitsyn precisely because they were forbidden fruit. Everyone now knows that science has been thoroughly corrupted by corporate interests, to the point where the suppression of a scientific paper actually enhances its public credibility.
And anyone reading this retraction notice would have observed that it offered no specific criticisms of the DeLong paper, just evasive generalities. (What flaws in statistical analysis and interpretations of data?) In my field, historians criticize the analyses and interpretations of other historians all the time: that's considered normal scholarly debate, certainly not grounds for suppression. In effect, the journal editors said they are withdrawing the article because some readers disagree with it. (By the way, it is not true that all of the post-publication reports recommended retraction.)
Greg, the passage you quote from Gorski illustrates a shocking moral failure on his part. Note that he admits that DeLong might be right that the HPV vaccine can cause ovarian failure. He even admits that it might cause ovarian failure more often than the DeLong paper estimates. But he seems perfectly insouciant about what could be catastrophic damage to reproductive health affecting untold millions of women around the world. Anyone with a sense of humanity would be profoundly shocked by real evidence that a medical intervention is causing mass infertility. Even if that evidence isn't conclusive (and the DeLong paper admitted it is not conclusive), anyone who cared about women's health would demand further safety investigations, as well as caution in prescribing this vaccine until the question is settled one way or the other. Indeed, one of the post-publication reviewers urged the journal to open its pages to debating that question, but evidently the editors decided to close down that discussion.
Posted by: Jonathan Rose | December 11, 2019 at 10:35 AM
If I were you the next thing I would do is shut down the Cochrane Collaborators out of Denmark !
And sully the reputation of great independent scientists ! Gotcha
oops GAVI -GATES already did that !
Here is a suggestion for you damn scoundrels, make vaccine inserts illegal ?
Posted by: Hans Litten | December 11, 2019 at 09:26 AM
Yes, we just saw this. What is interesting and significant is the way people like you and Gorski and Oransky seem to regard this as some kind of blood sport. The initial scientific critque of the paper by Gorski was obfuscated by hundreds of words of hate filled ad hominem which by any historic standard of decent behaviour ought to have compromised any points of substance which followed. The point which he finally addressed was whether the confounder of contraception might invalidate the author's concerns, which was first addressed by Delong here as is mentioned in a prejudicial way in Oransky's report. A further response to the issue by Delong was published by the journal which I paste below. But what is not clear is why after all these months the journal should have suddenly decided to retract the article. In scientific terms it is a meaningless gesture - it does not invalidate Delong's case since no argument has been provided. What it does do is help to bully into silence anyone who wants to look at this issue: it is a bureaucratic manoeuvre to protect policy but it sheds no light whatsoever on the scientific issue. If Delong was in error the appropriate way to deal with it would have been through civilised discourse. But the absence of this is demonstrated firstly by Gorski, then by Oransky and now by you.
Letters to the editor; Response to: a possible spurious correlation between human papillomavirus vaccination introduction and birth rate change in the United States
Gayle DeLongORCID Icon
Pages 2503-2504 | Accepted author version posted online: 03 Jun 2019, Published online: 18 Jun 2019
Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1622977 CrossMark LogoCrossMark
In their letter to the editor, Shibata and Kataoka,1offer a critique of my paper, “A lowered probably of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection”.2 They suggest three reasons why my conclusion that HPV vaccine uptake is related to lowered probability of ever having been pregnant could be spurious. While the lowered fertility I found among women who received the HPV shot could be related to variables other than the HPV vaccine, the finding cannot be the result of the reasons they offer. The authors do not explain my findings, and their analysis does not negate the need for more research into the possible effect of the HPV vaccine on fertility.
The first reason the authors offer is that the vaccine is recommended mainly for women who are not yet sexually active. The birth rate among such women would, by definition, be nil. This argument is weak, because even if a woman is not yet sexually active when she receives the shot, she could begin to be sexually active shortly thereafter. Precisely her concerns about a sexually-transmitted disease could spur her to obtain the shot.
The authors continue their first argument by observing that the average age of a mother at her first birth rose in the United States from 24.9 years in 2000 to 26.3 years in 2014. They appear to suggest that the lowered birth rate among younger women was offset by a higher birth rate among older women. Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services do not support this argument.3 In 2007, the birth rate per 1,000 females aged 25 to 29 was 118.1 and among 30 to 44 year olds was 50.5. By 2017, the birth rate among younger women had fallen by 20.1 to 98.0 and increased by 5.7 to 56.1 for older women. The increase in the birth rate for older women does not offset the fall in the birth rate among younger women.
The second reason the authors offer for my results is that the fertility rates of countries with high HPV vaccine uptake have not fallen. They show steady overall fertility rates in Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom as well as steady fertility rates by age group in Australia.
The overall fertility rate is a very blunt measure of births among specific age groups. The girls who received the shot in the UK were 11 and 12 years old, and yet fertility measures births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 49. Girls who receive the shot are not included in the fertility measure until three years after they receive the shot. Since the UK began its nationwide program in 2009, we would not expect fertility rates to begin to fall until 2012. Even then, the fall would be relatively small, as most women who conceive are older than 15.
A more precise measure of the change in fertility in a country is to examine the birth rates by age group. The authors provide such information for Australia in their Figure 1. However, the figure is misleading in that the birth rates range from zero to 140. Such a wide span reduces the ability to detect changes in an individual age group. Additionally, the chart stops in the year 2012, too soon for much of an effect to be noticeable.
Examining the raw data on the birth rates by age group for the four countries with high HPV vaccine uptake as well as one country with low uptake is much more revealing. Table 1 shows the birth rate per 1,000 females by age group in the four countries included in Shibata and Kataoka analysis for the year in which the HPV vaccine was introduced as well as the year of the most recent data, 2015. Also included in the table is Romania, which suspended its HPV vaccine program after very low uptake.5 In the four countries with an active HPV vaccine program, the birth rates of the younger women have fallen dramatically since the introduction of the vaccine. The increases in the birth rates of older women in these countries do not offset the lowered rates of the younger women. During the same time period, Romania showed a substantial increase in birth rates for all but the youngest age groups.
Table 1. Birth rate per 1,000 females by age group for year of HPV vaccine introduction and 2015.
Importantly, my published study is even more precise than observing fertility in age groups. The database I use – the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey – reports vaccine uptake and pregnancy status by individual. Such information allows me to separate women who received the HPV vaccine from those who did not, allowing a more refined analysis of differences in characteristics of the women in each group. Such refined analysis renders discussion of overall fertility rates moot.
The third reason the authors offer to explain why women who received the HPV vaccine were less likely to conceive than women who did not receive the shot is the increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). Such birth control is considered more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy than other short-acting contraceptives such as the pill and the condom. The authors cite an eight-fold increase in the use of LARCs among 15 to 24 year old women between 2006 and 2013 (from 0.6% to 5.0%).
While the use of LARCs has increased, the increase appears to be among women who have had at least one birth. Kavenaugh, Jerman and Finer,6 find that nulliparous women are significantly less likely to use LARCs than women who have already given birth.
We do not know how many of the nulliparous women in my study were using birth control. The NHANES database has limited information concerning birth control; for example, it does not include widely-used methods such as intrauterine devices, sterilization, or abstinence. A follow-up study is therefore essential to determine how many women who received the HPV vaccine were actively trying to prevent pregnancy.
My data show that women who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant. The correlation between the HPV vaccine and lowered fertility could be spurious, but not for the reasons that Shibata and Kataoka offer. Observations of young HPV vaccine recipients experiencing premature ovarian failure have also been noted,7,8 which could provide more plausible hypotheses to explore. More research into the statistical result is essential.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
In 2006, the author filed a claim under the U.S. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for her daughter. The claim of vaccine injury did not include the HPV vaccine.
Shibata A, Kataoka Y. Letters to the editor; a possible spurious correlation between human papillomavirus vaccination introduction and birth rate change in the United States. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019. doi:10.1080/21645515.2019.1586032. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
DeLong G. A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2018;81(14):661–74. doi:10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). WONDER on-line database, natality public-use data 2007–2017. [accessed 21 April 2019]. http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality-current.html. [Google Scholar]
United Nations. World Fertility Data 2017. [accessed 21 April 2019]. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/dataset/fertility/wfd2017.asp. [Google Scholar]
Sheikh S, Biundo E, Courcier S, Damm O, Launay O, Maes E, Marcos C, Matthews S, Meijer C, Poscia A, et al. A report on the status of vaccination in Europe. Vaccine. 2018;36(33):4979–92. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.044. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. Women, 2009–2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–27. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001094. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Little DT, Ward HR. Adolescent premature ovarian insufficiency following human papillomavirus vaccination: A case series seen in general practice. J Investig Med HighImpact Case Rep. 2014;2:4. doi:10.1177/232470961456129. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Little DT, Ward HR. Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination. Br Med J Case Rep. 2012. doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2019 at 08:31 AM
Yeah saw that Einy ! Need to follow up on what has happened there. Skullduggery no doubt !
How long did that take ? 2 years to find a way to force a retraction.
Completely unexpected ! None of us here saw that coming. Has that happened before ?
And the catholic Kenyan bishops have retracted their HCG allegations ?
And the US demographers are they also going to retract the unexplained US fertility rate off a cliff since 2008 ?
You need to try stand up comedy geeze. Science is not your thing.
Posted by: Hans Litten | December 11, 2019 at 08:31 AM
Interesting that all these papers that are retracted by their journals have conclusions that are unfavorable to the Mercks or Monsantos of this world. Isn't it the usual procedure in academia, if a paper is not accurate, for scientists to publish another paper refuting it? I'd love to see an analysis of papers withdrawn compared to papers now known to be inaccurate that are still "on the books".
Posted by: Introvert | December 11, 2019 at 08:19 AM
Oops another one bites the dust, as the song goes: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287394.2019.1669991 .....we sought advice on the methodology, analysis and interpretation from a number of experts in the field.
All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and
interpretation of the data in this paper, and we have therefore taken the decision to retract it. The author has been notified of our decision.
Posted by: Eindecker | December 11, 2019 at 06:33 AM
How many young men are getting this vaccine, too?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | January 26, 2019 at 06:51 PM
The scandal of GardaS_ter_IL_isation
It might be even higher than 25% increased childlessness :
Among married women in the survey, 36.6 % of those who had received the HPV shot told the NHANES that they were using contraception (condoms at least half the time, birth control or injectables otherwise) compared to more than half (51.5%) of those who didn’t get the shot – a difference of almost 15%.
Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated. But, it seems that the vaccinated women in the study were actually trying harder to conceive (or at least not so worried about it) but still having less luck – not good for the Skeptic argument.
Posted by: Hans Litten | July 25, 2018 at 08:05 AM
Gardasil invented 2006
And the BBC reports this :
The strategy, which led to better access to contraceptive services and more sex education in schools and clinics, lasted 10 years - but rates have continued to fall, by 50% since 2007.
Posted by: Hans Litten | July 18, 2018 at 04:08 AM
Got to love the BBC's explanation haven't you ?
Sensible, family-loving teens behind pregnancy rate drop
I think it might be due to ....
living too close to busy roads
overuse of automobiles
lack of exercise and sport
watching too much TV
really interesting and stimulating popular music like Taylor Swift
brilliant and inspiring lamestream media (magazines and TV programming)
Or the elephant in the room, they have been sterilised by Gardasil .....nah don't be silly
Posted by: Hans Litten | July 18, 2018 at 04:05 AM
Mycoplasma Genatalium (the cover story for Gardasil ????)
Sex ‘superbug’ could have infected thousands in East Sussex
Or perhaps it is a freebie included in the Gardasil vaccine ?
While relatively unknown, MG isn’t new, it was first discovered in the early 1980s according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The greatest consequence of this is for the women who present with PID caused by MG, which would be very hard to treat, putting them at increased risk of infertility," Dr. Paddy Horner, a consultant senior lecturer at the University of Bristol told CNN.
Posted by: Hans Litten | July 17, 2018 at 05:56 AM
HPV vaccine available since 2006 appears to be" In Big, Serious, Trouble."
Health and Social Care Leadership is indicating by it's disfunctional behavioural performance in basic health and safety risk assessments "NOT" to have "Learned the hard lessons "from Vioxx injury and damage in 2004.
See /listen with , An exasperated Jonathan Irwin reacts to charge of "Emotional Terrorists" The Vax Channel You Tube 2 Sept 2017 Very good but very serious interview on radio .
See Norman MacLean - Live in Stornoway [ Part 1] You Tube Basic Sex education tutorial for happy healthy well being!
We got taught before starting primary school "Mind any differences now , you will meet all different kinds of folk ,but remember all the different colours,patterns and designs of Tartan ancient or modern and Harris Tweed are all made from the same cloth anyway"
See Tuigainn Leun -Donald MacRae -Gaidhlig Superstar You Tube . Sex Education was I think considered a "mentioning the Unmentionables perhaps " as that generation were advised before
going to a local dance etc "Don't sit on a boys knee , especially if they are wearing a kilt ,or you could end up with a wee baby bundle to take care of "
Posted by: Morag | June 24, 2018 at 05:14 AM
Interestingly, in blogging about the study,
The Great, vaccine injuries denialist, Gorski wrote....
I guess the author has effectively answered!
Posted by: Greg | June 22, 2018 at 02:02 PM
Thank you, very important update. The only confounding element that occurred to me was that those taking HPV vaccine might be more likely to take or have taken other pharmaceuticals (or have more propensity to seek other potentially harmful types of "care"), but this significantly counters consideration of one major class of pharmaceuticals taken by young women.
Could the possibility of simply causing aluminum poisoning first in the immune system cells, then in the areas of the body those cells will be summoned (like through an HPV infection) adversely impact fertility? Or is there something more specific being set up by the HPV vaccine?
Further thought, we are exposing those aluminum containing tissues at a level never before experienced with EM radiation. This exposure probably works in harmful synergy with every metal containing vaccine, IMO.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 22, 2018 at 11:11 AM
"Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per 1000 females aged 25–29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged."
I guess its time to roll out the old reliable .. "correlation does not mean causation" .. nothing to see or be concerned about here … move on.
Posted by: bob moffit | June 22, 2018 at 06:43 AM