Hanami & HPV Statement

April, 28, 2018 | 42 Comments

Comments

  1. “Emotional Terrorists”

    Jonathan Irwin‏

    HPV World Conference.3 things shocked overseas delegates.HSE declining to speak,CEO HSE describing parents of damaged girls as”Emotional Terrorists” & Irish Cancer Soc accepting gift of €200,000 from Merck Sharp & Dohme

    #HPV/Vaccines.Probably unwise for Harris/HSE to continue promoting Gardasil to Irish Children in face of such negative reports from around the World.Might be moment for International Review of Smear Test & Vaccines

    #GARDASIL.As of 9 April’18 WHO report 85,329 adverse effects of the Vax more than any other Vax in history.Despite this Pharma companies & Govts (Incl Irish) continue to hail Gardasil as”safe” & great success

    Global Vaccine Safety

    Safety update of HPV vaccines

    Extract from report of GACVS meeting of 7-8 June 2017, published in the WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record of 14 July 2017

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/hpv/June_2017/en/

    However, despite the extensive safety data available for this vaccine, attention has continued to focus on spurious case reports and unsubstantiated allegations. The Committee continues to express concern that the ongoing unsubstantiated allegations have a demonstrable negative impact on vaccine coverage in a growing number of countries, and that this will result in real harm.26 While ongoing monitoring and collection of robust data are important to maintain confidence, one of the challenges associated with the continued generation of data is that artefacts will be observed, which could pose further challenges for communication when taken in haste, out of context, and in the absence of the overall body of evidence.

    Since licensure of HPV vaccines, GACVS has found no new adverse events of concern based on many very large, high quality studies. The new data presented at this meeting have strengthened this position.

    Vaccine Knowledge Project

    Authoritative Information for All

    http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/hpv-vaccine

    In December 2012 the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority) published a 4-year safety report on Cervarix, the HPV vaccine used in the UK until September 2012. This included a breakdown of all the adverse events reported after HPV vaccination.

    Read the MHRA report here.

    Cervarix HPV vaccine: update on UK safety experience at end of 4 years use in the HPV routine immunisation programme

    Seroxat also had a 4 year investigation by the MHRA, no change there then ..

  2. What is the longest time period that has been reported between when someone has the vaccine and first starts showing these adverse events?

  3. The Joint Statement 2018 for the Victims of HPV Vaccines notes: ” International organizations such as the WHO and EMA, as well as national Health Authorities and policy makers, insist that safety of the HPV vaccines has been adequately established through epidemiological analysis and thus the complaints of victims are dismissed as having no scientific basis. The same neglect and discrimination is surprisingly similar across all countries where AE’s have been reported.”

    An example of the insistence that the “safety of the HPV vaccines has been adequately established through epidemiological analysis” is depicted in a recent Australian NCIRS media release which states: “The National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS) has undertaken an extensive evaluation of the human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccines in use globally, confirming their excellent safety profile and will continue to monitor the vaccine.”

    See: “Extensive evaluation of scientific studies confirms HPV vaccine safety” 6 March 2018: http://www.ncirs.edu.au/assets/news/2018/06032018-MEDIA-RELEASE-Extensive-evaluation-of-scientific-studies-confirms-HPV.pdf

    The timing of this NCIRS media release appears to coincide with the changeover to Gardasil 9 in Australia, which claims to protect against additional HPV types.

    The NCIRS media release states:

    QUOTE:

    Our extensive review of HPV vaccine safety examined 109 studies including 15 population-based studies in over 2.5 million vaccinated individuals across six countries. The findings built on an earlier review of over 100 earlier studies. Key insights from this review include:

    – There is a large amount of information on HPV vaccines, but the information is of variable quality. High quality, well-conducted scientific studies confirm that the vaccine is safe

    – Evidence shows HPV vaccine is very safe overall. It doesn’t increase the risk of developing nervous system or autoimmune conditions

    END OF QUOTE

    Curiously the NCIRS media release contains no link to their “extensive review of HPV vaccine safety”.

    I contacted the NCIRS to question if their “extensive review of HPV vaccine safety” was open access to the public, requesting a copy.

    It turns out this review was a review article published in the journal Drug Safety, behind the paywall, i.e. this review which is influencing vaccination policy, is not open access to citizens, costing EUR 39.95 to access online.

    This is a serious issue in regards to transparency, i.e. that material impacting on vaccination policy is not freely and easily accessible to the public.

    One of the people I contacted at NCIRS did forward me a copy of the article titled “Safety of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines: An Updated Review” (published online 26 December 2017).

    The “Compliance with Ethical Standards” section of this article states:

    QUOTE

    Funding: No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

    Conflicts of interest: Kristine Macartney, Anastasia Phillips, Alexis Pillsbury and Cyra Patel have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study. Julie [sic] Brotherton is employed as the Director of the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, which is owned and funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. She has been an investigator on investigator initiated HPV epidemiology studies which have received unrestricted partial funding for laboratory components from Seqirus (cervical cancer typing study) and Merck (recurrent respiratory papillomavirus study) but has never received any personal financial benefits.

    END OF QUOTE

    • The conflicts of interest statement in my response above does not properly disclose the full conflicts of interest of the authors of that study.

      For example it is not disclosed that Julia Brotherton was involved in the instigation of HPV vaccination in Australia in 2003.

      Brotherton has made her career on the back of the HPV vaccine industry along with others such as Suzanne Garland.

      Along with Peter McIntyre, then the Director of the National Centre of Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Julia Brotherton co-authored the report ‘Planning for human papillomavirus vaccines in Australia – Report of a research group meeting’. This meeting was held in December 2003 and was facilitated by GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Pharmaceuticals, i.e. industry was involved in promoting HPV vaccination from the beginning: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-pubs-cdi-2004-cdi2802-htm-cdi2802p.htm

      As well as being the Director the NCIRS, Peter McIntyre was an ex-officio member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, the organisation which recommends vaccine products for the taxpayer-funded schedule in Australia.

  4. Addressing decreasing vaccine coverage in the EU

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30942-5/fulltext

    Politicians from every party back The Mail on Sunday’s campaign to give teenage boys the HPV jab

    The House of Commons is set to debate the issue for the first time this week 
    At the moment only girls get the jab but it also causes cancers among men
    The virus can affect the head and throat and may cause cancer decades later 

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5670009/Politicians-party-Mail-Sundays-campaign-teenage-boys-HPV-jab.html

    By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
    Published: 01:19, 29 April 2018 | Updated: 13:22, 29 April 2018

    Superflawedgenius, Guildford, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago

    The most dangerous of all vaccines with terrible side effects and absolutely no proof it works. One thing is certain. My sons will not get cervical cancer. Boys do not need this vaccine.

    sam, here, United Kingdom, about 22 hours ago

    No chance, I¿m not letting my 13yo lad have it. His sister did but I later I met a mum who was fundraising for her daughter who within weeks of having the jab went from a very sporty girl to being bed bound, suffering seizures and fed through a tube in her stomach. It was horrific. Google Chloe Brookes-Holder Cheltenham. So yes, you can accuse me of being “rabid anti vacc”, however, this poor girl has had her life ruined and nobody wants to know. Financially, they are on their own. Perhaps you “rabid vac” people would like to comment on what happens in this situation.

    Patrick Rattigan, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, a day ago

    The HPV vaccines , Gardasil and Cervarix , have arguably , done more damage , per shot than any other vaccines : with the obvious exception of the original – catastrophic – smallpox jab . The ” virus-cancer link ” has come about because both require anaerobic conditions : the cause-effect correlation does not exist . To ” make things fairer ” , it would be better to stop maiming young girls with the vaccine , rather than to make sure that the boys suffer , as well .

    …106 comments ..

    Labour vice-chairman Nic Dakin added: ‘HPV doesn’t care which gender you are, so our vaccination programme shouldn’t either.
    ‘Prevention is better than cure.’ 

  5. Jonathan Irwin interview on KCLR about HPV vaccine safety and recent HSE name-calling controversy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzlPvmSlmX4

    Parliamentary business for Wednesday 2 May 2018

    9.30am – 11am

    Westminster Hall debate

    Case for HPV vaccination for boys – Sir Roger Gale

    http://services.parliament.uk/Calendar/Commons/WestminsterHall/2077/6/21/future.html#!/Calendar/Commons/WestminsterHall/2018/5/2/events.html

    You can watch Politicians discussing ‘Science’ Matters Parliament Live or you can access ‘Case for’ in Brief Guide – after it has aired ..

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Commons/

  6. This article was sent to us on Twitter — it concerns a rise in cervical cancer cases in Sweden since near-universal HPV vaccination of adolescent girls took effect. The theory is that the vaccines may accelerate rather than fight cancer in people who have already been exposed to HPV — which might be as much as a quarter of the girls getting vaccinated.

    http://ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180430_increased_incidence.pdf

    The author is a pharmacologist with the Karolinska Institute. I can’t evaluate the evidence or the reasoning. But I do know that HPV vaccines are not given to women past the age of 25 or so — they are told the vaccine is unlikely to be effective since they have probably already been exposed. It’s at least possible this effect makes them more than simply ineffective.

    I do think there are vaccines (especially for highly contagious diseases) that have been a real blessing. But the success of those vaccines has been used to demonize anyone who criticizes any vaccine whatsoever — and foster an attitude of almost religious faith in Vaccines per se. “I believe in Science. I believe in Progress. I believe in Vaccines!”

    But what sense does it make to “Believe in Science” and then have religious faith in one particular product? Making a vaccine has always been a delicate balance between challenging the immune system enough to provoke a protective response, but not “challenging” it hard enough to overcome it and risk spreading the disease.

    Just like anesthesia is a balance between knocking a person out enough to do invasive surgery, but not enough to put them to sleep for good. Faced with an “experimental” or “controversial” anesthetic, not many of us would say: I don’t care what you use or how much, Doc. I Believe in Anesthesia!

  7. Gardasil Firestorm in Denmark

    Gardasil Vaccine in Denmark: Serious Adverse Reactions Now Number 1 in 500 Girls

    May 3, 2018

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/gardasil-vaccine-in-denmark-serious-adverse-reactions-now-number-1-in-500-girls/

    Health Rapporteur Liselott Blixt of the Danish People’s Party was one of the people who led the effort to get the HPV vaccine Gardasil introduced in Denmark in 2008. She now wants it abolished. She states:

    The fact that we have so many, perhaps up to 5,000 young women who suddenly become so sick must have the consequence that we simply stop the vaccine. I was the first who said a big ‘yes’ to it, but now I will also be the first to abolish it, because we politicians must take responsibility for ensuring that we have adopted it. Not least in light of the fact that we do not actually have any treatment options to offer the most sick.

  8. Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist, cancer researcher and science writer

    David Robert Grimes‏ @drg1985 May 2

    Also, please note that HPV is responsible for 90% of ALL cervical cancers. I know I harp on about this, but vaccination saves lives – as I implore here, please get your kids vaccinated so we can banish this awful family of cancers to history (10/10)

    Anti-HPV vaccine myths have fatal consequences

    Political and media support for false claims condemns young people to preventable deaths

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/anti-hpv-vaccine-myths-have-fatal-consequences-1.3213118

    Fri, Sep 8, 2017, 01:29
    David Robert Grimes

    https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/991607292779999232

    ‘It would be a tragedy if ancient antivaccine falsehoods were to hobble this. ..

  9. In TheBMJ ‘The Gates Foundation challenges researchers to create universal flu vaccine with 2 million dollars offer’.

  10. I used Annie’s link to the Scottish Herald and found a little spark of humanity on reading Fiona French’s comment to ‘Experts in Denial over withdrawal harm from prescription drugs’ (by Helen McArdle). I don’t know if Fiona would agree but it seems something of a Jose Mario Bergoglio moment when she writes ‘a consultant psychiatrist phoned to apologise….I have waited 4 years for this day…..’

  11. I don’t know if Fiona French would agree but there seems to have been something of a Jose Mario Bergoglio moment when Fiona writes ‘ a consultant psychiatrist has phoned to apologise ….(for the harms benzos have caused) I have waited 4 years for this…’.He is following it up in writing. It is good to read even a small glimmer of humanity

  12. What do you think about the claims in these articles? This is the sort of propaganda that needs critical analysis… People quoted in these articles, e.g. Suzanne Garland and Ian Frazer, are conflicted by their long association with the promotion of HPV vaccination:

    Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer:
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/australia-could-become-first-country-to-eradicate-cervical-cancer

    Cervical cancer could be eliminated in Australia within 40 years, experts say:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-04/cervical-cancer-may-be-eliminated-in-australia-40-years-experts/9507050

    Global medical experts are predicting that cervical cancer will soon be eliminated as a public health problem:
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-could-become-the-first-country-to-eliminate-cervical-cancer

    Australia is set to become the first country completely eliminate one type of cancer:
    https://www.sciencealert.com/australia-eradication-human-papillomavirus-vaccine-scheme

    Queenslander researcher sets Australia up to be first country to eliminate cervical cancer:
    https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-researcher-sets-australia-up-to-be-first-country-to-eliminate-cervical-cancer-20180304-p4z2rq.html

    And it goes on…

    On the International Papillomavirus Society website it is noted “How 30 years of research has halted HPV and cut cancer” http://ipvsoc.org/news/30-years-of-research-halted-hpv-and-cut-cancer/

    Really? Cut cancer?

    More information is provided on the Elsevier website: https://www.elsevier.com/life-sciences/journals/how-30-years-of-research-has-halted-hpv-and-cut-cancer

    Also, IPVS has a hidden membership, i.e. you can’t find out who is a member unless you’re a member yourself. I also can’t find information on how this organisation is funded on the website.

    • E

      For the record, I think its quite possible that the vaccine will reduce rates of cervical cancer. If it ends up lowering rates overall but perhaps triggering it in some, we should end up with an interesting debate. My problem is the fact that this debate seems unlikely to happen. It barely happens in the case of drugs where supposed Risk Benefit considerations close down debates about the hazards of meds – which are at least notionally more voluntary than vaccines.

      It would be interesting to see if the authorities would be willing to put a figure on the number of people they would be willing to see harmed by HPV vaccine in exchange for a drop in the cancer rate. My first instinct it to wonder if the injury happened to Malcolm Turnbull’s daughter or grand-daughter would this make more of a difference compared with the daughter of a.n. other, but then I think Randall Tobias – the CEO of Lilly whose wife Marilyn, at the height of concerns about Prozac, took Prozac and committed suicide. Made no difference. Tobias later got done for involvement in a prostitution scandal.

      D

        • Elizabeth

          I have several colleagues who are not vaccine enthusiasts or anti-vaxxers who tell me they are seeing less cervical cancer. They also tell me they are seeing cases of POTs and all the other problems HPV vaccines cause.

          I believe them on both counts. There is no reason to think the vaccine won’t have some benefits and won’t cause some problems.

          David

          • David, I do not know who your colleagues are or their ability to independently and objectively evaluate globally fast-tracked HPV vaccination, but it is my understanding the effectiveness of the HPV vaccines in regards to cancer prevention won’t be known for years, as of yet there is no evidence of cancer being prevented.

            In the meantime, millions of young people around the world have been pressured to have three doses of novel turbo-charged aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccines, i.e. Gardasil and Cervarix. A Cervarix study leader, Diane Harper, admitted to me there was no evidence for the three doses of Cervarix vaccines, i.e. titres were measured after the third dose, not after each individual dose, so there was no evidence that three doses were required, and I suspect the situation was similar for Gardasil. See my correspondence on this matter here: https://elizabethhart.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/no-evidence-for-three-doses-of-hpv-vaccines.pdf

            And apparently HPV vaccination induces peak geometric mean antibody titres that are 80 to 100 fold higher than those observed following natural infection, i.e. a very unnatural response. Did anybody wonder if there might be a downside to these unnaturally high antibody titres? My investigations suggest they did not, see my correspondence here: https://elizabethhart.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/safety-of-the-hpv-vaccines-high-antibody-titre-after-vaccination.pdf and here: https://elizabethhart.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/more-re-unnaturally-high-antibody-titres-after-hpv-vaccination.pdf

            I wonder if the parents of the millions of children around the world pressured to have HPV vaccination knew of the lack of evidence for multiple doses, the unnaturally high antibody titre induced by vaccination, and the lack of evidence of cancer being prevented, would they have consented to this still experimental medical intervention for their children?

          • Elizabeth

            There are separate things some of which we agree on. First we agree on the lack of honesty and debate. This ranges from media outlets who under cover of False Balance ideas are doing harm to craven politicians and even more craven doctors leaving it down usually to mothers to raise concerns.

            Second we agree on the harms the HPV and other vaccines cause. I note your views about the antibody titres but these are of less interest to me than the patients I see whom I believe – whatever the mechanism might be that has brought about their injuries.

            Third, at the moment I take at face value views from colleagues that they are seeing less cervical cancer. These colleagues have been more than willing to admit to the harms the HPV vaccine also causes. You can take that whatever way you want. Its fascinating to see the material from Steve Hinks in other comments here and the recent Swedish paper. My bet is that when we do get to count the figures we will have an overall drop in cancers. The interesting issue will be if companies can then use that to deny that the vaccine may also have increased the risk of cancer to some. The sooner people start thinking about this possibility rather than simply figuring the vaccine almost in principle can’t reduce cancer rates the better.

            David

          • David, millions of children around the world have been vaccinated with the still experimental VLP HPV vaccine products Gardasil and Cervarix.

            These products have been over-hyped, and the children and their parents have not been properly informed about the uncertainties of these vaccine products. Promotion of these products is steeped in conflicts of interest.

            Objective and independent evaluation of this massive global experiment is obviously going to require more than the opinions of you and your nameless colleagues.

            You’re betting “when we do get to count the figures we will have an overall drop in cancers”. I have no idea how you would attribute such a drop to the vaccines as, for example, cervical cancer was going down in Australia before they were introduced.

            And now some are saying cervical cancer is going up…?

            The fundamental issue here is that this is political, and the medical establishment does not understand this. Informed citizens are challenging medical authority and the imposition of questionable medical interventions, funded by taxpayers. We are demanding accountability.

          • Elizabeth

            I have no doubt that consent is not being properly informed and that some of the evidence for the vaccine is close to criminal, the publications distorted and the failure to collect adverse event data properly is shocking.

            That said colleagues whom I trust are telling me that they are seeing fewer cases of cervical cancer. I think their observations are likely to be valid. This does not change the political problems this and some other vaccines pose.

            David

          • David, you say “…colleagues whom I trust are telling me that they are seeing fewer cases of cervical cancer. I think their observations are likely to be valid”.

            You have not provided evidence to support your statement, and I reiterate that it will take years to assess the impact of HPV vaccination on cervical and other cancers.

            In the meantime, millions of people who would never have been troubled by these cancers have been vaccinated multiple times with these novel VLP aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products, without informed consent.

            Again, this is a political issue. There is a bigger picture to consider here in regards to out of control global paternalistic vaccination policy, and development of lucrative vaccine product markets.

          • Elizabeth

            You are not reading what was said. Take imipramine, an antidepressant that can cause people to commit suicide. Were colleagues whose judgement i trusted in the late 1950s and early 1960s when it appeared first to say to me that seriously depressed patients they were seeing seemed less likely to commit suicide on this – the same colleagues who reported some patients could become suicidal on it – I’d likely have believed them in the same way.

            If doctors are reporting these things genuinely, you have no basis to think they aren’t right. They may not be right but most observations of this kind are right. If they weren’t there would be no point doing controlled trials or epidemiological studies.

            The interesting outcome arrives when as in the suicidality case it turns out that for instance someone like me seeing patients becoming suicidal on SSRIs – even though the drugs work for some – gets faced with the evidence you are now turning to and i find it says there is no problem. That in my case led to a situation where i believed the evidence of my own eyes and not the evidence and following this thread it later turned out that the published evidence was junk.

            So when I have good colleagues who have no problem speaking up about problems on the HPV vaccine and other drugs tell me they are seeing less cases of cervical cancer than they used to see, on what basis do you question their judgement or my judgement of them?

            There are political problems. But this is an entirely separate matter to me being willing to accept that my colleagues appear to be seeing less cases of cervical cancer. If you are going to get to grips with the problem, you need to be prepared to hear voices like this and recognise that the bit of jigsaw you have been trying to squash into a spot that might be convenient may not actually fit there.

            D

  13. The ‘Final’ word .. hints ..

    Finally – boys will be given potentially lifesaving HPV vaccine, Health Minister hints

    Health Minister Steve Brine has hinted boys will get life-saving HPV jabs too

    HPV, which is spread by sexual contact causes cervical cancer in women and thousands of cancers every year in men, but only girls are vaccinated currently
    The NHS calculates it is cheaper to treat the tumours HPV causes than to fund the £22 million a year needed to vaccinate boy

    By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
    Published: 23:44, 5 May 2018 | Updated: 23:54, 5 May 2018

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5695509/Finally-boys-given-potentially-lifesaving-HPV-vaccine-Health-Minister-hints.html?ITO=1490

    that ‘is certainly not the end of the story’ ..

    Jonathan Irwin‏ @JohnJoedotcom

    HSE is seen as totally disfunctional with stream of scandals & track record of misinforming Govt of theday.Why Wld anyone swallow their propaganda about unproven Vax Gardasil?19 April WHO reports over 85,000 children damaged by it around the world to date.
    3:28 AM – 5 May 2018

    …to date ..

  14. Annie (comment above on 9 April’18) mentions “#GARDASIL.As of 9 April’18 WHO report 85,329 adverse effects of the Vax more than any other Vax in history”.

    However, this is just the headline on the WHO global database of adverse drug reactions which can be found at http://www.vigiaccess.org. The 85,329 she quotes is actually the number of reports and not the number of adverse effects. I’ve checked today and it quotes just 82,038 so have they ‘cleansed’ the data? Annie was not mistaken because the number of reports on 28th January 2018, when I checked, was 83,396.

    In December 2017, when the number of reports was 81,263, I did an analysis of all of the individual adverse drug reactions (ADRs) listed on the database, knowing that most patients suffer multiple reactions to this vaccine, and there were 305,014 adverse drug reactions listed. These included 445 deaths (including 23 sudden death), 1,052 neoplasms (including 168 cervical cancers and 25 carcinoma in situ), 460 cases of POTS and 144 cases of CRPS. I have corresponded with the Uppsala Monitoring Centre which manages the vigiaccess database and they confirm that only approx. 10% of ADR’s get reported.

    Having seen so many cervical cancers reported as (suspected) side-effects, I researched government and national statistical/data records for reported cervical cancer cases. In the UK ONS (England) and ISD (Scotland) report these cases by age group and I noticed that there has been a consistent significant increase of cervical cancer diagnoses in the 20-24 age group in recent years (up by 76% in England and more than doubled in Scotland compared with the period just before the vaccine was introduced. This is despite the goverment vaccination programme for 12 year old girls, with a catch-up programme for girls up to 18, being introduced in 2008. Cancer Research UK report a similar trend on their website at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/incidence#heading-Two This is despite very consistent and significant year on year reduction in cervical cancer cases, for all age groups, over the previous 3 decades or more (thanks to increased Pap screenng). In fact Scotland all age group cases of cancer have come down from approx. 500 cases per year in 1990 to less than 300 cases per year in 2004 (before the vaccine was introduced) but since the vaccine was introduced, in 2008, the number of cases has increased to almost 40 per year. Not surprising teh ISD government statistics websites reports a reduction in Pap screening rates in recent years! USA pathologist Dr Sin Hang Lee quotes that cervical cancer is virtually 100% preventable by Pap screening and appropriate follow up.

    Even in Australia, where there are claims that cervical cancer will be eliminated, there is no reduction in reported cases of cervical cancer in recent years: https://cervical-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics This is despite significant reductions, year on year, in the decades prior to introduction of the vaccines.

    Recently I have also found peer-reviewed articles confirming increases in cervical cancer cases in young women in the post HPV vaccine era:

    http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2009/02001/Cervical_Cancers_After_Human_Papillomavirus.30.aspx

    http://ijme.in/articles/increased-incidence-of-cervical-cancer-in-sweden-possible-link-with-hpv-vaccination/?galley=html

    Also personal reports can be found here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PfKx4Wm7ak

    http://hpv-vaccine-info.org/fik-livmoderhalskraeft-hpv-vaccinen/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXvyZeZals4

    Maybe this was to be expected since the FDA reported in 2006 a 44.6% increase in ‘CIN2/3 or worse’ in subjects who had evidence of HPV infection prior to vaccination (Study 013). Whereas, in 2000 a report by Rice (King’s College London) indicated a ‘High prevalence of HPV type 16 infection amongst children’ aged 3-11 with 138 out of 267 testing positive (51.7%) and In 2003 Mant reported ‘HPV 16 is a common yet transitory event of childhood “most probably acquired from their peers.”

    This information should be provided to allow a true INFORMED consent when considering this vaccine.

  15. And yet another peer-reviewed article about the increase in cervical cancer cases in England since the HPV vaccine was introduced:https:

    //reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/F17FF11288D008920ACAE50020DA8187116C90DED7A6FF9BBD62F3B83EE24BAA603177454CF07C0CE78EA2AAC6434641

  16. The HSE at its arrogant best in sea of chaos

    Jonathan Irwin‏ @JohnJoedotcom 12h

    Jonathan Irwin‏ @JohnJoedotcom 17h

    Replying to @locobutterfly @GardasilNein @Change

    You will notice HSE have removed Merck’s P.I.L. From packet & inserted there own.When I asked them why they told me parents Wld probably not be upto understanding Merck PIL!!

    https://twitter.com/GardasilNein/status/911160639212720128

    Noel‏ @locobutterfly

    Replying to @GardasilNein @JohnJoedotcom @Change

    I’m not even discussing it with medical staff anymore uless they can name 3 ingreadents in the vaccine at hand AND give me the insert that comes WITH the vile…because they won’t….and when they do I open it and educate the entire staff

    VAXXED

    https://www.minds.com/archive/view/630730578542473224

    The Full Movie ..

  17. “The group also looked at the incidence of side effects, following the vaccines.  They found that, as expected, a number of people had local reactions but there were no serious side effects following the vaccine.”

    Science Media Centre

    May 9, 2018

    expert reaction to Cochrane review on the HPV vaccine for cervical cancer prevention in girls and women

    A new review, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, evaluates the harms and protection of the human papilloma virus (HPV) in adolescent girls and women.
    A briefing accompanied this roundup.

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-cochrane-review-on-the-hpv-vaccine-for-cervical-cancer-prevention-in-girls-and-women/

    ‘Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors’ by Marc Arbyn et al. published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on Wednesday 9 May 2018.

    Cochrane Library/Abstract and Full Article

    http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3/abstract

    We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects.

    • There is another Cochrane review being undertaken by Tom Jefferson and colleagues which may well come to a different conclusion. The media input to the current review was organized by SMC which is one hint as to what might be going on. SMC likely to take a different role when the Jefferson et al review published – I suspect

      DH

    • To be clear the statement about there being no serious side effects was made to SMC by Dr David Elliman.

  18. As usual Science Media Centre simply lies. My letter just published in the BMJ:

    https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr

    Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds Nigel Hawkes. 361:doi 10.1136/bmj.k2059

    I do not know on what basis these vaccines are said to be safe [1]. I quote from the review [2]:

    “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.”

    However, controls are not placebo but other vaccines, so we apparently have serious adverse events in 1 in 15 cases, 11 deaths per 10,000 among controls and excess of 3 deaths, 14 per 10,000 for those receiving HPV vaccines.

    Is there any point to this intervention?

    [1] Nigel Hawkes, ‘HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds’,
    BMJ 2018; 361 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2059 (Published 09 May 2018)

    [2] Marc Arbyn, Lan Xu, Cindy Simoens, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, ‘Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors’,
    http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3/full

  19. Some may not of be aware of Tom Jefferson …

    Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus vaccines: systematic review of industrial and nonindustrial study reports

    https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_STRATEGY_20170030.pdf

    The review will facilitate open science by providing a publicly accessible synthesis with previously confidential industry submissions to regulators (i.e., clinical study reports) and(where possible) reports from non-industry HPV vaccines trials. To minimise reporting bias, we will construct exhaustive study programmes (via registries, databases and correspondences with manufacturers, regulators, trial authors and funders) of the vaccines.

    We will include randomized phase II, III and IV industrial clinical study reports and non-industrial clinical trials of healthy participants of both sexes and of all ages.

    PROSPERO.FILES – STRATEGY

    https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/tom-jefferson

    Jefferson .. airplane ..

    • Elizabeth

      What I think one can say is it is very unwelcome, but I suppose also it is going to be the sort of thing which happens when academic freedom goes. It is also interesting that the journal have decided to stick with article on grounds of content. It beats the twisted institutional bullying of Retraction Watch.

  20. The ‘Original Skeptical Raptor’ has an opinion … ‘What a snowflake!’

    Summary

    This is simple – a fake anti-vaccine researcher, a coward, and fraud, decides to publish a paper that tells us absolutely nothing about the HPV vaccine. The anti-vaccine religion, lacking any evidence for any of their beliefs about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, jump on to a bad article published in an anti-vaccine journal.

    Another anti-vaccine fail.

    2018/05/09 by The Original Skeptical Raptor

    https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/fake-hpv-vaccine-researcher-worthless-fail/

    Fake anti-vaccine researcher publishes worthless HPV vaccine article – fail

  21. My second letter about the Cochrane HPV vaccine review in BMJ:-

    https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr

    Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds
    Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds Nigel Hawkes. 361:doi 10.1136/bmj.k2059
    Further to my letter of 9 May [1] I notice that in table Fig. 10 of Cochrane Library publication [2,3] “Sensitivity analysis of Analysis 7.6 on severe adverse effects restricting to data extracted from publications in peer-reviewed journals” all control group trial subjects are said to have received “placebo”. Apart from anything else it is hard to see why being injected with saline (if that was what was happening) would cause any serious or severe adverse reactions at all, but in fact they generate an equal number of cases of serious or severe reactions to the vaccinated groups, and the terminology would appear to be misleading. As we have read the rate of severe reaction is 656 in 10,000 in the vaccinated groups, and in Table 4 it states that the quality of evidence is high (based on slightly different figures) [4]. The fact that there were as many serious adverse reactions in control groups should not and must not be used to discount this risk, which is likely to be replicated in the population at large.

    I note, for example, the comment of Dr David Elliman to Science Media Centre regarding the review [5]:

    “The group also looked at the incidence of side effects, following the vaccines. They found that, as expected, a number of people had local reactions but there were no serious side effects following the vaccine.”

    This statement is hard to account for, particularly since I cannot find anything in the paper about long term follow up where serious adverse reactions were reported. This would not be so worrying if there was not a massive international outcry about the severe effects and long term harms of the vaccine [6]. In fact, the paper supports the former and has nothing to say that I can see about the latter – apart, of course, from the excess deaths.

    The fact that a rate of 1 in 15 or 1 in 16 serious adverse reactions from the vaccines can be ignored (was known about before the vaccines were even marketed) poses the most troubling questions about our present vaccine culture.

    [1] John Stone, ‘Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds’ 9 May 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr

    [2] Marc Arbyn, Lan Xu, Cindy Simoens, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, ‘Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors’,
    http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3/full

    [3] http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3

    [4] http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3

    [5] http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-cochrane-review-on-

    [6] Medwatcher Japan and victims’ associations in Colombia, Spain, UK, Ireland, and Japan released “Joint Statement 2018 for the Victims of HPV Vaccines” on April.26th, 2018. http://www.yakugai.gr.jp/en/topics/topic.php?id=953

  22. Additional responses

    https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rapid-responses

    Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds

    I have asked the following question of the Cochrane review, I await any reply.

    May I ask the exact nature of the placebos used for the control groups in each of the safety / efficacy trials covered by this review? It is my understanding that on many if not all occasions the placebo was entirely inappropriate. Where Cervarix is concerned i have brought up this flaw in the scientific method in a letter in Lancet Infectious Disease. Where Gardasil is concerned the reluctance of Merck to share their proprietary adjuvant has made closer investigations impossible. As I wrote in Vaccine many years ago now, aluminium adjuvants are not appropriate placebos in vaccine safety trials.

    11 May 2018

    Christopher Exley
    Scientist
    Keele University

    Letter LID

    The safety of Cervarix?

    Christopher Exley

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(16)30546-1/fulltext?code=lancet-site

    The word safety appears prominently and, by clear design, in the title of this Article, and yet this crucial aspect of the trial has almost no further mention. …

    The title of this Article gives the impression of similar weight being attributed to issues of safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity for this trial of Cervarix. The reality is that the focus on safety is at best scant and at worst at fault due in part to the inappropriate use of aluminium hydroxide as the placebo for the control group.

    Looking further, it seems he is rather a ‘controversial’ figure as an Aluminium Expert ..

    https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/12/06/professor-christopher-exley-the-latest-darling-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

    • Annie

      Of course, anyone criticising vaccines will abused and turned into “fringe” by people like Gorski and Oransky. The very mode in which they operate is a reason for discounting them. If they ever said anything sensible it would be submerged in a torrent of prejudice and animus.

      • John

        Ivan Oransky is a very respectable figure in holding pharma to account. I haven’t tracked his views on vaccines in general but in this case wading in on the anonymity issue is something understandable. Whoever it is has made things worse by being anonymous.

        Given the growing concerns about antibiotic resistance, developing vaccines makes sense. And its easy to see why the authorities want to deny there could be a problem. This though is problematic, in particular as you so often point out with the rising level of childhood disability that cannot readily be explained. These issues do need debate and if the option is to pursue vaccines in ever increasing amounts then a proper compensation scheme needs to be put in place. The calculation appears to be that we are all so generally in favour of vaccines that there won’t be the political will for a compensation scheme.

        David

        • David

          I was actually thinking of people like Chris Exley, Anthony Mawson, Chris Shaw etc. all of whom are subjected to the Oransky and Gorski venom – not at all of the anonymous Swedish author of the article in the Indian Journal of medical Ethics (who I agree is a nuisance), but anyone who remotely queries vaccine science (Oransky and Gorski recently teamed up to attack Exley who had published a perfectly respectable article which acknowledged its limitations). Same treatment for Mawson. I don’t find this behaviour respectable, more like a virtual pharmaceutical lynch mob. (Gorski once had a go at me – not that I care because I am not trying get research funding).

          I am unconvinced by the antibiotic resistance argument – how can it be that the answer to giving too much of one kind of medication is giving far too much of another kind? We already have a massively extended schedule and one reason why we cannot sort out vaccine damage to infants is that they get so many different products at the same time. I am sure health officials and the pharmaceutical industry have connived to create this protection for themselves by confusion. There is also plenty of science saying that vaccines such as DPT and influenza reduce general resistance. But simply as the amount of damage mounts the practicality of compensation diminishes – by now reports to VAERS have reached 650,000 cases and this is a passive database (and vaccine reactions are supposed to be rare!)

          I think we also have evidence that the industry, health officials and licensing bodies were happy in the case of HPV vaccine to see one in fifteen young women have a serious adverse reaction. They then use the kind of techniques I described in ‘The Couric Incident’ in these columns year ago to discredit the families, the doctors and the journalist who spoke up when many young women were seriously harmed.

          I really doubt that vaccines are so popular – all the running for them is made by false flags operations as Peter Doshi was pointing out in BMJ last November, control of media etc. – and there is absolutely no doubt that further we move to enforced compliance the more people will doubt. We have already seen the parties that introduced mandates in Italy voted out (after weekly mass demonstrations), and I doubt whether Macron will last in France (except it wouldn’t surprise me if he introduces martial law).

          Nor, do I think we can get back to the situation in the UK in 1979 when vaccine damage was officially acknowledged – government could not live with it – playing by the rules they had created they paid out for 600 cases in the UK in first three years – and then started to wriggle and think of strategies to avoid payment (and that was at only £10,000 a case). And that was with a modest schedule compared with today.

          The project is unsustainable in its present form without measures of compulsion, uninformed consent, deceit, hate campaigns and various socially repressive abhorrent political techniques. And it does not matter what goes wrong they will deny it. It has all already gone far to far, and perhaps the only thing we can foresee from it is total social disintegration.

          The problem now is far too big, and just because they have been so ruthless in pursuing their aims.

  23. Jonathan Irwin‏ @JohnJoedotcom May 11

    Are we seriously meant to believe that James Reilly,Nor Leo Varadkar nor Simon Harris the last 3 Ministers of Health had no clue about the brewing cervical cancer scandal??

    Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s responses to Dr. Brenda Corcoran’s comments on the IFICA meeting. ​

    http://www.ificaeurope.org/blog/dr-lees-open-letter-to-dr-brenda-corcoran-hse

    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

    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 …

Leave a Reply