Ben Swann on CDC Vaccination Schedule
The Final Wrap Revisited

Negative Efficacy: UK Cervical Cancer Rate Rising in Teens Vaccinated for HPV

CevarixzImagine the horror of learning your young daughter has cervical cancer, once a rare disease, after having trusted that the HPV vaccine would prevent this disease.

From Children's Health Defense:

Bombshell Study Questioning HPV Vaccine Efficacy Appears as the UK’s Cervical Cancer Rates Rise in Young

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines hit the global marketplace in the mid-2000s. From the start, public health agencies enthusiastically promoted HPV vaccination as the “best way to protect [young people] against certain types of cancer later in life.” However, a blistering new study by British researchers—and new data showing that cervical cancer rates are surging in British 25- to 29-year-olds—raise numerous questions about officials’ inflated claims. The study’s results indicate, instead, that the jury is still out on whether HPV vaccination is effective.

The question is far from academic because, prior to Britain’s introduction of HPV vaccination in 2008, cervical cancer rates had been trending sharply downward. In fact, between the late 1980s and mid-2000s, cervical cancer rates halved. Now, Britain’s leading cancer research charity (Cancer Research UK) reports a steep 54% rise in cervical cancer in one of the very age groups that first received the vaccine.

The 2020 study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, critically appraises twelve published randomized controlled trials that HPV vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline and Merck used to buttress assertions about their vaccines’ efficacy (Cervarix and Gardasil). The British authors do not beat around the bush in presenting their conclusions, which include the following:

  • The trials’ questionable methodology generated “uncertainties” so significant that they undermine claims of efficacy.
  • The ages of the women who participated in the trials were not representative of the younger adolescents who constitute HPV vaccination’s primary target groups.
  • The studies used highly restrictive criteria to exclude many potential participants, limiting the trials’ “relevance and validity for real world settings.” (During Science Day presentations for the Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente Gardasil lawsuit in January 2019, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made the same point, describing the “elite club of superheroes” who constituted the study group and noting that Merck purged anyone with the slightest vulnerabilities to the vaccine or its ingredients despite the fact that the vaccine would ultimately be marketed to girls with the very vulnerabilities excluded during the clinical trials.)
  • The trials used “composite and distant surrogate outcomes” that essentially made it “impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes.” The authors explain that the surrogate outcomes used (forms of cervical dysplasia called CIN1 and CIN2) often regress on their own “and are of limited clinical concern.” They also note that different forms of cervical dysplasia each have “their own different natural histories, prevalence and incidence and strength of association with cancer.” Lumping together vastly different forms of dysplasia into the trials’ composite surrogate endpoints, therefore, was “problematic.”

    Read the full reports at Children's Health Defense here.

Comments

Adela Ludeke

Gardasil has done worse things like kill teenagers shortly after vaccination.

Barry

John,

“GARDASIL 9 does not eliminate the necessity for women to continue to undergo recommended cervical cancer screening.”

I thought you people read the inserts.

********

So you read a post about the surging incidence of cervical cancer among a group of very young women.

The same group of women, who were targeted as CHILDREN with a vaccine that was touted as the "best way' to protect themselves against cervical cancer.

And your first reflex is to defend the vaccine... and blame the young victims??

Man, you must have ice in your veins.

david m burd

Frederic, Responding to your insult "you people." As apparently you are completely unaware the reality is parents/children conned into getting the HPV vaccines (and all vaccines) rarely are encouraged to "take as long as you like reading the vaccine insert, and do some research on your own, before making the decision to proceed with the vaccination shot."

Frederic, why don't you publicly appear and then take the 3-shot series of the HPV vaccines? And, further take the 7-8 vaccines pushed onto seniors (loaded with aluminun adjuvants, mercury and phenol and glutamate, contaminants, other cellular poisons)? Apparently you may have indeed taken the neurotoxic mercury-loaded U.S. flu shot every year, which would explain a lot about your reasoning.

John Stone

Fred

It is not people here who do not read package inserts. Look, frankly, there isn’t any evidence after years that the vaccines reduce cervical cancer.

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/index.htm

Most charitably this whole absurdly ambitious, expensive, speculative project was embarked upon knowing it would mostly likely harm millions of young people to no purpose except making money for racketeers. First they went for the young women, then they went for the young men, then they went for everybody.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/10/hpv-vaccine-for-all-the-obscene-public-farce-in-our-midst.html

So, Fred, you are next!

Hera

Frederick Chopin,
The reality is that very few people who get the shots will ever read the small print.Thy hear the big picture statements that are reassuring; Gardasil; one less.
Not,; "one less as long as you get pap smears and you may actually get cancer quicker if you already had HPV but we won't test you for it first." that is a very different message, which would have a very different reaction imo.

To give an example from this website in the UK
https://www.familycareofkent.com/hpv-shot-one-less-heres/
"HPV vaccines were proven to prevent HPV close to 100 percent of the time when administered before exposure, meaning there is virtually zero chance of contracting or spreading genital warts or an increased risks for those certain kinds of cancers. HPV vaccines are extremely effective, for both males and females."
Would you read that article from a physicians practice who specializes in teens and womens health,and translate it as "wow , I still need to get pap smears?"
Imo, putting some tiny writing on a piece of paper no one ever reads does release one from moral responsibility.
And if the vaccine is indeed causing increased cancers in young women, a couple of words on a piece of paper about pap smears do not make that okay.

Frederic Chopin

John,

“GARDASIL 9 does not eliminate the necessity for women to continue to undergo recommended cervical cancer screening.”

I thought you people read the inserts.

Jane

Fred,
there are two types of cervical screening tests. The pap smear looked for abnormal cells and was the test funded by the government here in Australia. It is no longer offered unless you specifically ask for it and a pay for it as I had to do. For some years now the one they offer free is a DNA test for HPV infection. It is only recommended once every five years instead of every two years compared to the old pap smear test. If as some scientist state the HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer, then the DNA test for HPV infection alone could miss a lot of cases of cervical cancer. As John said many women especially young ones who have been vaccinated believe the propaganda about the vaccine and think they are protected, hence don't need to get the DNA five yearly screen. This vaccine can actually trigger cervical cancer in some women who currently had a wild HPV infection and then were given a HPV vaccine at the same time their body was trying to deal with the original infection.

John Stone

Fred

Yes, of course, a major problem is that the propaganda to do with the vaccine is likely to discourage people getting their smear tests. It is criminal...

Carol

Medscape responds: "Effectiveness of HPV Vaccination Heralded Despite Criticism of Studies"

Frederic Chopin

Well the UK Research article says, "Latest figures show less than three-quarters of women invited for cervical screening take it up - and this falls even further in younger age groups..." so...

david m burd

Peter Duesberg, PhD 15 years ago clearly reasoned the HPV virus does not, could not, cause cervical cancer. Here is an updated piece by Norma Erickson and Duesberg expanding on the fraud of an HPV vaccine:

https://sanevax.org/hpv-not-cause-cervical-cancer/

David L

Two HPV types (16 and 18) were known to cause 70% of cervical cancers and pre-cancerous cervical lesions so the premise was that as 70% of cervical cancers are due to the 16 and 18 strains the vaccine would prevent, 70% of cases of cervical cancers will be prevented. Research is showing however that high-risk HPV types are then replacing the vaccine-targeted types. This study I found is showing that different HPV strains with a high risk for cancer are replacing the strains that are targeted by the vaccine (rather than low risk for cancer strains), or that those different high risk strains started becoming more common in their absence.

Results from a prospective cohort study of young Japanese women showed that the profile of type-specific HPV infection was changed after initiation of HPV vaccination in Japan. In this study, HPV screening and type-specific HPV testing were performed on 2493 Pap test specimens collected from Japanese women aged 20 to 21 years during the period covering 2014 to 2017. HPV type-specific infection in different birth cohorts, 1993 to 1994 (prior to organized HPV immunization in the 12-16 year age group) and 1994 to 1997 (following organized HPV immunization in the 12-16 year age group) was determined. For the years 2014 to 2017, HPV vaccination rates were 28.6%, 74.8%, 76.7%, and 80.0%, respectively (P <.01). The prevalence of HPV-16/-18 infection was 1.3% in 2014, 0.5% in 2015, 0.4% in 2016, and 0% in 2017 (P =.02). In 2014, the most prevalent strains were HPV-52, HPV-16, and HPV-56. HPV-52, HPV-51, and HPV-58 were most prevalent in 2017.

52, 51, and 58 are all listed as high risk types: The panel of identifiable HPV types consisted of 20 HR-HPV types (HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 82 and 83) https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ol/12/1/601 Fisher et al. (2016 )and
4vHPV high-risk types (16 and 18), any non-4vHPV types, non-4vHPV high-risk types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/02/19/peds.2015-1968

Type 58 was also not found in a gardasil 9 analysis by corvelva https://www.corvelva.it/it/speciale-corvelva/vaccinegate-en/initial-results-on-gardasil-9-chemical-composition.html

The Japan Hpv Study -
Epidemiologic profile of type specific human papillomavirus (HPV) infection after initiation of HPV vaccination in Japanese girls [12 - Scientific Plenary] https://www.sgo50.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SGO-2019-Annual-Meeting-Abstracts.pdf

Pseudoskeptics Make Me Laugh

I must express a bit of morbid curiosity as to how the Vaccine Freaks will try to spin this. I am sure Gorski and his mob of mumbling sycophants are working on ad hominem fallacies and cherry picking to discredit the study.

Bob Moffit

Perhaps … wishfully hopeful .. the all but guaranteed failure of HPV will finally bring this vaccine MADDNESS TO AN END … and … THAT DAMN BAND WILL PLAY NO MORE.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

Your Information

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